Slashdot Log In
Space Elevator Company LiftPort In Trouble
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:53 PM
from the going-dwn dept.
from the going-dwn dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
News: Space Elevator Rebuttal From LiftPort Founder 368 comments
TropicalCoder is the reader who submitted the story about the possible demise of LiftPort a couple of weeks back. The resulting discussion was mostly negative about the feasibility of building a space elevator. TropicalCoder writes: "At one point during the discussion, LiftPort founder Michael J. Laine personally entered the discussion, but for the most part remained invisible since he hadn't logged in. I responded to his comment that if he would like a chance to rebut the criticisms, he should contact me and I would undertake to interview him and post the resulting story on Slashdot." Read below for the story of how Mr. Laine's detailed reply and rebuttal to that Slashdot discussion came about. TropicalCoder asks, "After reading LiftPort's rebuttal to Slashdot critics, do any of you now feel your pessimism somewhat dispelled?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Wow!! (Score:4, Funny)
And it didn't work?!?!?! No S... Sherlock!
Tell me about feasible goals.
Re:Wow!! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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.
Parent
What Liftport is being charged with: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hah. (Score:5, Interesting)
Good call, Washington (state). Sucks for the idea, though.
Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
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: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.
Parent
Re:Blue Sky Laws (Score:4, Funny)
I hear what you are thinking, but I'm not sure I see what you are saying.
Parent
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!
Parent
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.
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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]
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.
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.
Parent
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
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.
Parent
Re:my dream is ruined (Score:4, Funny)
Parent