Company Creates Plans for Skyscraper Attached to Asteroid

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
It turns out that NYC-based design firm Clouds Architecture Office is run by drug-fueled maniacs: they are contemplating a skyscraper that hangs from an orbiting asteroid. The building would float over landmark cities and you would be expected to get back to Earth via parachute. I would hate to be around when the cable snaps.

Over the course of each day, the floating skyscraper would trace a figure-eight path over our planet's surface, according to plans posted online by Clouds Architecture Office. It would swing between the northern and southern hemispheres, returning to the same point once every 24 hours. Analemma would be powered by solar panels and use recycled water. Lower floors would be set aside for business use, while sleeping quarters would be sited about two-thirds of the way up. The plans don't say exactly how people would get on and off the building, though one illustration seem to show people parachuting from the tower to the ground.
 
Just saw this on CNN.

It isn't going to happen in my lifetime.

Even if they COULD do it, if anything happened and the thing fell to Earth it would probably be an extinction level event.

32 km long building with 50,000 km long cables attached to a small asteroid.

The fact that it isn't geostationary is even more terrifying.
 
Yup, they totally borrowed this idea from the floating Cradle in Part 3 of Seveneves (where the Group of Seven gathers to plan the expedition to the Diggers)
 
As stupid as this idea is, you can bet that there are people with money and no sense are moving forward with the plans.
 
gigaxtreme1 said:
The drag would cause the asteroid's orbit to decay and fall into the atmosphere. NEVER happen.. How would you adjust other satellite's orbits so they don't collide? Stupid
Click to expand...

Not to mention that atmospheric cross winds from one attitude to the next can create tremendous shearing force creating overall instability.
 
giphy.gif
 
Maybe they are hiring. Drug-fueled maniacs sound like a fun bunch of people to work for.

I see a future in vertigo pills also.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Not to mention that atmospheric cross winds from one attitude to the next can create tremendous shearing force creating overall instability.
Click to expand...
A nice shift in the gulf stream would make for an interesting view as the asteroid is spun out of control.
Control against strong winds will be very fuel intense and impossible to maintain.
Even an F0 tornado would screw it up.
 
Just doesn't make sense in my head. I'm no physics major or anything, but wouldn't the weight pull the asteroid to the earth, do asteroids have anti-gravity tech?
 
xX326Xx said:
Just doesn't make sense in my head. I'm no physics major or anything, but wouldn't the weight pull the asteroid to the earth, do asteroids have anti-gravity tech?
Click to expand...

The asteroid would be in orbit, and if large enough, it'd take quite a bit to make it move.

That being said, the constant drag from the building WOULD affect it's orbit over time.
 
Seventyfive said:
Why am I shocked this isn't going up in Dubai?
Click to expand...
Hard to anchor something that is meant to go round the globe.
I suppose their theory is that being closer to the planet they need to rotate round the globe faster than the earths orbit
Its fantasy anyway.
 
1) How do they plan on getting an asteroid to orbit the Earth ? 2) the "building would have to be moving at at least 17,500mph for the asteroid to keep in orbit around the Earth 3) Not sure anybody could survive a parachute jump at 17,500mph
Just saying !!!!! ;)
 
Chebsy said:
1) How do they plan on getting an asteroid to orbit the Earth ? 2) the "building would have to be moving at at least 17,500mph for the asteroid to keep in orbit around the Earth 3) Not sure anybody could survive a parachute jump at 17,500mph
Just saying !!!!! ;)
Click to expand...


Adjust your math a little, the closer the building is to the ground, (center of the asteroid's orbit, the slower it will be going relative the asteroid.

I'm not claiming it would work, just that you need to adjust for the physics that also agree, this won't work.
 
Chebsy said:
1) How do they plan on getting an asteroid to orbit the Earth ? 2) the "building would have to be moving at at least 17,500mph for the asteroid to keep in orbit around the Earth 3) Not sure anybody could survive a parachute jump at 17,500mph
Just saying !!!!! ;)
Click to expand...

The asteroid would be in a geostationary orbit. If it was a PERFECT geostationary, there would be no relative motion between the building, asteroid, and the ground. The asteroid is orbiting the earth at the exact same rate that the earth is spinning (about once every 24 hours). So the only real motion the building would see would be natural winds, and then whatever instability exists in the orbit.
 
I could see a space elevator in the high atmosphere that you get to by scramjet/rocket hybrid..
 
gigaxtreme1 said:
I could see a space elevator in the high atmosphere that you get to by scramjet/rocket hybrid..
Click to expand...

I was looking at this as a reverse space elevator that just comes short of the ground.

Bandalo said:
The asteroid would be in a geostationary orbit. If it was a PERFECT geostationary, there would be no relative motion between the building, asteroid, and the ground. The asteroid is orbiting the earth at the exact same rate that the earth is spinning (about once every 24 hours). So the only real motion the building would see would be natural winds, and then whatever instability exists in the orbit.
Click to expand...

According to the story it would not be geostationary, it would be moving relative to the Earth's rotation so that the building actually moves around the globe every day. They say it will return to the original point every 24 hours and since the circumference of the Earth is nearly 25000 miles, that would mean it is moving approximately 1000 miles per hour relative to the ground, if the bottom is near the ground it would be moving at super sonic speed and causing one heck of a sonic boom! To move slower than the Earth's rotation the asteroid would need to be beyond the geostationary orbit to stay in orbit slower than rotational velocity and since geostationary orbit is 26000 miles altitude, that would make for some very long cables below it, so it must be moving faster than rotational speed. I wonder if they thought about the sonic boom problem?
 
Bandalo said:
The asteroid would be in orbit, and if large enough, it'd take quite a bit to make it move.

That being said, the constant drag from the building WOULD affect it's orbit over time.
Click to expand...

I would have to try to work out the physics there but with the asteroid moving all the time as part of the plan anyway and the pull from the planet on that body of mass would it be that hard to get it to slowly come down?

Chebsy said:
1) How do they plan on getting an asteroid to orbit the Earth ? 2) the "building would have to be moving at at least 17,500mph for the asteroid to keep in orbit around the Earth 3) Not sure anybody could survive a parachute jump at 17,500mph
Just saying !!!!! ;)
Click to expand...

They said that the speed would adjust so at its "slowest" who knows how much they expected their crazy idea to movie. It wasn't going in a circle so you can't compute your math however you did as you don't like a few factors about the design.

jedijeb13 said:
I was looking at this as a reverse space elevator that just comes short of the ground.



According to the story it would not be geostationary, it would be moving relative to the Earth's rotation so that the building actually moves around the globe every day. They say it will return to the original point every 24 hours and since the circumference of the Earth is nearly 25000 miles, that would mean it is moving approximately 1000 miles per hour relative to the ground, if the bottom is near the ground it would be moving at super sonic speed and causing one heck of a sonic boom! To move slower than the Earth's rotation the asteroid would need to be beyond the geostationary orbit to stay in orbit slower than rotational velocity and since geostationary orbit is 26000 miles altitude, that would make for some very long cables below it, so it must be moving faster than rotational speed. I wonder if they thought about the sonic boom problem?
Click to expand...

Something else you are missing is that not only is it not geostationary it was planned on following a figure 8 pattern between the northern and southern hemispheres. Satellites and other things in orbit do bounce back and forth, but in a wave pattern, not in a 8 pattern. They are looking at its speed increasing and decreasing based on what part of the 8 it is currently in with New York City being at the top slowest part of the 8. So that puts the bottom south of Buenos Aires a short distance, about equal with southern Australia. With the speed up and slow down and the change of direction I can't imagine the building would be able to stand up to that, I also don't know how they expect to change the direction of a massive structure.
 
The artist has no clue how fast things move in orbit.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/58

Basically the only even futuristic way to build a skyscraper into the atmosphere would be to have your asteroid in LEO. Because Geosynchronous Orbit is 1/10th of the way to moon, so that ain't happening. And yeah tons of drag on the skyscraper. And your people parachuting back down, if at LEO? They're doing 8km/s. Have fun walking back to NYC if you mis-time your jump by a second and end up 8km over the ocean. Or worse, into New Jersey.

This is so retarded it makes space elevators look damn-sure achievable soon.
 
Last edited:
No wind in space.

If the asteroid is close enough to touch the air then fire and big explosion soon.
 
jedijeb13 said:
I was looking at this as a reverse space elevator that just comes short of the ground.



According to the story it would not be geostationary, it would be moving relative to the Earth's rotation so that the building actually moves around the globe every day. They say it will return to the original point every 24 hours and since the circumference of the Earth is nearly 25000 miles, that would mean it is moving approximately 1000 miles per hour relative to the ground, if the bottom is near the ground it would be moving at super sonic speed and causing one heck of a sonic boom! To move slower than the Earth's rotation the asteroid would need to be beyond the geostationary orbit to stay in orbit slower than rotational velocity and since geostationary orbit is 26000 miles altitude, that would make for some very long cables below it, so it must be moving faster than rotational speed. I wonder if they thought about the sonic boom problem?
Click to expand...


The story has it geosynchronous, but not completely geostationary. So the asteroid is in the geo belt but with a slight inclination of a few degrees. So it wouldn't move around the globe, it'd more move in a figure 8 over some fixed longitude. Almost all "geostationary" satellites do this, as it's too expensive and really unnecessary to keep them at exactly 0 degrees of inclination.

The building would technically be orbiting the earth every 24 hours, but it's doing so in sync with the earth's rotation, so the relative motion between the atmosphere/ground and the building would be zero (except for that inclination factor I mentioned).
 
Can we ignore the physics and just talk about how we would get "building materials" up to the asteroid to even build this building? Would we do something like the ISS? Or would we try to build and lower it from the asteroid?

I'm no good with physics, but that seems totally outside our current tech.

I just imagined them building it on the asteroid and lowering it like a chandlier. You think they're still hiring?
 
This proves architects are not engineers.

Just like marketing / product managers are not software engineers (where I work).
 
I'll take "ideas by people who don't know how gravity works.", for $1000, Alex.
 
DrLobotomy said:
No theory. Meet me on the 27th floor and I will show you it is no theory!!:p
Click to expand...
In-spite of your death threat, it is still a "THEORY", and why it is referenced so.
If it was provable, beyond standard density/buoyancy observations, the "THEORY" part would be dropped. Don't ya think?
 
funkydmunky said:
In-spite of your death threat, it is still a "THEORY", and why it is referenced so.
If it was provable, beyond standard density/buoyancy observations, the "THEORY" part would be dropped. Don't ya think?
Click to expand...
A theory is what we formulate when we don't know something because we weren't there etc.

Despite your misinterpretation of my comment, I can show you that 100 % of the time the rock I drop off the 27th floor will always fall down to the ground below at a calculable time.

I understand what you are trying to convey but the Theory part is exactly how it works, not if it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top