Space Elevator Company LiftPort In Trouble 257
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."
my dream is ruined (Score:2, Funny)
Re:my dream is ruined (Score:4, Funny)
Wow!! (Score:4, Funny)
And it didn't work?!?!?! No S... Sherlock!
Tell me about feasible goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I heard the in-car entertainment system was the Phantom.
Re:Wow!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to say "shit" say "shit." Don't say "S...". Using dots instead of letters doesn't conceal what you intend to say so isn't any politer. All it does is make it look as though someone has the right to stop you using the word.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I for one always felt that "self-censorship" of s*** like that helps make the comment a f***load more profane, than if it were spelled out completely.
For example, it even works on perfectly benign speech (and well-known quotes):
"The only thing we have to f*** is f*** itself."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What Liftport is being charged with: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or, at least (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hah. (Score:5, Interesting)
Good call, Washington (state). Sucks for the idea, though.
Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the economics classes that I took had less to do with security regulation, and more to do with economics, but be that as it may...
I have been involved several times in putting together a prospectus, and it is a wonder that any public company ever gets funded. For one thing, you are required to tell them, at least once, and usuall
Re:Hah. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Blue Sky Laws (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blue Sky Laws (Score:5, Informative)
however you nailed it with this part:
"seems to stem from his lack of registering with the State that he would be selling securities."
that is exactly what happened. i gave the documents to the individuals, but not to the state. i thought i was covered under Reg D, as i was only asking for $500k and that i could work with unaccredited investors. so far as i know, and i think the state agrees, that part is true. what i didnt know, was that i had to file with the states, too. under Reg. D, you dont need to file with the feds. since it was a federal exemption, i thought i also excepted me from the individual states as well. i found out - much to my embarrassment, anger and frustration, that i was wrong. it came down to not filing in the state... for which i have to pay a penalty.
but lets keep it in perspective here - its 'only' a $2ok fine. if i had done something really 'bad', that would have been much much much stiffer.
and no, so far as i know, i dont have any angry investors - anywhere. it is a paperwork snafu, and nothing more.
thanks for actually taking the time to read and understand the documents. most people on slashdot are not bothering to do that.
take care. mjl
michael laine
liftport group.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re:Blue Sky Laws (Score:4, Funny)
I hear what you are thinking, but I'm not sure I see what you are saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. That is unconstitutional. The U.S. constitution's equal protection clause clearly prohibits regulatory discrimination on any basis whatever, although the courts have found that the regulatory penumbra extends to restricting activity only on the basis of criminal conviction or pertinent test of ability. Some random activity can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What if it falls? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I bet they've got some lovely artist's renderings of people smiling as they ride the space elevator. You know, the important stuff. Everything else will just fall into place.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. The risk is taken into account by the project not being feasible in the first place. No elevator, no risk of elevator working. Disagree? Let's agree to revisit this again in 50 years and see how the progress has gone.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot for the life of me envision using a cable in the tens of thousands of miles in length were a single atom being out of place is enough to bring it down. Place a material in space where there is no atmosphere
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it would be easier to build one on Earth than on the moon.
One key component is that the center of mass must be in synchronous (geo- or otherwise) orbit. On Earth, you can do this, as our planet is spinning fast enough that you can stay fairly close and remain over the same spot. On the moon, which takes 28 of our days to make a single rotation, the ribbon would have to be so long that
How would this NOT have been a fraud... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you could even get 1/100th of the way there on materials, you would have a great company selling fibers for military and industrial applications.
Re:How would this NOT have been a fraud... (Score:4, Funny)
If you could even get 1/100th of the way there on materials, you would have a great company selling fibers for military and industrial applications.
Step 1: Found a startup whose business model is predicated on a technology that not only does not exist but you are incapable of inventing.
Step 2: Collect money from investors
Step 3: Hope this nonexistent technology falls out of the sky and directly into your lap.
Step 4: Profit!
Hey, I've got this great idea for making your very own Iron Man suit! That's right, you can fly into space, deadlift 100 tons, are bullet proof, missile proof, and nuclear bomb proof! Yes, folks, that's right! And it's all possible via the miracle of unobtanium. That's right, just get me some unobtanium and you can have your very own suit!
While we're at it, I'm selling land on the inside of my dyson sphere. Get in early before it's all gone!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not a fraud, but a bad business plan (Score:2)
But plenty of people have started businesses which, in retrospect, don't make a great deal of sense. That doesn't in itself make them frauds. Most are honest people who either weren't as smart as they thought, or were unlucky, or some combination of the two.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that it has to be one continuous piece.. not smaller "woven" pieces. Otherwise, the weight would be too much.
not for a few thousand years or so (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a fundraising method as FUBARed as described (Score:2)
Regulation D isn't THAT hard to comply with.
Not gonna happen (Score:5, Informative)
I was pretty much convinced the space elevator was never going to happen with our current understanding of material technology anyway. There was a study in Nature a while back by Nicola Pugno who pointed out that defects in carbon nanoribbon would pretty much make it impossible. You need 62 gigapascals of tension strength for a space elevator. Carbon nanoribbon gives you 100 gigapascals. First, note how slim that margin is, and that's with PERFECT nanoribbon. But perfection is difficult to achieve in the real world, and inevitable atomic defects reduce the strength of the ribbon dramatically. Just a single atom defect in a single strand reduces strength by 30%. Bulk material consisting of many strands reduces that even further.
I can't find the original article, but here's [technovelgy.com] a typical write-up at the time.
Who knows, maybe somebody will invent something better than carbon nanotubes, but even a perfect ribbon has a mighty slim margin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So yes, you need a material approximately 3 times the strength of a (perfect) carbon nanotube in order to be a relatively safe civil/space engineering construction.
Chip H.
Re: (Score:2)
How did this get modded insightful? A failed strand wouldn't cause any damage to the Earth at all, except perhaps to investors' pocketbooks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't saying you're wrong necessarily, just that I don't understand something. 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.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well in that case, I'm not really convinced. I don't think it is the percentage that matters. It's how your margin of error compares to the variability of other factors that affect it. An example would be threading a needle. Say the thread is 80% the width of the needle's eye, then that doesn't give me much space on either side to get it right. But suppose I'm 80% as wide as my doorway (that's about right for a UK doorway and most people), does it take as many attempts to get through as it does to thread t
It seems to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, if your goal is to swim the English Channel, you might want to try swimming across a pool first.
Re:It seems to me... (Score:4, Funny)
After all, if your goal is to swim the English Channel, you might want to try swimming across a pool first.
Well, the analogy is more like if your goal is to swim the English Channel, then why not try swimming across a pool at the top of Mount Everest? :)
In other words, the actual designing of the moon elevator is much less of a problem than getting all the material to the moon, doing construction on the moon (dust!), and all the organizational infrastructure needed to do a project of that scope so far from the Earth.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The main reason for building a space elevator in t
L-1 elevator (Score:2)
Agreed. at least for a lunarsynchronous elevator. However, there is a proposal [universetoday.com] for an elevator that reaches from a fixed point on the lunar surface to the L-1 point located between the Earth and the Moon. Such an elevator wouldn't be lunarsynchronous, but because it would terminate at L-1, very little station-keeping fuel would be needed to keep it lunarstationary. Best of all, it could be built from off-the-shelf materials like Kevlar. Using M5 f
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking we want to export data on how well a space elevator works in practice without having to wait for the materials science for making it feasible on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
MARS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/28
Yes, it will be difficult to produce cables of sufficient quality, but I find it surprising how many people are willing to make such unfounded claims of impossibility. It may not happen in the near future, but if the theoretical strength is even remotely close to reality, the space elevator is basically a certainty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, you can build an elevator with less, you'd just need a hell of a lot more material, and a hell of a lot more hassle to get the thing deployed. That side of things may be addressed by a couple of decades of mass production and consequently radical price reductions on the material.
I don't think we're in any particular shortage of carbon atoms, just the means to assemble them cheaply with very few faults.
Keep in mind the old adage:
When a
Re: (Score:2)
"Never assume you can tell apart impossibility from your own lack of imagination. Always state the latter" (that's mine if you want to quote it).
*shrug* And just waving your hands and saying "nothing is impossible" doesn't really address anything. When someone says "impossible", typically they really mean "impractical", which is "impossible for all practical purposes". Sure, we could possibly create a machine that creates perfect nanoribbon, atom by atom by atom, but that doesn't address the practicalit
Re: (Score:2)
Say, you and I kick off a PC game company that wants to make a game that requires 1TB of diskspace.
Fact is, people today DO NOT HAVE 1TB of disk-space available on their PC's.
On the other hand, we're aiming at what people will have 4 years from now, when we ship the product. Can we or can we not assume people will have 1TB of storage? Num
Puts me in the mind for a song... (Score:3, Funny)
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a Genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car, Spacelifting Monorail! [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another great idea... (Score:2)
Gordon Bell: "more than two breakthroughs" (Score:5, Insightful)
As I recall, one of his great big red flags was any product whose development entailed more than two technology breakthrough.
Yeah, here it is [microsoft.com] (PDF). He says, flatly, "A successful startup cannot be based on more than two breakthroughs in the state of the art. And for each area requiring a breakthrough, an alternative technology should be available as a backup."
So, by this measure, the Wright Brothers needed breakthroughs in engines and airframe design... so success was possible.
As for LiftPort, I think I've lost count of the number of breakthroughs they need.
And I'm not sure what their backup technology would have been if, by any chance, the carbon nanotube strategy turned out to be unfeasible.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm not sure what their backup technology would have been if, by any chance, the carbon nanotube strategy turned out to be unfeasible.
Frustration generated by technical support calls to call centers in India where people can't help you if your problem isn't one enumerated in the scripts they read from. If this could be spun into fibre it would make for a ribbon of great strength a gazillion miles long.
Sorry, it has been a long weekend, and not the good kind of long weekend.
Only one breakthrough needed (Score:4, Interesting)
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) [cam.ac.uk] 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Gordon Bell means a startup should only be depend on making 2 breakthroughs that involve doing things nobody does now, but that seem like you could probably do them if you hire a bunch of smart people and give them a year or so to work on it. Building a space elevator would require hundreds of breakthroughs of that magnitude. It would also require one breakthrough (the materials science) that looks like it might just be impossible period, but if you hired a bunch of smart people and put them to work for a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just because nobody built a submergeable car doesn't mean that building one requires a breakthrough. The technology for building one is readily available if you hire some engineers and throw the associated requirements at them, it's just that nobody bothered making one yet as nobody yet has found the need.
This goes for the second and third elevator challenges - cl
Re: (Score:2)
You also need breakthroughs in tether deployment technology, power transmission, tires, electric motors, and probably some others I'm forgetting. Power transmission is almost as hard as the materials science. And the rest, while much easier than the materials science, are by no means trivial.
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. Tanks made out of elevator-grade nanotub
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tether deployment because so far attempts to uncoil long cables in outer space have only been marginally successful. Just because it's easy to describe doesn't mean it's easy to do. Not saying it's impossible, but it needs significant R&D -- ie a breakthrough.
"Not very fast" is an understatement. You need to ascend at speeds of several hundred miles per hour in order to have the elevator be interesting. Remember, you've got over 20,000 miles to go! Even if you're moving bulk cargo that doesn't ca
Re: (Score:2)
So Bell was correct after all.
I'm not surprised (Score:2)
"Hey, we've just invented this new material, let's build this fantastically tall thing that is far beyond our present technological limits and make money from those who will use it.
Budget. (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds like a bad Dilbert cartoon. (Score:2, Interesting)
From their Wiki page [liftport.com]:
Our goal is a significant return on investment - whether or not - the Space Elevator is ultimately successful. We do this by concentrating on 2 things: generating profits through spin-off technologies, and learning what we need to learn, in order to achieve our long-term goals.
The Four Pillars dictate how the rest of the world interacts with us; while the Five-C's are examples
Zed Zeppelin (Score:3, Funny)
The best way to build a space elevator? (Score:2)
Financial. A fund specifically for the purpose. Invest now and in 20-40 years there might be enough cash to pay for construction.
Impossible? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But /. was so excited! (Score:3, Insightful)
I do wonder where all the money went. Will this be on one of those specials on Discovery Channel?
Arrested (Score:2)
comments from michael laine (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if anybody noticed, but we seem to have some feedback from Michael Laine of LiftPort himself. Since he logged on as Anonymous Coward, his remarks are coming out at 0, below the radar of most readers. It seems no moderator has considered elevating his comments, or is not convinced that the writer is indeed Michael Laine of LiftPort.
Mr. Laine - if that is really you, I would suggest that you log on, so that your comments will at least start out at 1 and thereby become visible. If you wish, drop me a note, and I will interview you (via email or Skype) on behalf of Slashdot. (Click the contact-me link on my web page). Of course you can expect to be properly authenticated in the process.
It's a shame (Score:2)
Interview with Michael Laine (Score:4, 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
Legos anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, the first time I saw the website for Liftport, they had pictures of LEGO MODELS laying on carpet taken with a cheap digital camera, and poorly drawn visualizations that looked like pictures out of books about the future that I read when I was in the 3rd grade. These guys have built a toy that can climb ropes, and that's about it.
When I was 10 years old, I started a spy company and opened up shop in my bedroom. This was fantasy mind you, but I don't see how it's any different from Liftport. Follow your dreams, yes, but don't be a fool either. Seriously, these guys have done nothing more advanced than your average high school science project, but because they surround themselves with the vernier of a registered corporation that somehow legitimizes them?
LS
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is, with their goals, while lofty, were attainable. The problem was that they needed to make sure that closely watched EVERY penny going in and out. They should have also made sure that they were 100% sure that every means of raising money that they enacted were on the level.
RonB