So Frank, do you think the resent news of CNT having more problems than expected is mostly propaganda to divert intrerest in the space elevator and other applications likely for cheap CNT?   Neil

Why would this generate resistance? Think about it, you'd still need these lander systems to land on asteroids or other planets that we haven't visited or established SE's on. I doubt this resistance would materialize. Rather it would make things easier and actually serve to spur growth in landers and the like.

What you are referring to is know as sunk cost (wiki ). Most economists and people in finance will argue that sunk cost do NOT matter when making an investment decision. So were president Bush to believe this, he would decide to invest in the SE when this would be economically feasible (and thus investment in rockets now will not be a serious problem).

However from game theory it can be derived that in many instances sunk cost do actually matter. They signal commitment. This effect is what you are wondering about. Now let us assume for a moment that the US will be committed to traditional space programs and would openly cast its doubt as to whether the space elevator might be feasible or not. This in turn would allow other countries (India, Russia, Brazil, Saudi-Arabia) to evaluate the possibilities. (Note that the first three countries could be committed to there own rocket programs, but Saudi-Arabia for instance would likely be not). If (after building it) the SE could bring the price of getting a kg of cargo into space low enough (lower than what it would cost by traditional means in 2020), then (with enough capacity) this would lead to what is known in economics as a Bertrand competition (with a capacity constraint) or a Cournot market. This would mean that prices will either be significantly higher than the cost price (for the SE, because the price would be higher than the cost price of traditional means in 2020). So the profit margin for the SE will be enormous (it will be hauling cargo up at a price that a rocket firm also charges) or prices will drop below the price in which rocket can get cargo up with a profit. In this latter case, which is in my opinion more likely, this would lead to a monopoly position for the SE.

Did you follow the analysis above? A short summary: Commitment of incumbents to rocket technology would probably lead to a situation where the SE could charge really high prices (and thus get high profits) or to a monopoly for the owner of the SE.

Now the next question becomes how easily is this monopoly broken? In my opinion this monopoly can not be broken, because the competitive advantage (lower cost price) of the SE and because building a new SE (and expecting to make a profit with it) is very expensive (you will have to use rockets, because the owner of the SE will not let you use the SE of course). In order the preempt this the owner of the SE will probably build a new SE at a lower cost (because it can use its other SE of course). This will lead to a market in which it is not feasible to build a new SE using rockets and thus it will not happen. Thus the first mover advantage is potentially infinite!

So what does this boil down to?

Say almost all current owners of rockets commit to rockets. We will then see an entrant which has a (bad) rocket (say India). They will use their own rocket to build the SE and they will acquire and keep the monopoly (they will deter entry by having over capacity).
Now do you really think Western countries will want India (or worse Saudi-Arabia) control access to space? No way! They might tolerate for instance a neutral country (say Switzerland), but most likely they will fully or partially abondon their rocket programs and rush into building the SE.

Next to this (as was noted above) even with an SE rockets will become far from obselete and a moon lander would neither with a moon-SE (there are still (and will always be) many interesting moons and planets out there without an SE.

So I would say that current investment in rockets would not be a major obstacle for the SE, but hey, that's just my 2 cents  

You have a point about the environmentalist, but don't forget they are sometimes right, and caution is never a bad thing. The regulators should have about the same agenda, so your probably don't have to worry about environmentalist too much. Furthermore (if the SE is safe enough), the environmental benefits should be huge, because getting something into space will be a lot more energy and material efficient.


Actually I read a discussion somewhere where people agreed that the SE would hardly be visible, even from a close distance. Climbers aren't send up every two seconds, so this shouldn't be a problem either.


I guess you're somewhat right. Actually the whole legal framework should be reviewed (and probably will be). In this process it is wise to have someone with influence on your side.


As I described in an earlier post to this thread I think the first mover advantages will be huge, therefore rival companies will either be first or simply not exist. The only way I can see someone build a new space elevator by using rockets (the already present SEs will of course not let you use theirs to build one of your own), is a government who wants to use it for military purposes (hopefully the world will be a better place by then, but I'm guessing not).


I think you are pessimistic here. What if you offered NASA a one year (or 10 year or whatever) exclusive contract. This would give NASA enormous benefits over ESA and every other space firm there is (although NASA is not in the space business to compete with other agencies, it still may see benefits). In fact just the idea that an other agency will be have exclusive access to the SE might be reason enough to help you.
Besides to only time you really need them is to launch your stuff into space for the first SE. If you offer them enough compensation once it is in place, they might even give you a really good deal (or else some other agency will of course  ;-) )

Luckily NASA is not in the business to lift stuff into space, although this now still is something that is inevitable in order for NASA to do its job, this doesn't mean that it should do this for ever. Not only will the SE quickly convince top management, but it will do miracles in the white house and congress. Next to this people that now work for the launch division will probably get a different, more interesting job with the SE (the need for rockets will only be bigger, not for launching from earth to space, but for space travel). I acknowledge there will be resistance by these people, but I do not expect the problem to be really big.

You are right in your antitrust assessment, but there are numerous ways to circumvent this problem. One obvious solution might be to have NASA be your 'testing agency'. Just designate the first year of service as a test period, during which NASA of course does not have to pay commercial fees. This would probably be legal and have huge benefits for NASA and Liftport and might be a convincing argument for NASA to help build it.

Any deployment of a strategically important device like the SE is sure to have the US government involved, in my expectation. If not NASA, then NSEA (National Space Elevator Agency). And you can be sure that the US military gets the last word when it counts, including top secret payolads going up frequently. The remaining capacity will then be sold to various customers, not likely to include the defense departments of many countries besides the US.

Andreas

Good point but the assumption seems to be that LiftPort is primarily looking for money from the USA.  I am sure LiftPort will allow any government or private entity that wants to help with the SE the opportunity to do so.