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."

Obligatory Comments

[TubeSteak]

I'm just going to set the stage for any and all comments involving tensile strength of various materials.

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)

Thoughts on Space Elevators

[treebeard77]

Thoughts on Space Elevators [mit.edu] by Blaise Gassend has a lot of good info & links on space elevators

Not the first test of the technology, actually

[GroeFaZ]

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 [liftport.com] are pictures and a video of an earlier test in November 2004.

Simple tests, not actual elevator

[j1m+5n0w]

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.)

About linking to sources...

[irrision]

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/ [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/ [liftport.com] 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 [liftport.com]

Re:Why bother with the FAA?

[cwebster]

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.

Re:Why bother with the FAA?

[qbwiz]

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.

Re:Obligatory Comments

[dbIII]

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.

You'll need a slightly more authorative source even if it was modded insightful.

Remember that you are really talking about a constuction similar to a railgun wrapped twice around the equator then stood on it's end - the extra length is due to having to have a counterweight to keep it up there, and the railgun is the linear motor idea to move things up. Climbers like the machines proposed in the article would cut the mass per unit length and the strength required, but we are still talking about getting in incredible amount of mass up to geostationary orbit by conventional means to build the thing before we can start using it.

It's a chicken and egg thing, one we get the materials we need to have a need to more vast amounts of mass into orbit and beyond before it is useful - and we won't really be seriously considering moving vast amounts of mass into orbit without something like this. It becomes more feasable if we can use some mass doesn't take so much fuel to get it there in the first place - hence the idea of having a great big rock as a counterweight.

Re:Wow can you imagine

[subterfuge]

~22,250 miles...

= : ^ \ >

Re:Obligatory Comments

[Mr. Underbridge]

1) those aren't diamond, and 2) they're sheets, not individuals as you point out. The connections between tubes are incredibly weak compared to the tubes themselves, so this solution isn't even close to being usable in anything like a space elevator.

They need to get a lot longer for use in a space elevator, on the order of between 1000 and 1000000, before this is remotely viable. There hasn't been much success in that direction to my knowledge.

They are asking for donations!

[distantbody]

Goto: http://www.liftport.com/donate.php [liftport.com]

...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

Space Elevator : 2010

[Xanlexian]

http://www.elevator2010.org/site/ [elevator2010.org] 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.

Re:Obligatory Comments

[AaronLawrence]

Most serious suggestions don't involved anything about a linear motor. It's more like a normal mechanical device with power beamed from the ground.
This makes the cable a plain physical object without any electrical or magentic requirements.

How stuff works: Space Elevators

[Anonymous Coward]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.ht m [howstuffworks.com]

Re:Obligatory Comments

[Mostly a lurker]

I could have been more explicit in why there is a distinction between the kind of carbon nanotubes fabricated by the University of Texas process (a much improved production process of nanotubes essentially the same as those produced for over 10 years) and the structurally different nanotubes recently developed by Argonne National Laboratory from Ultrananocrystalline(TM) diamond (a new form of carbon developed at Argonne). See, for instance, http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2005/news0508 30.html [anl.gov]. The new form of nanotube is far more resistant to wear and lower in friction than the traditional carbon nanotube (thus seemingly appropriate for the needs of a space elevator) but very new and large scale production has not yet occurred.

Re:Freaking simpletons should not have million$

[uberdave]

Let's see, mach 20+ in the thickest part of the atmosphere... 300+ G acceleration... What's not to love?

Re:The Equator would be a BAD BAD BAD Idea

[jacksonic]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The Equator would be a BAD BAD BAD Idea

[tom17]

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.

Re:Coriolis Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why FAA Clearance?

[DynaSoar]

Because they're flying a tethered balloon in US airspace above the maximum altitude allowed without having to alert air traffic in the area.

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/101-index.shtml [risingup.com]

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 /. generated assumptions in the Phase II Study.

Re:Space Elevator : 2010

[serutan]

All of the materials are currently available to construct one.

Not quite. The various space elevator startups, including Liftport, are still waiting for the technology to make carbon nanotubes of unlimited length. Several years ago scientists were making the tubes 4 microns long. Now they are up to several centimeters. After a couple more orders of magnitude they will probably have machinery that can crank out continuous nanotube ribbons of any length, and then the space elevator stands a chance of actually being built.

Re:I can't wait

[Bob of Dole]

That's about a 1/8th of the way to the galactic center.
Methinks you are overestimating the size of this elevator, matey.

Re:Wow can you imagine

[Rei]

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.

Re:Wow can you imagine

[BlueHands]

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 [newscientist.com] 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.

Re:Freaking simpletons should not have million$

[ThosLives]

Even worse than you suggested. You don't even need to worry about time, if you use v^2 = 2*a*d formula. If you want an altitude of 200 km, you need a velocity of 1951 m/s to get up to that altitude (kinetic equivalent of gravitational potential at 200 km), and another 7786 m/s to reach orbital velocity. Add another 1000 m/s to account for drag effects (probably high, but it's a good estimate) and you see that a total delta-V of about 10700 m/s is required. Over 10km, this would require an average acceleration of a whopping 5724 m/s2, or about 585g. This kind of explains why the space shuttle averages its acceleration over about 8 minutes, which is only an average acceleration of 22.3 m/s2 (less than 3 g).

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).

Re:The fuel isn't the big cost

[Mr. Foogle]

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.