Albert Einstein: The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
If space is the final frontier, then why is it so expensive? We all dream about venturing into the unknown, but at a cost of $3,000 (or more) per pound via rocket, the trip skyward seems to be more than our wallet can bear.
But what if the cost could be reduced? What if the price for sending humans, satellites and tourists into space were affordable to not just space powers, but third world countries as well? This is a problem LiftPort is trying to solve with a plan to construct a space elevator from the ocean floor towards the celestial heavens. Detailing their plans via book format, the LiftPort company hopes to build the eighth wonder of the world - and perhaps open up space for everyone.
LiftPort: Opening Space To Everyone is a "mini-explanation" of how an elevator to the stars would benefit humanity on a whole. Rated "T for Technical," LiftPort goes through many of the mechanical nuts and bolts involved in building a space elevator. Early in the book, both problems and possibilities in constructing this project are highlighted, and the hurdles they have to overcome.
These problems range from creating a physical substance strong enough (via carbon nanotubes) to hold its own weight, to powering the "elevators" (called lifters) in a financially sound way. Also the legal and security issues are dealt with as they discuss how they intend to receive the necessary permits to operate the space elevator as well as securing it from terrorist and international threats.
As far as "opening space to everyone," LiftPort proposes that by reducing the overall cost of entering space (from $3,000 per pound to around $400) it will enable corporations and smaller nations to send up astronauts or satellites without the aid of the current space powers (Russia, China, US). This will in effect produce a "global space sale" that not only will attract a long list of space clients, but also will potentially attract investors as well.
Article comments
1 - duane
Darnell quotes: But LiftPort asks, "Why send people into space this way if a cheaper method could be conceived?"
My question would be simpler: Why send people into space?
... an elevator to the stars
Or at least to low Earth orbit. The stars are a bit far away.
Are you familiar with A.C. Clarke's Fountains of Paradise? You would probably find it interesting.
... and others who were probably mocked for attempting to construct objects that would ultimately change our planet forever.
Yeah, but the potential benefits of their research was evident, even if people thought their means were crazy. By contrast, there is no obvious reason to send humans into space (tourism? C'mon.). Launching small-payload satellites can be done easily and cheaply enough already.
2 - brian
"My question would be simpler: Why send people into space?"
That's a meta question that I'm unable to answer. I will note that
a. Our proposal does not allow for people; it's a bare-bones cargo only affair.
b. Some people will want to go to space. Why? The reasons are as numerous as the people. It's enough (to me) that they do. I'll leave the Big Questions of how and why and such to the philosophers.
Will there be enough people who want to go to sustain an off-planet culture? Probably.
"By contrast, there is no obvious reason to send humans into space (tourism? C'mon.). Launching small-payload satellites can be done easily and cheaply enough already."
There is no reason but there is certainly a demand _for_ tourism. Ask Sir Richard of Virgin Galactic. He might be a nut but he's got a nose for business.
Satellite delivery is not cheap enough. The cost of launch has a ripple effect across the entire aerospace industry, and beyond.
3 - duane
Thanks for the response, Brian. I take it that you are affiliated with LiftPort.
You mentioned that your proposal does not include people. So, I guess I was a little confused by what this part of your webpage means.
"Opening Space to Everyone,” a new book on the LiftPort Space Elevator, a revolutionary new way of sending cargo and humans into space.
So, the elevator involves "a carbon nanotube composite ribbon eventually stretching some 62,000 miles from earth to space." Wow. I think the geostationary point is something like 26,000 miles (I could work it out, but I don't wanna -- 2*pi*(R^1.5)/sqrt(GM) = 24 hrs), so does the remaining 36,000 miles have something to do with stabilizing the ribbon? How does the ribbon maintain rigidity? What is the speed of the elevator? Can something come up while something else is going down?
I'll leave the Big Questions of how and why and such to the philosophers.
Philosophy won't help much in getting people into space. There will have to be a benefit in one or more of the following three areas, with cost/benefit < 1: science, economics, military. In these three areas, it seems that there is virtually always a robotic option that is both superior and cheaper. You don't want astronauts mucking around on the Hubble platform, messing up the pointing, for example. If your project actually makes satellite launches more economically appealing, that's probably good for everybody. Best of luck!
4 - brian
I am but a humble system administrator at Liftport.
You mentioned that your proposal does not include people. So, I guess I was a little confused by what this part of your webpage means.
When you crash marketing into literal-minded engineering types (which I am not but it rubs off) you get some funny results. Our first generation SE does not include provision for people. Too much life support (mass) is required, not enough return on investment.
It may be possible to put people aboard with a second generation space elevator. Or even that a viable SE company can subsidize manned travel aboard conventional rocketry or a space plane.
so does the remaining 36,000 miles have something to do with stabilizing the ribbon? How does the ribbon maintain rigidity? What is the speed of the elevator? Can something come up while something else is going down?
1. The rest of the ribbon is counterweight - our (proposed) SE hangs down (in) and up (out) from it's center point above GEO.
2. See above.
3. We're working on that - our target is 200 KPH, average
4. Depends. All of this is a work in progress. The proposed ribbon is a meter wide, mm.s in width. What we are planning now is to send the lifters on a one-way trip, leaving the empty cars parked at the bitter end. Keeping in mind the goal is to maximize revenue it might be sub-optimal to bring lifters back, which would blok any upward lifts for the duration.
Again - it's all a work in progress, details subject to change.
it seems that there is virtually always a robotic option that is both superior and cheaper.
This is true now. But if (say) it cost my dayjob employer $10,000 bucks a pound to send me 50 miles away to install a server, they might be inclined to find a robotic solution for all this tedious racking and cabling and CD swaping.
The point being not to whine about the work I'm well compensated for but to point out that when it's expensive to ship anything cybernetic solutions tend to win out.
If your project actually makes satellite launches more economically appealing, that's probably good for everybody.
One good thing about our approach is that if it doesn't make economnic sense we're not going anywhere. It's not the only determining factor but we're not going to get funding if we can't build a more attractive launch system than we have now.
5 - duane
Thank you, Brian.