Liftport - The Space Elevator Companies Shuts Down
Editorial by Marc Boucher
Starting a business from the ground up is extremely tough. I know, I've done it a few times. So I'm not surprised to read that Liftport has shut down operations. This is according to what's posted by Brian Dunbar in the Liftport blog.
Building a Space Elevator will not be an easy endeavour. The hurdles to overcome are numerous. Currently a community effort, led by Bryan Laubscher, is underway to build a roadmap that outlines the steps needed to build the first space elevator. Some companies will choose to follow the roadmap, others will not, others still will focus on a particular niche of the roadmap. No one company today will start from scratch with the stated business aim of building a space elevator and succeed, it’s too soon. Companies today interested in the space elevator need to focus on technologies, materials needed for the space elevator and produce tangible spinoff products that can be made the foundation of a business. The space elevator is no ordinary product, so applying traditional business models and fundraising techniques won't work.
Liftport created their own roadmap, one in which they stated that in 25 years they would start sending cargo up an elevator. What investor today who is thinking about a return on investment would consider such a long term investment? None who have the funds to get such an endeavour off the ground. And in applying traditional business models this is in part where Liftport went wrong. And I feel for those who made emotional decisions to invest in the Liftport Group. In fours years Liftport went from one company to a group of four companies. This was all part of the fundraising strategy. And while they got a lot of people excited, raised expectations and did do some work, for the most part what was produced was hype. And hype is not a product, and without a product and with your expenses mounting the day will come when your business fails.
But space elevator enthusiast should take heart in knowing that while this effort is dead others are going strong and the community is growing as is our knowledge base. Ben Shelef works tirelessly with the SpaceWard Foundation to put on the Space Elevator Games which has been growing each year and generating community involvement on scale I don't think he even expected. The shared knowledge, collaboration that is the result of the games is priceless. There is also the private ventures which aspire to build the foundation first. And by this I mean new materials development which is at the core of any space elevator effort. Companies like Black Line Ascension led by Brad Edwards are working on a technique for creating mass quantities of carbon nanotube material which can be used for more than just the foundation of space elevator cables. Others still like Tether’s Unlimited, Inc. (TUI) are working on other technologies which have real world applications today. In fact TUI reached a milestone as their MAST experiment reached orbit today on Dnepr rocket.
So while some people may mourn the passing of Liftport I would say that the community is stronger than ever, private efforts are making progress and the passing of Liftport will not have an effect on the effort to some day build a space elevator.
Note: Full disclosure. Bryan Laubscher and Brad Edwards are unpaid editors for the Space Elevator Reference. SpaceRef Interactive Inc., publishers of the Space Elevator Reference has no financial interest in Black Line Ascension or any other space elevator related company.
 |
Digg it! |  |
del.icio.us |  |
Fark! |  |
Slashdot |
Comments
Hey Marc,
I'm getting feedback from LiftPort that the company is not dead, just set back in the loss of their building (which Michael Laine will blog about later).
I think the main reason people are saddened by this is that LiftPort has been transparent about what is going on with their SE progress, much more than I can say about the overall SE community in general.
Even people I know who think of the SE as silly see LiftPort as the "premier flagship" for the SE concept, not because they are any smarter than Brad, et al., but rather they are actually communicating what they are doing (which is one of the reasons I decided that this project was worth investigating).
Whether or not LiftPort regains its composure or not, only time will tell. But I feel that unless the community becomes as transparent as LiftPort, they may not find anybody willing to invest in the project in the future.
Posted by: Darnell Clayton | April 17, 2007 10:23 AM
Marc, you have gone way over the top with this post. LP is NOT dead. please re-read Brian's post. yes, I -personally- have a pretty big problem. And it changes our company - a lot. that said, we are still here, hurt, and fighting, but don't count us out just yet!
The business model has not failed. It's perfectly intact. My -personal- ability to fund this project from my own checkbook is damaged. To date I have put in well over $400,000 of my own damn money into this project. Don't you dare start slandering me and my team by implying that the only thing we ever produced was 'hype'. We produced a realistic, working roadmap, (which was a catalyst for Bryan's effort) a small amount of carbon nanotubes on our own furnace, and robotic lifter systems that actually work - they have climbed into the sky...
What have you and your 'buddies' done? What skin have you put into the game? What risk have you taken to further this elevator to space?
This sort of mudslinging is unacceptable.
mjl
Posted by: michael laine | April 17, 2007 3:00 PM
After all the rumors and blog postings it's nice to see there's still some life at Liftport as Michael points out in this comment. However an official announcement on the Liftport site as to what is happening with the company, where things stands would certainly help in clearing things up.
There are many questions people have and Michael knows what they are, so I look forward to hearing the answers like everyone else. In the meantime we can only speculate based on the available information .
Posted by: Marc Boucher | April 17, 2007 3:57 PM
I must comment again on your statement about the roadmap, the Liftport roadmap I have been working on as well. My previous comments on Edwards' analysis was a little too emotional and caused some undesired effects. But the Liftport roadmap is still the only detailed roadmap around and having criticism on just one date, or the authors of the document as Edwards did, is not a valid way of reviewing a roadmap.
Creating a roadmap with a fictive date (
Anyone with some proper knowledge knows that there will not be a SE-qualified material around within a few years, but even if it existed now, 10 years would not be a feasible development time.
If you want to proof otherwise, please publish a roadmap which shows how so we can review that roadmap properly (that is: on the content).
Posted by: Jasper Bouwmeester | April 18, 2007 1:39 AM
My comment dealt with the fact that as an investor 25 years is long way away for something to be built which may or may not provide a return on my investment.
As to dates, you're right, 10, 25 years, we don't know, people throw out dates mostly for investors or the media.
I think people have to understand that while the development of a space elevator makes some people passionate they must remember that to get it built it must be built on a sound business platform. No one today can tell me it will built within 10 years, or 25 years etc.
So as I said before, look at a roadmap, whichever one you want, find a part of it that makes sound business sense to pursue, build your product, take it to market and build on that. But don't try and sell me on the fact that any one company, billing itself as a pure space elevator company, will build a space elevator in X years and you should invest based on that. Any serious investor won't buy into it.
Posted by: Marc Boucher | April 18, 2007 9:09 AM
Remember how many successful companies started in garages! This should be seen as just a temporary setback.
Posted by: L Riofrio | April 18, 2007 9:51 AM