I don't mind kidding - I'm not a zealot. I can certainly see how absurd this can appear to be.
IDE cables are 'ok' - we can even use them to add more drives to the Model-T server we have. Then we'll make a mauve colored database and we'll see some real throughput.
It would be even cooler if all of the "climbers" were solar powered.
It would be keen - but we'll need to see solar panels with a great deal more efficiency than we have now. Tom ran the numbers a few years back - with then state-of-the-art arrays we'd need five acres of panels to lift a five-tone GVW lifter. A little impractical.
These companies are pushing hard for saner, more practical range requirements, and the Mojave, New Mexico, and Oklahoma spaceports, as well as AST (the relevant arm of the FAA) are all on their side.
That is true - and I with them luck. We've been down this road before - in the 70s and 80s and 90s WRT regulations and private companies trying to change the market.
Also, rockets don't have a throughput problem -
They do right now.
high performance reusable orbital rockets will cost similar amounts or less than a space elevator in terms of capital investment per cargo rate.
This might be true but we cannot say for certain that it will be. It is certain that people have been trying very hard since the 70s to make rockets cheap and cost-effective. CNT may be the tech needed to push them into the realm of affordable.
Need more throughput? Build more of them and launch more often.
Again - something that we've been trying to do since the 70s. We're not there yet, and it's not for lack of trying.
Upgrading a space elevator, on the other hand, is harder.
Like high throughput on rockets, we can't say this is true or not. It has not been attempted yet. We think upgrading a space elevator can be done in the same way we'll deploy it - by adding more CNT material to the ribbon. Or using the ribbon to deploy a second seed ribbon.
What cargo restrictions do you see on rockets?
Mass or weight - which is partly a function of cost and partly just the way rockets are what with using 98% of your GVW as fuel.
Space - the cargo must fit inside the rocket.
Bus - the service bus must be designed into the load - there is no industry standard bus you can plug into. Granted this is a problem with 'the industry' and not 'rockets' but it is a real design contraint.
Space elevators, on the other hand, have to survive radiation
Radiation - all satellites deal with radiation - it goes with the territory. If you are speaking of the Van Allen belts - ditto. Satellites do not operate there but to ascend above LEO they must traverse them. They do it a lot quicker than a space elevator lifter would.
You can deal with radiation - we've known how since the 1920s. Cargo will deal with it the same as if they were carried by rockets - don't operate in the belt, shielded components.
For people you have two strategies. Distance (impractical) or put something heavy between you and the radiation. Water would work. We don't think 'people' are a viable cargo until we have a lot more experience operating a space elevator. We'll deal with this later.
and can't go to low earth orbit.
This is untrue. If you want to deliver a satellite to LEO you detach it from the ribbon above LEO. Now it's in an eccentric orbit. Use rockets to shape the orbit you desire.
This may or may not be cost effective compared to conventional rocket delivery.
But both of those are much longer term than a company like LiftPort is looking at.
We are thinking pretty long term - what with an optimistic completion date of 2031. A cheap cargo flinger could make Mars Direct a viable idea, for example.
Even so, most space elevator advocates miss the major point: space elevator class engineering materials will enable better rockets long before they enable a space elevator
We don't miss it - we're counting on it. Better rockets mean it's cheaper to get to space which means more investment and interest. That benefits everyone in the long run.
But still - the economic cost of rockets is not in their cost but throughput and cargo restrictions and the cruft that has attached itself to the entire process of getting cargo to orbit.
One example are range restrictions that made a lot of sense in the 60s but don't, today. Yet we're stuck with them if you want to use a government range.
You also need breakthroughs in tether deployment technology, power transmission, tires, electric motors, and probably some others I'm forgetting.
I think it depends on the definition of 'breakthrough'. The ribbon material is the only new thing listed. The others are matters of R+D - it's in the realm of engineering.
This is not to say that it's easy - and some of it might well turn out to be impossible. I'm only saying that 'breakthrough' implies a lot of discovery and lab time. Engineering is sitting down and putting bits and pieces together.
I'd like to know if Michael (or anyone else from LiftPort) is still planning on attending Dragon*Con this year?
Maybe - it is something we like to do. Yes, cons are havens for geeks and nerds (David in fact is deeply into fandom in Seattle) but they're also havens for interesting people. Interesting people are always fun to talk to.
That and room parties. Room parties are an awesome thing.
is LiftPort even capable of constructing their own elevator for a building? Could you build an elevator that takes you to your suite without hiring contractors to build it for you?? Think about that before you go telling the world you can make an elevator that reaches into orbit!
You're being needlessly abusive. If you look at what we're doing and don't read the/. headlines only you'll find that we've never claimed we can do it ourselves. Indeed the biz plan assumes there will be a heavy reliance on contractors. We also don't claim we can build a space elevator but what we're up to is a process of r+d to see if one is feasible and can be built by a private venture.
We (LiftPort) have obviously made mistakes. On the other hand raising funding is an incredibly baroque process. We have Federal and state laws to cover investing (that's 51 sets of laws to worry about) and they sometimes conflict.
Understand I fully support the laws put in place to protect the investor, the market and the public - long-term it's better to have laws in place than not.
But you need a good legal team. You cannot turn on a dime and you can't expect things to happen quickly. This can be frustrating.
There is a reason - I think - that so-called Web 2.0 companies have sprung up like mushrooms after a rainstorm; a one or two man partnership whose principal tools are cheap computers and open-source software can be launched and run on a literal shoe-string. No outside investment needed, no expensive legal bills just code and go.
These guys have built a toy that can climb ropes, and that's about it.
Yes and no.
The Legos were done as a quick way to build prototypes for Lifters for the Tethered Tower concept. The idea being we'd use technology that has to be developed for a space elevator (the lifter in this case) to gen cash flow. So - quick builds using pre-existing parts (legos) to demonstrate proof-of-concept for sub-systems. Then off to build working protypes. We've had a handful of tests - six in all over the past two years. Last test before the weather closed in was a duration test. Test before that was for altitude. Test before that for climbing ability.
Legos are used like this all the time. Most people don't advertise this - we do. They serve their purpose - making the product cheaper and faster.
LiftPort has never claimed a ten-year completion date. We did go with the least-optimistic date from the Dr. Brad Edwards iniitally - which was 2018. Last summer we assembled a panel of outside experts, compiled new data and came up with a best-case estimate of 2031.
For which we were slagged by some people in the space elevator community. Some felt that publishing an accurate date was going to dim enthusiasm - as if people are not bright enough to think for themselves. Others felt we were damaging prospects by being candid.
If your feelings are representative on this then the 'extremely optimistic' estimate were the ones caused PR damage. Possible take-away - telling the truth is a good thing.
But there are plenty of people who don't have the expertise to contribute to the material strength problem, but they can sure have fun screwing around with climbers, can't they? The work has to be done sometime anyway.
And other work as well. We need a friendly legal and political environment. Whatever is going to be done to manage the SE is going to be automated - hoy presto a perfect place for IT geeks. Someone has to organize the logistics of this. And so on.
We're not just (with luck) a few guys playing with equipment on a NIAC grant - we're attempting to build a company. Plenty of room for everyone.
Why don't these contests focus on high alitutde tethers?
Because it's useless to spend all your time on only one facet of the technology needed. Yes, we need a CNT composite for the ribbon but we also need to perfect the system for going up/down, power delivery, logistics, and the legal and political framework it all operates under.
We've found that making a robot to ascend a ribbon reliable is not a trivial task, nor is it rocket science. But it is tricky engineering given the environment we operate in.
If designing a lifter that can do this is trivial for you, you're invited to contact Liftport and dazzle us with your brilliance.
I don't see how there can be profit in using a tether system as a glorified radio tower.
It's not replacing a radio tower, but complementing one. We dont' think these are a long-term best solution but will be excellent for quick deployments, disaster relief scenarios, and places where you simply can't construct towers.
m suprised social conservative types haven't pulled more of this kind of crap before.
Some reasons
* "there but for the grace of God go I"
* Social conservatives may not like the choice of X lifestyle but may feel it's not their place to out others. Not my place to judge, they think, but God's.
* People who are healthy and well-adjusted have better things to do, like have a life.
Just thinking aloud. Me, I may not like X lifestyle but at the end of the day I don't care who you do it with, how many, how often or what gender.
However, from across the Pacific it looks like you're in a kind of perpetual Saturday afternoon over there. Might I diffidently suggest that you, as a country, get up off your arses and start doing what you were best known for again? Your beer is terrible, your automobiles are awful, your cuisine apalling, and your politicians are worse than the French.
It doesn't feel like that over here, or at least not from where I sit.
Okay, yes, the mass-produced stuff can be crap but that is true everywhere. If you've had bad American beer or bad American cuisine I submit you're not trying hard enough. Or it's just not making it's way overseas.
Example, there is an excellent small brewerey down the road a bit. They don't export - they can't afford to breach the tariff walls in some countries, regulations for others are onerous. It's cheaper and more profitable for them to market their beer here.
But, really, we're working on the rest of of it. High tech is what we do better than anyone and there is damn good work being done. Is it reported on? Sure, but only in the same way as this - as a 'gee whiz' one-off article and then it's back to headlines for Ms. Spears and her ilk. You won't see it, much, unless you're looking hard.
But your aerospace engineering is utterly superb, and the hope of the race. Don't let the rest of us down.
As I said, we're trying hard. Subscribe to the email we put out at liftport and you'll see some incremental but steady progress to knock your socks off.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, sorry for being abusive.
I don't mind kidding - I'm not a zealot. I can certainly see how absurd this can appear to be.
IDE cables are 'ok' - we can even use them to add more drives to the Model-T server we have. Then we'll make a mauve colored database and we'll see some real throughput.
It would be even cooler if all of the "climbers" were solar powered.
It would be keen - but we'll need to see solar panels with a great deal more efficiency than we have now. Tom ran the numbers a few years back - with then state-of-the-art arrays we'd need five acres of panels to lift a five-tone GVW lifter. A little impractical.
These companies are pushing hard for saner, more practical range requirements, and the Mojave, New Mexico, and Oklahoma spaceports, as well as AST (the relevant arm of the FAA) are all on their side.
That is true - and I with them luck. We've been down this road before - in the 70s and 80s and 90s WRT regulations and private companies trying to change the market.
Also, rockets don't have a throughput problem -
They do right now.
high performance reusable orbital rockets will cost similar amounts or less than a space elevator in terms of capital investment per cargo rate.
This might be true but we cannot say for certain that it will be. It is certain that people have been trying very hard since the 70s to make rockets cheap and cost-effective. CNT may be the tech needed to push them into the realm of affordable.
Need more throughput? Build more of them and launch more often.
Again - something that we've been trying to do since the 70s. We're not there yet, and it's not for lack of trying.
Upgrading a space elevator, on the other hand, is harder.
Like high throughput on rockets, we can't say this is true or not. It has not been attempted yet. We think upgrading a space elevator can be done in the same way we'll deploy it - by adding more CNT material to the ribbon. Or using the ribbon to deploy a second seed ribbon.
What cargo restrictions do you see on rockets?
Mass or weight - which is partly a function of cost and partly just the way rockets are what with using 98% of your GVW as fuel.
Space - the cargo must fit inside the rocket.
Bus - the service bus must be designed into the load - there is no industry standard bus you can plug into. Granted this is a problem with 'the industry' and not 'rockets' but it is a real design contraint.
Space elevators, on the other hand, have to survive radiation
Radiation - all satellites deal with radiation - it goes with the territory. If you are speaking of the Van Allen belts - ditto. Satellites do not operate there but to ascend above LEO they must traverse them. They do it a lot quicker than a space elevator lifter would.
You can deal with radiation - we've known how since the 1920s. Cargo will deal with it the same as if they were carried by rockets - don't operate in the belt, shielded components.
For people you have two strategies. Distance (impractical) or put something heavy between you and the radiation. Water would work. We don't think 'people' are a viable cargo until we have a lot more experience operating a space elevator. We'll deal with this later.
and can't go to low earth orbit.
This is untrue. If you want to deliver a satellite to LEO you detach it from the ribbon above LEO. Now it's in an eccentric orbit. Use rockets to shape the orbit you desire.
This may or may not be cost effective compared to conventional rocket delivery.
But both of those are much longer term than a company like LiftPort is looking at.
We are thinking pretty long term - what with an optimistic completion date of 2031. A cheap cargo flinger could make Mars Direct a viable idea, for example.
Even so, most space elevator advocates miss the major point: space elevator class engineering materials will enable better rockets long before they enable a space elevator
We don't miss it - we're counting on it. Better rockets mean it's cheaper to get to space which means more investment and interest. That benefits everyone in the long run.
But still - the economic cost of rockets is not in their cost but throughput and cargo restrictions and the cruft that has attached itself to the entire process of getting cargo to orbit.
One example are range restrictions that made a lot of sense in the 60s but don't, today. Yet we're stuck with them if you want to use a government range.
You also need breakthroughs in tether deployment technology, power transmission, tires, electric motors, and probably some others I'm forgetting.
I think it depends on the definition of 'breakthrough'. The ribbon material is the only new thing listed. The others are matters of R+D - it's in the realm of engineering.
This is not to say that it's easy - and some of it might well turn out to be impossible. I'm only saying that 'breakthrough' implies a lot of discovery and lab time. Engineering is sitting down and putting bits and pieces together.
I'd like to know if Michael (or anyone else from LiftPort) is still planning on attending Dragon*Con this year?
Maybe - it is something we like to do. Yes, cons are havens for geeks and nerds (David in fact is deeply into fandom in Seattle) but they're also havens for interesting people. Interesting people are always fun to talk to.
That and room parties. Room parties are an awesome thing.
Mr. President,
/. headlines only you'll find that we've never claimed we can do it ourselves. Indeed the biz plan assumes there will be a heavy reliance on contractors. We also don't claim we can build a space elevator but what we're up to is a process of r+d to see if one is feasible and can be built by a private venture.
I'm not the President; I just work here.
is LiftPort even capable of constructing their own elevator for a building? Could you build an elevator that takes you to your suite without hiring contractors to build it for you?? Think about that before you go telling the world you can make an elevator that reaches into orbit!
You're being needlessly abusive. If you look at what we're doing and don't read the
Yes.
We (LiftPort) have obviously made mistakes. On the other hand raising funding is an incredibly baroque process. We have Federal and state laws to cover investing (that's 51 sets of laws to worry about) and they sometimes conflict.
Understand I fully support the laws put in place to protect the investor, the market and the public - long-term it's better to have laws in place than not.
But you need a good legal team. You cannot turn on a dime and you can't expect things to happen quickly. This can be frustrating.
There is a reason - I think - that so-called Web 2.0 companies have sprung up like mushrooms after a rainstorm; a one or two man partnership whose principal tools are cheap computers and open-source software can be launched and run on a literal shoe-string. No outside investment needed, no expensive legal bills just code and go.
Who are these kids
Two of the gentlemen in the picture you linked to are in their 30s, two were in college at the time the picture was taken.
These guys have built a toy that can climb ropes, and that's about it.
Yes and no.
The Legos were done as a quick way to build prototypes for Lifters for the Tethered Tower concept. The idea being we'd use technology that has to be developed for a space elevator (the lifter in this case) to gen cash flow. So - quick builds using pre-existing parts (legos) to demonstrate proof-of-concept for sub-systems. Then off to build working protypes. We've had a handful of tests - six in all over the past two years. Last test before the weather closed in was a duration test. Test before that was for altitude. Test before that for climbing ability.
Legos are used like this all the time. Most people don't advertise this - we do. They serve their purpose - making the product cheaper and faster.
It really is he. I've been reading his email for years - the syntax and style are characteristic.
LiftPort has never claimed a ten-year completion date. We did go with the least-optimistic date from the Dr. Brad Edwards iniitally - which was 2018. Last summer we assembled a panel of outside experts, compiled new data and came up with a best-case estimate of 2031.
For which we were slagged by some people in the space elevator community. Some felt that publishing an accurate date was going to dim enthusiasm - as if people are not bright enough to think for themselves. Others felt we were damaging prospects by being candid.
If your feelings are representative on this then the 'extremely optimistic' estimate were the ones caused PR damage. Possible take-away - telling the truth is a good thing.
If you'll read the fine print you can't use them at all. They're sold as a collector's item.
Our response to the Pugno paper is here - in turn linking to an older Forum post - is here - http://www.liftport.com/progress/wp/?p=839
No, it isn't. Europe has been at peace and will continue to be at peace because of international trade
And who was France's biggest trading partner in 1938? Hint: a country just due east of France as the Stuka flies.
(I was for a European Army too, provided that all national armied be disbanded... That idea was highly critisized by the US too)
... it always ends badly.
.. the age of exploration and the Industrial Revolution.
We've noticed that when y'all club together like that it ends in tears. Napoleon, that whole unfortuante WW II thing
When there are a lot of competing countries in Europe we get good stuff like
100,000 km is right. The balance point is just above GEO. The extra bit above is for a counterweight.
It sounds like the guy you're replying to is part of Liftport. I can only imagine that's why his response was so polite.
I'm a system administrator at Liftport, yes. Which is part of why I was polite. But mostly 'polite' is my default mode.
Also, you never can tell - maybe the guy is a frickin' engineering Einstein and just isn't able to fully spread his creative wings wherever he is.
I suppose in theory it's possible to pipe air up a 32,000 km pipe but the cost benefit of doing so probably would not work out.
But no, I didn't get a PhD in the mail, or indeed at all. Why - what diploma mill sent yours?
but did they mention how a space elevator would WICK THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE INTO OUTER SPACE!
Probably because it won't.
But there are plenty of people who don't have the expertise to contribute to the material strength problem, but they can sure have fun screwing around with climbers, can't they? The work has to be done sometime anyway.
And other work as well. We need a friendly legal and political environment. Whatever is going to be done to manage the SE is going to be automated - hoy presto a perfect place for IT geeks. Someone has to organize the logistics of this. And so on.
We're not just (with luck) a few guys playing with equipment on a NIAC grant - we're attempting to build a company. Plenty of room for everyone.
Why don't these contests focus on high alitutde tethers?
Because it's useless to spend all your time on only one facet of the technology needed. Yes, we need a CNT composite for the ribbon but we also need to perfect the system for going up/down, power delivery, logistics, and the legal and political framework it all operates under.
We've found that making a robot to ascend a ribbon reliable is not a trivial task, nor is it rocket science. But it is tricky engineering given the environment we operate in.
If designing a lifter that can do this is trivial for you, you're invited to contact Liftport and dazzle us with your brilliance.
I don't see how there can be profit in using a tether system as a glorified radio tower.
It's not replacing a radio tower, but complementing one. We dont' think these are a long-term best solution but will be excellent for quick deployments, disaster relief scenarios, and places where you simply can't construct towers.
m suprised social conservative types haven't pulled more of this kind of crap before.
Some reasons
* "there but for the grace of God go I"
* Social conservatives may not like the choice of X lifestyle but may feel it's not their place to out others. Not my place to judge, they think, but God's.
* People who are healthy and well-adjusted have better things to do, like have a life.
Just thinking aloud. Me, I may not like X lifestyle but at the end of the day I don't care who you do it with, how many, how often or what gender.
However, from across the Pacific it looks like you're in a kind of perpetual Saturday afternoon over there. Might I diffidently suggest that you, as a country, get up off your arses and start doing what you were best known for again? Your beer is terrible, your automobiles are awful, your cuisine apalling, and your politicians are worse than the French.
It doesn't feel like that over here, or at least not from where I sit.
Okay, yes, the mass-produced stuff can be crap but that is true everywhere. If you've had bad American beer or bad American cuisine I submit you're not trying hard enough. Or it's just not making it's way overseas.
Example, there is an excellent small brewerey down the road a bit. They don't export - they can't afford to breach the tariff walls in some countries, regulations for others are onerous. It's cheaper and more profitable for them to market their beer here.
But, really, we're working on the rest of of it. High tech is what we do better than anyone and there is damn good work being done. Is it reported on? Sure, but only in the same way as this - as a 'gee whiz' one-off article and then it's back to headlines for Ms. Spears and her ilk. You won't see it, much, unless you're looking hard.
But your aerospace engineering is utterly superb, and the hope of the race. Don't let the rest of us down.
As I said, we're trying hard. Subscribe to the email we put out at liftport and you'll see some incremental but steady progress to knock your socks off.
I can't, but Liftport's Tom Nugent had a reply to that paper, in January 06.