Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Space Elevator Company Fission 215

Posted by Hemos from the splitting-into-multi-lanes dept.
Dag Maggot writes "Highlift Systems seems to be going through some turbulent times with cofounder Michael Laine leaving to form his own space elevator company LiftPort. Interestingly, Liftport pledges to be a "transparent" company, and as such have provided the full text of the original space elevator proposal which was made to NASA NIAC." We mentioned Liftport before, but the proposal is new and quite interesting.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Space Elevator Company Fission More

Space Elevator Company Fission

Comments Filter:

  • Nuclear Space elevators (Score:5, Funny)

    by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @04:59AM (#5677664)
    It's about time they started using fission for space elevators. They were much too slow when they were coal fired.

  • Promising (Score:5, Informative)

    by stevenp ( 610846 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @05:02AM (#5677669)
    The space elevator seems to be the most promising alternative to the Shuttle program. The biggest problem are the carbon-nanotubes, it is not clear yet, how they are to be produced and a BIG quantity of them will be necessary for the project.

    The site seems to be slashdotted already - 3 minutes, this should be a Slashdot record. On the other side it indicates the interest to the subject ... or the poor connection of the server ... I hope for the first.

    • Re:Promising (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chris Croome ( 24340 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:14AM (#5677809) Journal
      The space elevator seems to be the most promising alternative to the Shuttle program.

      Well, perhaps it'll be an alternative to the generation of shuttles after the next generation, probably though it'll be one after that or even further in the future...

      This space elevator idea ain't gonna happen very quicky...

    • Re:Promising (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wfmcwalter ( 124904 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @07:34AM (#5678084) Homepage
      Don't get me wrong - a space elevator is an amazing idea, and it's really the only thing that'll deliver the incremental-cost-to-space the space shuttle was promised to do. But don't underestimate the huge scale of the civil engineering project needed to build this, dwarfing the Panama canal and the chunnel. You'd need that next-gen shuttle thing just to haul into orbit the huge amount of stuff. That's geostationary orbit remember, a whole lot higher than the shuttle can go - everything out there boosted itself out with a sizeable motor of its own. Lifting hundreds or thousands of tons of construction material, workers, habitats, air, water, food, etc., is itself a space programme unparalleled in history.

      Highlift (et al) are going a vital job - figuring out the basic technology of thie enterprise, writing the real project plan, sketching the logistics, and guestimating the construction cost. Someone (probably someone else) will have to figure out the economics of this thing - when will there be enough traffic wanting to get into space, and at what price, comparing this against the cost of the structure and figuring out when to build, where, and to what scale. Everyone in this phase has an awesome task ahead of them - the planners of the worlds great canals, bridges, tunnels, and dams all had lesser examples from which they could extrapolate - there's never been structure like the elevator, and even your minimal working model is 40 thousand miles long and costs a Dr Evil sum.

      Once you get to the construction phase, then you're talking about a huge corporation with major government entanglements (as all great works of civil engineering have a big strategic impact). Canals like those at Suez and Panama were built only once there was a large volume of traffic going the long, expensive way (around the capes) which made the prospect attractive for investors. And the Chunnel and the Oresund link show that just 'cos everyone wants something doesn't mean you get it any time sooner than it becomes (kinda) economic.

      Still, it'll happen, just as soon as everyone is sick of going to work in another rustly old rocket.

      • But don't underestimate the huge scale of the civil engineering project needed to build this, dwarfing the Panama canal and the chunnel. You'd need that next-gen shuttle thing just to haul into orbit the huge amount of stuff. That's geostationary orbit remember, a whole lot higher than the shuttle can go - everything out there boosted itself out with a sizeable motor of its own. Lifting hundreds or thousands of tons of construction material, workers, habitats, air, water, food, etc., is itself a space programme unparalleled in history.

        That's why they're building this space elevator thingy, see. They send the first strand up in one or two shuttles. Part of the shuttle payload is enough extra fuel to get to GEO. They unroll the strand. They send lightweight climbers up with the next strand. Now they have two strands, the climbers can carry twice as much, and iterate until you have a satisfactory number of strands emplaced.

        No habitats, and the ribbon weighs startlingly little per km (something like 7.5kg, OTToMH).

        • The real kicker is that in the middle of what would probably be a 10-20 year project, an incredible discovery in:

          * thermodynamics
          * plastics
          * transportation
          * energy

          will cause the prior work to look old and useless.

          And what would the bottom sections look like, 10 or 20 years down the road, upon completion? With that many years of weather damage, most of it would have to be replaced.

          Think about this logically:

          To build something of this magnitude you would need cash in the trillions (with a T), and cost ov

          • To build something of this magnitude you would need cash in the trillions

            No, less than a twentieth of a trillion. Read their FAQ before posting here.

            Also, imagine the very bottom section bombed via terrorism. I'm sure it would be guarded well, but in reality someone with enough will and resources (Mr. Bin Laden, anyone?) would find a way. And in that case, would the whole thing just collapse unto itself?

            No, not very much will happen. If they blew off ten km of elevator, the remaining 99.99% of it w

        • I know the theory of nano tube material but 7.5 per klick seems too light even for that but lets go with it for S&G's.

          35,787km * 7.5kg = 268,402.5kg worth of ribbon.

          http://glossary.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-017 / _2 456.htm

          shuttle payload is between 50 and 70k pounds depending on the orbiter/ET used. So ~23-~31,000 kg of which you now need enough extra fuel to boost to Geo stationary subtracting further the amount of ribbon you can take in one flight.

          If you keep 20,000kg of payload capacity thats ~

          • I know the theory of nano tube material but 7.5 per klick seems too light even for that but lets go with it for S&G's.

            35,787km * 7.5kg = 268,402.5kg worth of ribbon.

            Missing ingredient: you're not taking the whole ribbon up in that launch, you're taking up a single strand.

            Once your orbit gets to high it begins having to spend too much time in the sun and it develops heat rejection problems.

            Good point. I suspect that since the ribbon is an excellent conductor and at least as good a radiator as i

            • Less I am mistaken the 7.5 is for the single strand weight per klick.. I would expect it to be much higher for a full ribbon capable os supporting a sizeable crawler. Hell 50 pound test fishing line would be damn near 7.5kg per klick.

              http://www.basspro-shops.com/servlet/catalog.Te x tI d?hvarTextId=7602&hvarDept=100&hvarEvent=&hvarClas sCode=10&hvarSubCode=1&hvarTarget=browse

              Using the strand as a possible radiator is a nifty idea but I doubt its very viable. but I think that comparison

              • Using the strand as a possible radiator is a nifty idea but I doubt its very viable. but I think that comparison to the fishing line gives you a sense of the scale of the line.. it would kind of like using a copper wire from a phone chord to serve as a radiator for your car.

                Eh? If you make the ribbon skinnier, you make the heat uptake less as well. No worries. Self-solving problem.

                A 7.5kg per klick cable that is capable of supporting 268,402.5kg is very impressive

                As I understand it, the ribbon tape

                • One thing.. heat problem isn't the cable.. not aware its a problem for the cable itself. The Shuttle itself has thermal issues were it to venture out into sunlight for to long ( ie more than a couple hours and even that takes a rotissirie roll ) That was just one of the nails in using the shuttle to do ths kind of heavy lifting.

                  one question... is it 7.5kg per Kilometer or 7.5 kg per meter. very different measures. And I understand its alot stronger than fishing line the point was 1000 yards ( approx 1 kilo
                  • is it 7.5kg per Kilometer or 7.5 kg per meter

                    FAQ says 7.5kg/km, not sure if that is the average weight for the whole length of ribbon or the weight for a 1cm ribbon (bottom 10km is this size). If that's the average for the whole ribbon, it makes a total weight of roughly 270t, the first strand is of course much lighter. Not much for 60,000 km, is it?

      • You'd need that next-gen shuttle thing just to haul into orbit the huge amount of stuff.

        Not if you capture an asteroid and use it for the raw materials.
        Now, wrestling an asteroid into a geo orbit won't be easy, and there will probably be oppostition from Luddite groups on Earth that are afraid of something going wrong, causing the asteroid to crash into Earth, causing our extinction, similar to what happened 65 million years ago, but it can be done.
        And if the cable manufacturing/deployment process is auto
    • The space elevator seems to be the most promising alternative to the Shuttle program

      The most promising alternative to the Shuttle program at this time is Russina Progress trasport ships.

      First of all, they have way lower cost. They can correct the orbit of exisitng orbital stations. And being equipped with the robot arm, they can do other services at the orbit. The only two reasons I see NASA rejects Russian help are: (1) NASA protects interests of US space corporations, not US tax payers; (2) political

  • I understand that basically that the space elevator is a an elevator which is moved up and down to an orbiting space station. The thing I'm trying to work out is how do you teather them together? Short of tying a rope to the backend of a rocket and firing it up I just can't work it out? Any ideas?

    Rus

    • Re:Taking the site is already /.'ed (Score:5, Informative)

      by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @05:08AM (#5677679)
      You lower the rope from the space station in geosynchronous orbit then tether the bottom to a ground station (in this case floating in the ocean). You also need a counter balance beyond geosynchronous orbit to keep the whole thing in tension.
      • Thanks. I was sitting here thinking the rope would be tethered to a land based object so the thought of a rope fliging around didn't seem like quite like such a good idea. Also on the ocean I support you can move to catch the rope

        Rus

      • I think it's more complicated than that (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @05:43AM (#5677753) Journal
        There are some crazy design specs that people don't usually consider besides the nanotubes and the lack thereof.

        1) due to the weight of the cable, it needs to be thicker at the middle and taper off at the ends - this makes the attachment of a vehicle to traverse the cable considerably more difficult

        2) the growing - you can't "lower" a cable from a space station. the center of gravity must remain at the geosync point if you want to stay afloat

        3) the keeping cable tensioned - this involves capturing a sizable asteroid into an orbit dangerously close to the earth (as in, genocidal proportions if shit goes wrong) - and after you anchor the cable, push it back out so it will keep tension (geosync don't work here). A fly-by capture is out of the question, and actually dragging a asteroid to our doorsteps is impossible by today's figures.

        Space elevator, while cool, has a loooong road ahead of it - I am not betting my money on it (within my lifetime, anyhow). Granted I probably seem like a pesky naysayer that's keeping technology from going places - but just imagine stuff we developed WITHOUT first thinking it through; I think the nuclear stockpile on US and Russian sides definitly proves my point.

        I'm all for it if they can bring the damn asteroid here SAFELY, though. (Shuttles so far has a roughly 2% failure rate - and that's two completely fatal ones - I don't want the fate of the world depending on that kind of odds)

        • Re:I think it's more complicated than that (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Raumkraut ( 518382 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:01AM (#5677788)
          A tapering ribbon makes it more difficult yes, but not impossible. I'm sure there'll be plenty of potential engineering solutions proposed given incentive.

          You're right that lowering the ribbon would 'defloat' the CoMass, but extending the ribbon in both directions simultaneously wouldn't unbalance the situation.

          What's with the need for an asteroid? There's plenty of matter just lying around the place down here - I'm sure there's a lot of matter which people would pay to have moved beyond geo! Though dangerous (radioactive, etc.) substances would probably have to wait for the first elevator to become operational before being moved to geo...

          Incidentally, AFAIK there isn't planned to be any kind of significant station at geo during the construction process - it's unfeasibly expensive to build one without the elevator operational - just look at the ISS! :)

        • No asteroid (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:11AM (#5677804)
          The cable is light enough that no asteroid is required. They're talking about using leftover construction junk as the counterweight. You need an asteroid for a massive scifi cable, not for the micron-thin, yard-wide ribbon planned here.

          Also, there won't be a great deal of taper if they get the material strength they expect - about a 2:1 ratio iirc.

      • Re:Taking the site is already /.'ed (Score:5, Informative)

        by 6hill ( 535468 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @06:06AM (#5677794)

        A nice article on space elevators without the fancy scientific buzzwords can be found here [howstuffworks.com]

        You can also construct the cable in a satellite that's on geosynchronous orbit. Molecular construction both ways, so that one end lowers itself to earth, while another grows into space and towards the space station acting as the elevator end point.

        As for space elevators in general, not only does the construction pose significant obstacles, but the reality of having a tensile cable stretched from earth to the sky (literally) introduces interesting variables. Back-up plans in case a plane flies smack into the cable? Effects of wind, lightning, hurricanes? What happens if the cable snaps below geosynchronous orbit? Anyway, sure, problems abound, but there's something very exciting about the idea of building something as massive as a space elevator will be.

        • I think the only other consideration is, once operational how do you balance the wieght of the payload on the elevator + the fact that it moves (i.e increaces or decreaces with altitude) I guess you'd have to build two "elevators" one to earth and one on the balance teather out past Geo. Put one the same wieght as what's comming up and move it in synch with the other side. sounds like a britty big balancing act but not impossable.

          • I think the only other consideration is, once operational how do you balance the wieght of the payload on the elevator + the fact that it moves (i.e increaces or decreaces with altitude

            Considering the caliber of the object the cable would need to be tethered to (an asteroid-sized lump of matter) and that the maximum distance payload will travel on the cable is just one-third of the way to the moon, any payload weight changes are negligible. I'd be more interested in hearing how braking of the payload i

            • Not much of a counterweight is needed (certainly no asteroid), and who would brake? Why waste precious momentum? Just time your ascent so you slingshot off the end of the cable aimed the right way (a `tramline' orbit), and you're in business.

              • Why waste precious momentum? Just time your ascent so you slingshot off the end of the cable

                Well, I for one would think one would use the elevator for more than deep space exploration, e.g. setting satellites onto a geostationary orbit. This would involve coming to a dead stop, or at least slowing down considerably.

                As for the asteroid counterweight, that's merely from what I've read and from the need to tether the cable onto something (think of tetherball; tensile cable rules OK) that's already availa

                • I for one would think one would use the elevator for more than deep space exploration, e.g. setting satellites onto a geostationary orbit.

                  No problem. It takes weeks to crawl up there, I shouldn't think braking would be much of an issue.

                  tensile cable rules OK

                  A lot of engineering is built around the principle `you can't push on a rope'. In this case, very little tension is neded, and that's easily provided by just extending the cable, with a very small (few hundred tonnes, OTToMH) counterweight at th

                  • It takes weeks to crawl up there, I shouldn't think braking would be much of an issue.

                    Uh...the crack you're smoking must be sub-standard. Calculating that the cable reaches about one-third of the way to the moon (or about three times around the globe) and that speed at the end of the cable could be about 10 km per sec [howstuffworks.com], estimating with average speed at a conservative 3 kph the trip to the end of the cable will take about 12 hours.

                    Heck, with that sort of momentum, the craft will reach Mars in your estim

                    • Uh...the crack you're smoking must be sub-standard.

                      I have enough trouble (and fun) stone cold sober, I don't need to pour drain cleaner into my system to make things weird.

                      Calculating that the cable reaches about one-third of the way to the moon (or about three times around the globe) and that speed at the end of the cable could be about 10 km per sec [howstuffworks.com], estimating with average speed at a conservative 3 kph the trip to the end of the cable will take about 12 hours.

                      I don't know abo

                    • I don't know about you, but your grammar is certainly on drugs...

                      Or perchance, it's your attention span that's on drugs? Grammar Nazi away my grammar, there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. And while at it, read what I posted more carefully. I said:

                      [...] speed at the end of the cable could be about 10 km per sec [...]

                      Speed at the end. Speed of the payload at the end of the cable. Not "speed of the end of the cable." Distance 120,000 km. Average speed estimated at conservative 3 kph. 120,000 d

                    • 3 kph

                      Damn, just figured what went wrong. It must be I who's on drugs. I naturally meant 3 kps.

                    • <smug> (-: </smug>

                      The 120kph came from (IIRC) a discussion with HighLiftSystems some time ago. I think the're being conservative for a number of reasons, including that the device flexes.

  • A Little Inaccurate (Score:5, Informative)

    by tdean001 ( 207278 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @05:07AM (#5677675)
    I've spoken with Mr Laine concerning Lift Port systems. From what he told me, he is not leaving High Lift. Lift port was simply created for some sort of capital creation reason.

    So, as far as I know, Michael Laine has not left the Highlift...

  • I hope this takes off... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by epicstruggle ( 311178 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @05:11AM (#5677686)
    Because, id like to see an alternative to storing nuclear waste underground (too much controversy and NIMN(not in my neighborhood)). We could safely lift the material up into space and then launch the waste somewhere else. This is still many years aways, but I hope they get some good funding to do their research, and build some test platforms.

    later,
    • We could safely lift the material up into space and then launch the waste somewhere else.

      That is a good idea. But what if something were to go wrong, and somehow radioactive goo starts leaking a mile above the Earth. Then the wind starts spreading it all over the place, and we all end up with mutant powers or three-headed pigeons or ***Insert imagination here***. Or an entire region could smell like a garbage can. But if they can find a safe way to do it that would be great.
    • How about just building the reactors in space?

  • Lends a whole new meaning... (Score:4, Funny)

    by cubal ( 601223 ) <matt AT problemattic DOT net> on Monday April 07, 2003 @05:17AM (#5677698) Homepage
    to the term "Elevator Music"

    Imagine a few hours of that o_O

  • Wired's article about Highlift (Score:4, Informative)

    by jraf ( 652354 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @05:20AM (#5677702) Homepage
    "The founder of Seattle-based Highlift Systems, Edwards proposes a carbon-nanotube space elevator: a ribbon 62,000 miles long, 3 feet wide, and thinner than the paper your thumb is pressed against right now. The elevator would stretch high into the heavens, allowing easy transport from Earth, launching spacecraft, new industries, even tourists - at a fraction of today's costs. And he says he can be well under way in a decade, ushering in a new era of space exploitation"
    Whole article: Starlight Express [wired.com]
    • Is windloading taken into account at all? I could understand if the entire thread was the thickness of a piece of paper in all dimensions, but if it's three feet wide the windloading would be HUGE! skyscraper architects already have huge problems with this, and they're not attempting anything in the order of 40,000 km (though I realize there isn't an atmosphere for a lot of that). How could they possibly hope to compensate for windloading without having an immense, impractical mass at the orbital end?
  • ...please use the stairs!

  • Google Cache (Score:4, Informative)

    by LordChaos ( 2432 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @05:25AM (#5677713) Homepage
    Here are the google caches of the front page, and their FAQ:

    Front Page [google.com]

    FAQ [google.com]

  • IPO (Score:2, Funny)

    by Catskul ( 323619 )
    Invest in this company NOW! It can only go up.

  • kw (Score:2, Informative)

    by dazst ( 654906 )
    Google's cache of liftport.com: http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:TiE-9Ofu6fUC: www.liftport.com/+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 [216.239.57.100]
  • some little punk presses all the buttons to the top and you get in on the ground floor.

    • ...and push him out just after you get above the last cloud. No repeat offenders. Plenty of time to think about what he's just done.

      BTW, at (say) 15m per floor, you'd have to fit about six or seven million buttons into the elevator design.

    • some little punk presses all the buttons to the top and you get in on the ground floor.

      It amazes me that elevator engineers haven't gotten enough complaints about this behavior to make a very simple design change.

      Make the button a toggle, rather than an "on" switch.

      So if the punk turned them all on, you could turn them all off and get to your floor.

      (Yes, this has drawbacks too, people fighting over floors but that would be far less likely than your punk.)

  • After all, we don't want a single company getting a monopoly on the space elevator market. We all know how bad that is. What should be done now is that standards for space elevator construction should be published* and both companies should build elevators conforming to that standard.

    </humor>

    *By the world wide space consortium?

  • Liftport pledges to be a "transparent" company
    They should watch out in the patent department, I think this has been done before. [amazon.com]

  • Space Elevator Proposal same as on HighLift (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bob Munck ( 238707 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @08:03AM (#5678207) Homepage
    That proposal is actually the same text as on the HighLift site [highliftsystems.com]. I just put it into slightly flashier HTML.

    The revised, second-phase report, much advanced over the first, should appear Any Day Now. Just waiting for NASA approval. There's also a book that expands on the idea.

    The web server was having troubles late last night, so slashdotting only provided the final straw. We'll be back.

    • We'll be back.

      ...and yes, we will work in your browser and be navigable by blind users and probably even make validator.w3.org [w3.org] happy. These are all definite design goals for the new website. Small technical details are important to these people.

  • Yikes (Score:2, Funny)

    by fizban ( 58094 )
    "I want to build a space elevator to the moon!"

    "No, I want to build a space elevator!"

    "No, it's mine!"

    "No way! I had the idea first!"

    "No, I did!"

    "MOM!!" ...

    You're all a bunch of loonies.
  • from earth to orbit faster than you can see the next post on slashdot about the space elevator.

  • On topic post (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 16977 ( 525687 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:13AM (#5678610)
    Maybe I'm missing the point, but why does anybody give this article any credibility whatsoever? If you look at the slashdot article, they act like this is a legitimate company with a realistic goal. But what kind of company puts animated GIFs of a "space elevator" on their home page and supports their idea with citations from science fiction novels? They tell us this has been considered by NASA. But so has the Podkletnov effect [slashdot.org], which supposedly miraculously shields objects from earth's gravity. Either NASA isn't given enough funding to do background checks, or they're checking out every crackpot who comes along in hopes of finding gold. I'm betting this is a hoax, but if it isn't, this guy has about as much chance of constructing his space elevator as Imari Stevenson [veonprismvp.com] has of designing a Final Fantasy sequel. A word to the wise.

  • Slashdot needs to... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DannyiMac ( 216056 )
    Slashdot needs to make a space elevator thread... people keep talking more and more about it and it's becoming more and more possible to build...

  • Spinnin' (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Plowd ( 664496 )
    I haven't seen anything about the effect this would have on the Earths rotation. To continue with their analogy of a ball on a string, the weight moving OUT in the string slows the speed of rotation. Conversely, as a weight is brought closer to the Earth it would increase the speed of rotation. AND, if onle 1 elevator went up wouldn't it change the balance of the rotation?

  • These questions are not "unique" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gsfprez ( 27403 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @05:17PM (#5681846)
    They are frequently asked...

    Cable width?
    airplanes?
    orbitology?
    how they plan to lower the cable?
    how they plan to connect the cable?
    how payloads can actually be lifted and forces dealt with?
    initial chemical-launches required?
    first ribbon payloads?
    space debris?
    weather?
    space weather?
    electrical potentials?
    what if the cable breaks?
    environmental concerns?
    safety?
    how to power the lift?
    etc. etc. etc.

    none of these are unique questions.... they fall under "frequently asked".

    Read the answers to your frequently asked questions, and they will be answered.

    if you have a UNIQUE question - that should get rated a +5... but so far, no one has one of those that i've seen.

    Geezuz tapdancing Krist.

    (folds up soapbox, puts away megaphone)

Slashdot Top Deals

I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.

Close