Skyscrapers in space,

[Perd Hapley]

Afternoon disgrace!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4354612/Architect-unveils-skyscraper-hangs-asteroid.html

Sounds like a cool place to hang out.

[MikeB]

1. I can't think of a thing that could go wrong with this.

2. That was a difficult article to read, they kept repeating entire sentences and paragraphs seemingly at random.

[Parker Dean]

An untethered Beanstalk then. It's basically in orbit so it's not like it would fall. Of course material science isn't ready for this anymore than it is a Beanstalk so it's merely a vehicle to get the architecture firm's name out there.

Though it does raise the question of taxes. Since it's supposed to linger over NY more than other locations does that mean occupants would have to pay NY taxes?

[HankB]

I wonder if they considered the effects of atmospheric drag on the orbit of the asteroid . . . but then again, once we develop the technology to MOVE an asteroid and insert it into orbit in the first place . . .

. . .
Though it does raise the question of taxes. Since it's supposed to linger over NY more than other locations does that mean occupants would have to pay NY taxes?

No . . . but they'd have the satisfaction of being able to flush their toilets over Manhattan. 

[AJ Dual]

An untethered Beanstalk then. It's basically in orbit so it's not like it would fall. Of course material science isn't ready for this anymore than it is a Beanstalk so it's merely a vehicle to get the architecture firm's name out there.

Though it does raise the question of taxes. Since it's supposed to linger over NY more than other locations does that mean occupants would have to pay NY taxes?

We could make an orbital tower using steel. It would just have to be really thick, and spindle shaped so it's at its fattest at the point of maximum stress. Although by "thick" like 130 feet or something at the widest. (Birdman did the math for me during an online conversation about this...)

The logistics of such a thing are daunting, but not "impossible" at least there is no theoretical scientific reason it's impossible.

It could be politically impossible, or economically impossible, but a space bridge with more mundane materials isn't physically impossible.

[griz]

I thought the biggest problem was that we don't happen to have an asteroid in geosynchronous orbit above New York.  Sorry for the pessimism.

[K Frame]

Uhm...

How would you get on it if you, say, wanted to visit someone there?

[RoadKingLarry]

I thought the biggest problem was that we don't happen to have an asteroid in geosynchronous orbit above New York.  Sorry for the pessimism.

You with your negativity. Details, details....

[MechAg94]

Uhm...

How would you get on it if you, say, wanted to visit someone there?

With the thing moving in a figure 8 pattern across the hemisphere, I think you don't.  That is pretty fast and I think it would end up having to bottom out pretty high.  Then there is the requirement to move an asteroid into geosynchronous orbit from somewhere without slamming it straight into the planet.  Might as well say they are going to hang it from the moon.  

If the building support cable breaks, you are talking about a big structure falling from pretty high up.  Then the asteroid would presumably jump out to a higher orbit, but it might not leave earth orbit and may come back around.  I just don't see the point.  If you have the space capability to build it, you don't need it.

Here is a comment from the link.  The comments are not kind that I saw.  

This is the dumbest engineering proposal I have ever seen in a newspaper. Maybe someday we will be able to have a geostationary cable tower, but adding the figure-8 daily looping motion of about 12,000 kilometers would mean winds averaging 500 kilometers per hour (and probably peaking at double that), extreme loads on the structure, and a lot of air friction requiring propulsion energy to offset the friction. Also, the pictures show the structure coming within about a thousand meters of the ground, which given the fast motion and exposure to the weather would be extremely risky to people on the structure and on the ground. For this looping structure to be even as feasible as a geostationary cable tower -- itself very difficult given the required massive production of super-strong materials such as kevlar or graphene -- it would have to avoid essentially all of the atmosphere, keeping its lower end above 50,000 meters above sea level.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4354612/Architect-unveils-skyscraper-hangs-asteroid.html#ixzz4ciu9bABH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[cordex]

This is like the "COLLEGE STUDENT DESIGNS MASSIVE MOVING CITY ON TANK TREADS" or "CALIFORNIA TO HOVER CITIES WITH GIANT JET ENGINES TO PREVENT EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE" articles.  Someone creative comes up with a wild and impractical idea, makes a few cool pictures and then the press runs with it pretending it is a fully-fleshed out concept ready for implementation instead of a barely finished art project.

[HankB]

One more thing - if it's in geosynchronous orbit, the asteroid anchor point would be over the same spot all the time, just like many communication satellites. So why the figure-8 path?

[Scout26]

I'm intrigued by the idea of an asteroid hitting New York City....

[MechAg94]

One more thing - if it's in geosynchronous orbit, the asteroid anchor point would be over the same spot all the time, just like many communication satellites. So why the figure-8 path?

I think it is someone fantasy idea of living in a sky city and moving around for different views.  I guess if you had the ability to move the asteroid into position in the first place, continually shifting its orbit might be minor. 

I think it would be more practical to just imagine a big city on the moon.

[griz]

I'm intrigued by the idea of an asteroid hitting New York City....

Ah, so there is an upside to this idea.

[Hawkmoon]

One more thing - if it's in geosynchronous orbit, the asteroid anchor point would be over the same spot all the time, just like many communication satellites. So why the figure-8 path?

Beat me to it.

And if the thing flies in a regular figure-8 pattern, that's not an "orbit," either -- it's a flight path. Which means the "asteroid" has to have both a means of propulsion and a means of navigation.

This is the kind of crap that drove me nuts in architecture school. Students who came up with wild ideas (not quite as wild as this, but trending in that direction) and threw up illegible charcoal sketches at jury time and then spent 20 minutes bloviating about the social impacts of their "designs" generally did very well, while the real stars of the class, who designed real buildings that could be built, and produced real drawings that could be read, either received ho-hum grades or barely passed. The scary part of this concept is that the people behind it are "architects" -- which means that some state actually gave them a license to design buildings that people may some day occupy.

[dogmush]

I wasn't aware they covered orbital mechanics in Architecture School. 

Or is this whole think just mental masturbation. (I think we know which it is)

[KD5NRH]

And if the thing flies in a regular figure-8 pattern, that's not an "orbit," either -- it's a flight path. Which means the "asteroid" has to have both a means of propulsion and a means of navigation.

It would be a nearly geostationary orbit that's inclined somewhat relative to the earth's rotation.  What they haven't factored in is how the asteroid would maintain orbital velocity while dragging this giant thing through varying densities of atmosphere, not to mention the jet stream wind effects on the structure affecting the asteroid.

[Hawkmoon]

It would be a nearly geostationary orbit that's inclined somewhat relative to the earth's rotation. 

Moving from one hemisphere to another and back on a daily basis is hardly "nearly geostationary."

[MechAg94]

I wasn't aware they covered orbital mechanics in Architecture School. 

Or is this whole think just mental masturbation. (I think we know which it is)

You can see from the idea that they didn't.

[MechAg94]

The other part is the constant movement makes interaction with the ground very difficult if not impossible.  I am not sure how high you would have to go up to be able to land or dock with the thing.  Not to mention that if it was actually possible to do this, would you want more than one?  Can't have them moving all over the place and hitting each other.  You would want some sort of fail safe if your drive system failed.

[MikeB]

A much better article.

http://www.popsci.com/building-hanging-from-an-asteroid

[griz]

A much better article.

http://www.popsci.com/building-hanging-from-an-asteroid

I read that article and it brings up a couple things that baffle me.

1. Who pays companies like this to dream up such sci-fi like concepts?

2. Would ANYBODY really want to try and persuade a passing asteroid to come so close to the earth that it would fall in to an orbit?  If somebody proposed something this wacky I wouldn't trust them to cross the street by themselves, much less calculate how to make an asteroid almost hit the earth.  Sheesh! Kids these days.

[KD5NRH]

1. Who pays companies like this to dream up such sci-fi like concepts?

More importantly, where do I sign up to get paid for coming up with goofy crap?  I could do that without ever getting out of bed.

[Perd Hapley]

A. I'm triggered by all this talk of how living in a giant, floating skyscraper is bad, or unrealistic. I already identify as living in such a place, and how dare you deny my reality?

2. Living in a giant tower suspended from an asteroid in a totally impractical and poorly-thought-out scheme that may or may not be technologically viable is just as normal and healthy as living anywhere else.

Ω. Love wins.

[Hawkmoon]

A much better article.

http://www.popsci.com/building-hanging-from-an-asteroid

Of course, the elevator ride itself would take you a while. The fastest elevators in the world are in The Shanghai Tower and move at 20.5 meters per second, so a straight shot to the top of the Analemma would take you just over 20 minutes. And that’s assuming there is a single elevator that goes all the way to the top. One of the logistically challenging things about building very tall structures is how you fit in enough elevators. As Randall Munroe illustrated in a beautiful piece about designing a billion-story skyscraper, you quickly fill the bottom floors with elevator bays, so much so that you have essentially no functional space.

I forgot to mention that. Frank Lloyd Wright played with a design for a mile-high skyscraper, but he fairly quickly arrived at the realization that the lower floors would have to be entirely given over to elevators, making the concept unworkable.