Skyscraper Anchored to Asteroid

[Teebone]

Did you even heard about geostationary orbit?

Have you heard about gravity? In order to maintain a geostationary orbit the ENTIRE STRUCTURE would need to be weightless. Otherwise, what Derp said.

[sonololo]

There's an even simpler reason this can't work, folks.

Air resistance.

Air resistance is going to slow this thing down constantly, for the same reason you feel a push when you put your hand out a car window. So to get around that, you'd need some massive engines maintaining a constant thrust level, or it slows down or gets pulled out of alignment and crashes. That's just not feasible.

If the idea were a modified partial space elevator, where you had an enormous ground-based tower that had cable ties to an asteroid that was high enough up, relying on centripetal force to "pull" the skyscraper upward to help it remain standing despite the impacts of the wind forces on the building. With enough cables and regular maintenance (even if you don't take it to proper space elevator status, the cables could easily be "ridden" up by vertical cable cars to shuttle maintenance staff around), it would be relatively safe. But we're nowhere close to the point of needing that, in terms of the value of maximizing real estate. The only reason to do that is as a first-step to building that full space elevator; if you start with the cabling and the anchor-asteroid, building up around that is probably the easiest way to engineer the full structure.

But this thing, hanging from the asteroid? If it's geosynchronous, then the asteroid's not stable; any shifts in weight will either pull it down or see it rise. If it isn't (as proposed), air resistance kills it. It's just not workable. Space elevators only work, physically, because they extend far enough into orbit that centripetal force can overcome gravitational pull.

The article flatly states that the asteroid is on geosynchronous orbit. So there will be no air resistance.

Though, there is really no point in building a hollowed structure with office/living space; it's best to just anchor a very sturdy cable to something that is hanging somewhere farther or on geostationary orbit.

But even that, there is very many obstacles, for example to orbital elevator to exist, entire low orbit space should be cleared from debris and every satellite lower than GEO should be deorbited.
Because when something will hit the construction at 9.7 km/s, it will be... awful. So it's unfeasible.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you heard about gravity? In order to maintain a geostationary orbit the ENTIRE STRUCTURE would need to be weightless. Otherwise, what Derp said.

Gravity doesn't do anything here, the structural tension should be enough.

[derpkitteh]

Did you even heard about geostationary orbit?

there's no way you're going to pull that off with anything this heavy.

[sonololo]

there's no way you're going to pull that off with anything this heavy.

And that's not a discussion here.

[derpkitteh]

Gravity doesn't do anything here, the structural tension should be enough.

[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Space_elevator_structural_diagram--corrected_for_scale%2BCM%2Betc.svg/560px-Space_elevator_structural_diagram--corrected_for_scale%2BCM%2Betc.svg.png[IMG]

there's no fixed point on the ground for this though.

not that i saw anyway. they just think this can magically dangle from it and be ok.

[Zeta333]

So, a space elevator. No one thought of those yet, obviously.

no its an astroid suspended in a non decaying very close orbit through magic with a building growing out of it that doesnt touch the ground.

[sonololo]

no its an astroid suspended in a non decaying very close orbit through magic with a building growing out of it that doesnt touch the ground.

please read the article very carefully.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

The real reason this won't work:

We don't have the technology to capture an asteroid, let alone put it in whatever orbit we want it.

[Dug]

Since Forbes is asking me to take off Adblock I refuse to follow the link but do they provide a diagram or something? I'm having a hard time visualizing what this is supposed to look like.

[sonololo]

The real reason this won't work:

We don't have the technology to capture an asteroid, let alone put it in whatever orbit we want it.

And thats not the point of the discussion, y'know. Even the standard space elevator is not possible at the moment, but that does not limit everyone for finding means to build it.

- - - Updated - - -

Since Forbes is asking me to take off Adblock I refuse to follow the link but do they provide a diagram or something? I'm having a hard time visualizing what this is supposed to look like.

Here you go.

There is only one image in the article.

https://blogs-images.forbes.com/brid....jpg?width=960

And that's unfeasible.

[May90]

This idea is silly on so many levels...
- Air resistance.
- Radiation.
- Temperatures.
- Pressure.
- Atmospheric friction causing the asteroid to burn slowly.
- Costs of moving the asteroid here and building anything on it afterwards.

Might as well just build a hotel on Mars, it is a more affordable and realistic project.

[sonololo]

This idea is silly on so many levels...
- Air resistance.
- Radiation.
- Temperatures.
- Pressure.
- Atmospheric friction causing the asteroid to burn slowly.
- Costs of moving the asteroid here and building anything on it afterwards.

Might as well just build a hotel on Mars, it is a more affordable and realistic project.

Throw out the air resistance and atmospheric friction out from the window, for the love of god. Orbital mechanic of geosynchronous objects covers JUST THAT.

All other things are valid and is preventing building of this thing; it's probably unfeasible even for Kardashev II-III type civilizations.

[Endus]

The article flatly states that the asteroid is on geosynchronous orbit. So there will be no air resistance.

Geosynchronous =/= geostationary. They specifically described it traveling.

The asteroid that Analemma Tower is connected to would be placed in a geosynchronous orbit that would describe a figure of eight over the Earth. The tower would be moving at its slowest speed at the top and the bottom of the figure eight orbit, allowing its inhabitants to interact with Earthlings at these points.

The slowest part of the entire trajectory would happen over New York and the whole trip would take 24 hours. The loop would also include passes over the south east coast of the US, Cuba, Ecuador and Peru.

[sonololo]

Geosynchronous =/= geostationary. They specifically described it traveling.

The asteroid that Analemma Tower is connected to would be placed in a geosynchronous orbit that would describe a figure of eight over the Earth. The tower would be moving at its slowest speed at the top and the bottom of the figure eight orbit, allowing its inhabitants to interact with Earthlings at these points.

The slowest part of the entire trajectory would happen over New York and the whole trip would take 24 hours. The loop would also include passes over the south east coast of the US, Cuba, Ecuador and Peru.

Though, geosynchronous orbit lies farther than geostationary. Geostationary orbit is specific type of geosynchronous, and is equatorial.

It's just better to anchor the thing to something on Earth, or even to build a halo around, and balance it with even count of space elevators, and those should balance each other.

[Antius]

This thing would be a terrorists wet dream.

[The One Percent]

This is the most retarded idea I've ever heard, and I deal with people in Dubai that request the most outlandish shit you can possibly fucking imagine.

[belfpala]

Wouldn't it be a groundscraper?

This post wins.

[ro9ue]

Why the fuck did Forbes waste pixels on this bullshit?

[yetgdhfgh]

Hey lets capture an asteroid i mean what could possibly go wrong?

[Mormolyce]

That is a really cool idea. I guess you wouldn't want it to be so high that your guests would be oxygen deprived.

It would have to be sealed surely.

This is the ultimate definition of hubris.

But the giant space penis would be pointing down, not up. So it's less hubris than usual