Discussion:
OT? Blue Sky Engineering
(too old to reply)
nuny@bid.nes
2017-03-28 21:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A NY architectural firm has published its "speculative" plans for a skyhooked building hung from a captured asteroid:

http://www.cloudsao.com/ANALEMMA-TOWER

They propose to build a tower 32 kilometers tall in Dubai, "which has proven to be a specialist in tall building construction at one fifth the cost of New York City construction", then hook it to an asteroid to be captured and put into LEO so that it goes into a sort of modified geosynch orbit that looks like an analemma (peaking over NY and offshore of Lima Peru), which is not coincidentally the name of the hypothetical building.

32 km of tower, assembled on a temporary foundation by the lowest bidder. That seems safe, right?

I see not a few issues with such a building (ignoring the challenges of catching and orbiting the rock in the first place, assembling 32 km of tower IN THE MIDDLE EAST and then attaching it to the asteroid AS IT WHIZZES BY.

I'd like to see the atmospheric drag estimates, the predicted wind loading in various (HURRICANE) weather conditions, the thermal expansion and contraction effects on the altitude of the bottom end AS IT PASSES OVER MOUNTAINS AND CITIES, and the required structural strength of the building itself since it has to survive being yanked off its temporary foundation when it's hooked up to the cable dangling from the passing asteroid.

Oh, and they forgot the counterweight ABOVE the asteroid.

Haven't we established that you build these things from the asteroid down, not from the ground up?

Damn architects who don't research prior art anyway.


Mark L. Fergerson
Quadibloc
2017-03-28 22:16:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
My immediate reaction is that this is just a hoax, and the real intent is to
have the asteroid (oops!) wipe Israel off the map.

A body in geosynchronous orbit is rather further away from the ground than 32
kilometers. I suppose that's why it's in a figure-8 orbit, not only so that
it can leave the equator to visit Dubai, but also so that it can have a
perigee that approaches that.

So instead of the building being held up by the asteroid, the asteroid will
visit it once a day to help pull it back up after a day's worth of
collapsing. With a perigee of, say, 40 km, though, the orbit will eventually
decay...

John Savard
Cryptoengineer
2017-03-29 00:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
My immediate reaction is that this is just a hoax, and the real intent
is to have the asteroid (oops!) wipe Israel off the map.
A body in geosynchronous orbit is rather further away from the ground
than 32 kilometers. I suppose that's why it's in a figure-8 orbit, not
only so that it can leave the equator to visit Dubai, but also so that
it can have a perigee that approaches that.
So instead of the building being held up by the asteroid, the asteroid
will visit it once a day to help pull it back up after a day's worth
of collapsing. With a perigee of, say, 40 km, though, the orbit will
eventually decay...
John Savard
Not at all. It just means the asteroid isn't placed in an equatorial
orbit.
It still takes 24 hours to orbit, but swings north and south as it does
so.

This is just a concept, and as other point out, they seem to be ignoring
prior art. Quite aside from anything else, there is no material strong
enough to make the cable.

There are many other fatal problems with this plan, but one is enough.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-03-29 02:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Quadibloc
My immediate reaction is that this is just a hoax, and the real
intent is to have the asteroid (oops!) wipe Israel off the map.
A body in geosynchronous orbit is rather further away from the
ground than 32 kilometers. I suppose that's why it's in a
figure-8 orbit, not only so that it can leave the equator to
visit Dubai, but also so that it can have a perigee that
approaches that.
So instead of the building being held up by the asteroid, the
asteroid will visit it once a day to help pull it back up after
a day's worth of collapsing. With a perigee of, say, 40 km,
though, the orbit will eventually decay...
John Savard
Not at all. It just means the asteroid isn't placed in an
equatorial orbit.
It still takes 24 hours to orbit, but swings north and south as
it does so.
In order to take 24 hours to orbit, it has to be in an orbit 22,000
miles or so high, equitorial or not. A 32 km tall building would
still be about 22,000 into outer space. An orbit 32 km high isn't
even outside the atmosphere.
Post by Cryptoengineer
This is just a concept, and as other point out, they seem to be
ignoring prior art. Quite aside from anything else, there is no
material strong enough to make the cable.
There are many other fatal problems with this plan, but one is
enough.
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to aproximately
99.99% elevator.

But the biggest flaw is that it's just stupid.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Cryptoengineer
2017-03-29 02:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Quadibloc
My immediate reaction is that this is just a hoax, and the real
intent is to have the asteroid (oops!) wipe Israel off the map.
A body in geosynchronous orbit is rather further away from the
ground than 32 kilometers. I suppose that's why it's in a
figure-8 orbit, not only so that it can leave the equator to
visit Dubai, but also so that it can have a perigee that
approaches that.
So instead of the building being held up by the asteroid, the
asteroid will visit it once a day to help pull it back up after
a day's worth of collapsing. With a perigee of, say, 40 km,
though, the orbit will eventually decay...
John Savard
Not at all. It just means the asteroid isn't placed in an
equatorial orbit.
It still takes 24 hours to orbit, but swings north and south as
it does so.
In order to take 24 hours to orbit, it has to be in an orbit 22,000
miles or so high, equitorial or not. A 32 km tall building would
still be about 22,000 into outer space. An orbit 32 km high isn't
even outside the atmosphere.
Clearly, you didn't read the article. They want to dangle the building
on a looooooooooooong cable from an asteroid seated at (actually just
outside) the geosync distance, such that the center of mass of the system
is at the 24 hour orbit height.

Problem is, this is essentially the beanstalk proposal, with extra
weight to support. We can't build that cable.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Cryptoengineer
This is just a concept, and as other point out, they seem to be
ignoring prior art. Quite aside from anything else, there is no
material strong enough to make the cable.
There are many other fatal problems with this plan, but one is enough.
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to aproximately
99.99% elevator.
Only if you assume most people commute to it daily. If most people's
'commute' involved travelling a few floors up and down, you don't need
so much. Service ducts would be a bigger issue - you can't have any
passage run the whole length, or the upper floors would be in vacuum.
This building is 4x the height of Mt Everest.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
But the biggest flaw is that it's just stupid.
You're looking at it wrong. The goal of this project was 'lets make
people talk about us and visit our site, and see the cool stuff we
*have* done'. It seems to have suceeded.

pt
Greg Goss
2017-03-29 03:35:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to aproximately
99.99% elevator.
Only if you assume most people commute to it daily. If most people's
'commute' involved travelling a few floors up and down, you don't need
so much. Service ducts would be a bigger issue - you can't have any
passage run the whole length, or the upper floors would be in vacuum.
This building is 4x the height of Mt Everest.
They're designating different segments of the building to different
purposes. So you have to commute past the farms to get from
"Residential" to the "Office Business Commercial"

The entire top half of the building seems to be designated for
religious purposes. That seems odd.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-03-29 06:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
The entire top half of the building seems to be designated for
religious purposes. That seems odd.
Only if you assume they're actually serious.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2017-03-29 12:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Greg Goss
The entire top half of the building seems to be designated for
religious purposes. That seems odd.
Only if you assume they're actually serious.
It seems designed to appeal to Muslim backers in Dubai and area.
I expect they also plan a rotating mosque in which the qiblah
is always pointing (for certain values of 'pointing') towards
Mecca. It would have to be capable a quick 180 degree spin
when they passed the Kaaba's antipode.

That's as sensible as anything else in this project.

pt
l***@dimnakorr.com
2017-03-29 15:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
The entire top half of the building seems to be designated for
religious purposes. That seems odd.
Let me guess: Gozer worshippers.
--
Something terrible is about to enter our world, and this
building is obviously the door!
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-03-29 06:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Quadibloc
My immediate reaction is that this is just a hoax, and the
real intent is to have the asteroid (oops!) wipe Israel off
the map.
A body in geosynchronous orbit is rather further away from
the ground than 32 kilometers. I suppose that's why it's in a
figure-8 orbit, not only so that it can leave the equator to
visit Dubai, but also so that it can have a perigee that
approaches that.
So instead of the building being held up by the asteroid, the
asteroid will visit it once a day to help pull it back up
after a day's worth of collapsing. With a perigee of, say, 40
km, though, the orbit will eventually decay...
John Savard
Not at all. It just means the asteroid isn't placed in an
equatorial orbit.
It still takes 24 hours to orbit, but swings north and south
as it does so.
In order to take 24 hours to orbit, it has to be in an orbit
22,000 miles or so high, equitorial or not. A 32 km tall
building would still be about 22,000 into outer space. An orbit
32 km high isn't even outside the atmosphere.
Clearly, you didn't read the article.
Not in any depth, no. The headline made it clear it was too stupid
to take seriously.
Post by Cryptoengineer
They want to dangle the
building on a looooooooooooong cable from an asteroid seated at
(actually just outside) the geosync distance, such that the
center of mass of the system is at the 24 hour orbit height.
Problem is, this is essentially the beanstalk proposal, with
extra weight to support. We can't build that cable.
There's a lot more problems than that.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Cryptoengineer
This is just a concept, and as other point out, they seem to
be ignoring prior art. Quite aside from anything else, there
is no material strong enough to make the cable.
There are many other fatal problems with this plan, but one is enough.
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to
aproximately 99.99% elevator.
Only if you assume most people commute to it daily.
No. It doesn't need that much elevator only if everyone stays on
the same floor. Forever.
Post by Cryptoengineer
If most
people's 'commute' involved travelling a few floors up and down,
you don't need so much.
You really need to go check up on how quickly elevator requirement
increase with the number of floors.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Service ducts would be a bigger issue -
you can't have any passage run the whole length, or the upper
floors would be in vacuum. This building is 4x the height of Mt
Everest.
32 km is about a hundred thousand feet. The entire upper most of it
is a space station.
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
But the biggest flaw is that it's just stupid.
You're looking at it wrong.
No, I'm looking at it exactly right.
Post by Cryptoengineer
The goal of this project was 'lets
make people talk about us and visit our site, and see the cool
stuff we *have* done'. It seems to have suceeded.
On the internet, stupid usually does. But it's still stupid.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David DeLaney
2017-03-31 03:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
No. It doesn't need that much elevator only if everyone stays on
the same floor. Forever.
Post by Cryptoengineer
If most
people's 'commute' involved travelling a few floors up and down,
you don't need so much.
You really need to go check up on how quickly elevator requirement
increase with the number of floors.
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit? They can put airlocks on the windows and
tracks on the outside of the building, and not NEED elevator shafts taking
up room on the inside. ... This probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-03-31 05:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
No. It doesn't need that much elevator only if everyone stays
on the same floor. Forever.
Post by Cryptoengineer
If most
people's 'commute' involved travelling a few floors up and
down, you don't need so much.
You really need to go check up on how quickly elevator
requirement increase with the number of floors.
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of the
interior space you need to devote to elevators (and ventilation,
for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on the
outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you still
need just as many of them.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Greg Goss
2017-03-31 13:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
You really need to go check up on how quickly elevator
requirement increase with the number of floors.
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of the
interior space you need to devote to elevators (and ventilation,
for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on the
outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you still
need just as many of them.
They're selling view. If the elevators are wrapped around the living
space, you no longer have a view.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-03-31 16:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
You really need to go check up on how quickly elevator
requirement increase with the number of floors.
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of
the interior space you need to devote to elevators (and
ventilation, for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on
the outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you
still need just as many of them.
They're selling view.
Er, dude, no, they're not. They're selling snake oil.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Scott Lurndal
2017-03-31 13:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
No. It doesn't need that much elevator only if everyone stays
on the same floor. Forever.
Post by Cryptoengineer
If most
people's 'commute' involved travelling a few floors up and
down, you don't need so much.
You really need to go check up on how quickly elevator
requirement increase with the number of floors.
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of the
interior space you need to devote to elevators (and ventilation,
for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on the
outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you still
need just as many of them.
The source article did address the elevator issue.
Cryptoengineer
2017-03-31 21:56:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
No. It doesn't need that much elevator only if everyone stays
on the same floor. Forever.
Post by Cryptoengineer
If most
people's 'commute' involved travelling a few floors up and
down, you don't need so much.
You really need to go check up on how quickly elevator
requirement increase with the number of floors.
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of the
interior space you need to devote to elevators (and ventilation,
for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on the
outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you still
need just as many of them.
The source article did address the elevator issue.
Poorly. IIRC, all they referenced was self-powered elevators which
didn't need cables, since the reels would be too big

There are so many unconsidered show stoppers in this proposal. This
is just one more.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-03-31 22:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
No. It doesn't need that much elevator only if everyone
stays on the same floor. Forever.
Post by Cryptoengineer
If most
people's 'commute' involved travelling a few floors up and
down, you don't need so much.
You really need to go check up on how quickly elevator
requirement increase with the number of floors.
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of
the interior space you need to devote to elevators (and
ventilation, for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and
not NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ...
This probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on
the outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you
still need just as many of them.
The source article did address the elevator issue.
Poorly. IIRC, all they referenced was self-powered elevators
which didn't need cables, since the reels would be too big
There are so many unconsidered show stoppers in this proposal.
This is just one more.
I say again, the only product here is snake oil.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Scott Lurndal
2017-03-31 13:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
No. It doesn't need that much elevator only if everyone stays
on the same floor. Forever.
Post by Cryptoengineer
If most
people's 'commute' involved travelling a few floors up and
down, you don't need so much.
You really need to go check up on how quickly elevator
requirement increase with the number of floors.
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of the
interior space you need to devote to elevators (and ventilation,
for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on the
outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you still
need just as many of them.
link: http://www.cloudsao.com/ANALEMMA-TOWER

key quote: "Developments in cable-less electromagnetic elevators have effectively shattered
height restrictions imposed by elevator cable spool volume."
David DeLaney
2017-04-02 06:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of the
interior space you need to devote to elevators (and ventilation,
for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on the
outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you still
need just as many of them.
The point here is that if the outervator cars are travelling on tracks outside?
the tracks can CROSS. Which elevator shafts don't do unless you're Willy Wonka.
So you don't need a separate track from floors A to Q with stops at C, F, and H
- you can manage with, I think, two tracks, one going up and one down. And
ski-lift-like turnarounds at the ends.

So presto, all the inner volume needed for separate shafts goes AWAY.

Dave, choo choo!
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Robert Carnegie
2017-04-02 13:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of the
interior space you need to devote to elevators (and ventilation,
for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on the
outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you still
need just as many of them.
The point here is that if the outervator cars are travelling on tracks outside?
the tracks can CROSS. Which elevator shafts don't do unless you're Willy Wonka.
So you don't need a separate track from floors A to Q with stops at C, F, and H
- you can manage with, I think, two tracks, one going up and one down. And
ski-lift-like turnarounds at the ends.
So presto, all the inner volume needed for separate shafts goes AWAY.
Dave, choo choo!
Maybe sidings...

If this is up where there's freefall and you
enter the elevator through an airlock anyway,
does the car need to be in contact with the
tower at all? Apart from reassurance.
(Rational or otherwise.)
Cryptoengineer
2017-04-03 02:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of the
interior space you need to devote to elevators (and ventilation,
for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on the
outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you still
need just as many of them.
The point here is that if the outervator cars are travelling on
tracks outside? the tracks can CROSS. Which elevator shafts don't do
unless you're Willy Wonka. So you don't need a separate track from
floors A to Q with stops at C, F, and H - you can manage with, I
think, two tracks, one going up and one down. And ski-lift-like
turnarounds at the ends.
So presto, all the inner volume needed for separate shafts goes AWAY.
Dave, choo choo!
Maybe sidings...
If this is up where there's freefall and you
enter the elevator through an airlock anyway,
does the car need to be in contact with the
tower at all? Apart from reassurance.
(Rational or otherwise.)
No part of the building is in freefall. The building is the bottom
32 km, sticking down into the atmosphere. Only the bottom 6km or so
is in breathable air, and the whole would be dragged over 8000 miles
through the atmosphere every 24 hours, at about half the speed of sound.

its idiocy, for this and many other reasons.

These people did not do their research, and I think, didn't really care
to.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 02:33:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
These people did not do their research, and I think, didn't
really care to.
Given how stupid the public is, they don't need to, since they
obviously have no intention of ever actually building anything. Their
only product is snake oil.

And, as 419 scammers have discovered, makeing your pitch as stupid as
possible is *desirable*, because it weeds out the potential victims
who are smart enough to figure it out before they give you any money,
as well as the scam baiters who are in it just to waste the
scammers' time.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-04-03 17:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
its idiocy, for this and many other reasons.
But the design is easily fixed to make it practical.

So that the cable does not need to be made of some impossibly
strong material, make it *shorter*. Then, the building is perhaps
dangling 100 feet below the asteroid counterweight, and thus the
whole is just a perfectly ordinary satellite in synchronous orbit.

The only downside is that it would be a long commute.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 18:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Cryptoengineer
its idiocy, for this and many other reasons.
But the design is easily fixed to make it practical.
So that the cable does not need to be made of some impossibly
strong material, make it *shorter*. Then, the building is perhaps
dangling 100 feet below the asteroid counterweight, and thus the
whole is just a perfectly ordinary satellite in synchronous orbit.
The only downside is that it would be a long commute.
You have a . . . unique definiton of "practical."

But then, you make up defintions of words all the time.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
2017-04-03 21:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
So that the cable does not need to be made of some impossibly
strong material, make it *shorter*. Then, the building is perhaps
dangling 100 feet below the asteroid counterweight, and thus the
whole is just a perfectly ordinary satellite in synchronous orbit.
The only downside is that it would be a long commute.
You have a . . . unique definiton of "practical."
But then, you make up defintions of words all the time.
Well, it could be built, and it could stay up for an
extended period of time, without breaking the laws of
physics.

But, yes, being expensive and useless, it could not really
be called practical.

John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 22:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
So that the cable does not need to be made of some impossibly
strong material, make it *shorter*. Then, the building is
perhaps dangling 100 feet below the asteroid counterweight,
and thus the whole is just a perfectly ordinary satellite in
synchronous orbit.
The only downside is that it would be a long commute.
You have a . . . unique definiton of "practical."
But then, you make up defintions of words all the time.
Well, it could be built, and it could stay up for an
extended period of time, without breaking the laws of
physics.
A 32 kilometer building? No, it couldn't. If if the entire thing
were in orbit, it wouldn't all be in the *same* orbit, and the
stresses of having different parts of the building in different
orbits would exceed the structural strenght of any material known
to man.
Post by Quadibloc
But, yes, being expensive and useless, it could not really
be called practical.
Or possible.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2017-04-03 22:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
So that the cable does not need to be made of some impossibly
strong material, make it *shorter*. Then, the building is
perhaps dangling 100 feet below the asteroid counterweight,
and thus the whole is just a perfectly ordinary satellite in
synchronous orbit.
The only downside is that it would be a long commute.
You have a . . . unique definiton of "practical."
But then, you make up defintions of words all the time.
Well, it could be built, and it could stay up for an
extended period of time, without breaking the laws of
physics.
A 32 kilometer building? No, it couldn't. If if the entire thing
were in orbit, it wouldn't all be in the *same* orbit, and the
stresses of having different parts of the building in different
orbits would exceed the structural strenght of any material known
to man.
Post by Quadibloc
But, yes, being expensive and useless, it could not really
be called practical.
Or possible.
But but but.... they SAID they'd use a 'high strength cable'. After all,
they want to hang the building on a 50,000 km rope.

[Seriously: This has all been explored to death in SF and by real engineers,
and we don't the ability to make such a cable. However, tethers up to 32 km
have already been deployed in space.]

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 22:37:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 6:16:19 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 12:24:21 PM UTC-6, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
So that the cable does not need to be made of some
impossibly strong material, make it *shorter*. Then, the
building is perhaps dangling 100 feet below the asteroid
counterweight, and thus the whole is just a perfectly
ordinary satellite in synchronous orbit.
The only downside is that it would be a long commute.
You have a . . . unique definiton of "practical."
But then, you make up defintions of words all the time.
Well, it could be built, and it could stay up for an
extended period of time, without breaking the laws of
physics.
A 32 kilometer building? No, it couldn't. If if the entire
thing were in orbit, it wouldn't all be in the *same* orbit,
and the stresses of having different parts of the building in
different orbits would exceed the structural strenght of any
material known to man.
But, yes, being expensive and useless, it could not really
be called practical.
Or possible.
But but but.... they SAID they'd use a 'high strength cable'.
After all, they want to hang the building on a 50,000 km rope.
And this snake oil will make you handsome, virile, grow all your
hair back, and cure your cancer! Without even opening the bottle!
All for the bargain price of $19.99! But wait! There's more! order
now and we'll throw in this vegetable slicer at NO ADDITIONAL
CHARGE!!!
[Seriously: This has all been explored to death in SF and by
real engineers, and we don't the ability to make such a cable.
However, tethers up to 32 km have already been deployed in
space.]
Yeah, but not in the form of buildings.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Greg Goss
2017-04-04 05:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
A 32 kilometer building? No, it couldn't. If if the entire thing
were in orbit, it wouldn't all be in the *same* orbit, and the
stresses of having different parts of the building in different
orbits would exceed the structural strenght of any material known
to man.
I'm skeptical of that claim. We're "almost" able to design a tapering
cable that can span tens of thousands of Km for a beanstalk. On that
scale, 32 Km is peanuts. The formula is at
http://astronomyonline.org/Science/TidalForces.asp but I didn't spend
the time digging up the numbers to plug into it.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Quadibloc
But, yes, being expensive and useless, it could not really
be called practical.
Or possible.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
J. Clarke
2017-04-04 09:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
A 32 kilometer building? No, it couldn't. If if the entire thing
were in orbit, it wouldn't all be in the *same* orbit, and the
stresses of having different parts of the building in different
orbits would exceed the structural strenght of any material known
to man.
I'm skeptical of that claim. We're "almost" able to design a tapering
cable that can span tens of thousands of Km for a beanstalk. On that
scale, 32 Km is peanuts. The formula is at
http://astronomyonline.org/Science/TidalForces.asp but I didn't spend
the time digging up the numbers to plug into it.
I believe GUCS is conflating Earth with a black hole.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-04 16:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
A 32 kilometer building? No, it couldn't. If if the entire thing
were in orbit, it wouldn't all be in the *same* orbit, and the
stresses of having different parts of the building in different
orbits would exceed the structural strenght of any material
known to man.
I'm skeptical of that claim. We're "almost" able to design a
tapering cable
Heh. For some values of "almost," I suppose, that still end up being
"impossible, and no even theoretically approach to do so."
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2017-04-04 17:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
A 32 kilometer building? No, it couldn't. If if the entire thing
were in orbit, it wouldn't all be in the *same* orbit, and the
stresses of having different parts of the building in different
orbits would exceed the structural strenght of any material
known to man.
I'm skeptical of that claim. We're "almost" able to design a
tapering cable
Heh. For some values of "almost," I suppose, that still end up being
"impossible, and no even theoretically approach to do so."
This is correct. However, with current materials, we could* build one on
the far side of the moon, to the L2 Lagrange point, or on the equator
of Mars. Maybe Musk would be interested.

* For values of 'could' which include near unlimited funds, labor,
and materials.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-04 18:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
A 32 kilometer building? No, it couldn't. If if the entire
thing were in orbit, it wouldn't all be in the *same* orbit,
and the stresses of having different parts of the building in
different orbits would exceed the structural strenght of any
material known to man.
I'm skeptical of that claim. We're "almost" able to design a
tapering cable
Heh. For some values of "almost," I suppose, that still end up
being "impossible, and no even theoretically approach to do
so."
This is correct. However, with current materials, we could*
build one on the far side of the moon, to the L2 Lagrange point,
or on the equator of Mars. Maybe Musk would be interested.
Lord knows, he's interested in every other pie in the sky fantasy.
(Best one is still his idea to build his own private subway tunnels
in California, to avoid traffic. I haven't laughed that hard in a
long time.)
Post by Peter Trei
* For values of 'could' which include near unlimited funds,
labor, and materials.
Whch is to say, "impossible."
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-02 20:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-03-31, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of
the interior space you need to devote to elevators (and
ventilation, for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on
the outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you
still need just as many of them.
The point here is that if the outervator cars are travelling on
tracks outside? the tracks can CROSS. Which elevator shafts
don't do unless you're Willy Wonka. So you don't need a separate
track from floors A to Q with stops at C, F, and H - you can
manage with, I think, two tracks, one going up and one down. And
ski-lift-like turnarounds at the ends.
So presto, all the inner volume needed for separate shafts goes AWAY.
Dave, choo choo!
That makes as much sense as anything else about this whole idea.
Which is to say, none.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Cryptoengineer
2017-04-03 01:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of the
interior space you need to devote to elevators (and ventilation,
for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and not
NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ... This
probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on the
outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you still
need just as many of them.
The point here is that if the outervator cars are travelling on tracks
outside? the tracks can CROSS. Which elevator shafts don't do unless
you're Willy Wonka. So you don't need a separate track from floors A
to Q with stops at C, F, and H - you can manage with, I think, two
tracks, one going up and one down. And ski-lift-like turnarounds at
the ends.
So presto, all the inner volume needed for separate shafts goes AWAY.
Dave, choo choo!
Except the 'designers' of this idiocy don't discuss, or appear to have
thought of, anything like this.

Imagine building a town along a 32 km long road - a single row of
buildings, no side streets. How practical would that actually be?

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-04-03 02:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cryptoengineer
On 2017-03-31, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
On 2017-03-29, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
... if it's in a 22K-mile-high orbit?
Doesn't matter if it's 22k miles high or at the bottom of the
ocean, the more floors you have, the greater the percentage of
the interior space you need to devote to elevators (and
ventilation, for that matter).
They can put airlocks on
the windows and tracks on the outside of the building, and
not NEED elevator shafts taking up room on the inside. ...
This probably h'ain't crossed their minds though.
Whether the elevators are in the center of the building or on
the outside edge, they're still part of the building, and you
still need just as many of them.
The point here is that if the outervator cars are travelling on
tracks outside? the tracks can CROSS. Which elevator shafts
don't do unless you're Willy Wonka. So you don't need a
separate track from floors A to Q with stops at C, F, and H -
you can manage with, I think, two tracks, one going up and one
down. And ski-lift-like turnarounds at the ends.
So presto, all the inner volume needed for separate shafts goes AWAY.
Dave, choo choo!
Except the 'designers' of this idiocy don't discuss, or appear
to have thought of, anything like this.
Imagine building a town along a 32 km long road - a single row
of buildings, no side streets. How practical would that actually
be?
Now imagine building that town out of paper mache, which is
approximately as suitable as any material known to man for this
snake oil.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gene Wirchenko
2017-04-03 07:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:56:33 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Cryptoengineer
Imagine building a town along a 32 km long road - a single row of
buildings, no side streets. How practical would that actually be?
I was in Lillooet, BC today. It is not that bad, but it is in
the Fraser canyon and is fairly stretched.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Kevrob
2017-04-03 09:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 20:56:33 -0500, Cryptoengineer
[snip]
Post by Cryptoengineer
Imagine building a town along a 32 km long road - a single row of
buildings, no side streets. How practical would that actually be?
I was in Lillooet, BC today. It is not that bad, but it is in
the Fraser canyon and is fairly stretched.
Are there driveways? Alleys? "No U-turn" signs?

Kevin R
Greg Goss
2017-03-29 03:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
In order to take 24 hours to orbit, it has to be in an orbit 22,000
miles or so high, equitorial or not. A 32 km tall building would
still be about 22,000 into outer space. An orbit 32 km high isn't
even outside the atmosphere.
The diagram shows it all hanging from its asteroid at 50,000 Km. They
switch their scaling from Km to meters halfway down the diagram hoping
you won't notice. So the actual orbit is somewhere outside what they
call the "Clarke belt" while the 32 Km building hangs on unobtanium
cables.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to aproximately
99.99% elevator.
But the biggest flaw is that it's just stupid.
I'm not challenging that conclusion.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-03-29 17:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
In order to take 24 hours to orbit, it has to be in an orbit
22,000 miles or so high, equitorial or not. A 32 km tall
building would still be about 22,000 into outer space. An orbit
32 km high isn't even outside the atmosphere.
The diagram shows it all hanging from its asteroid at 50,000 Km.
So it will actually take longer than 24 hours, meaning the lower
end of the building would be moving at hundreds of miles per hour?
Post by Greg Goss
They switch their scaling from Km to meters halfway down the
diagram hoping you won't notice. So the actual orbit is
somewhere outside what they call the "Clarke belt" while the 32
Km building hangs on unobtanium cables.
Yeah, it's actually, apparently, a space elevator in all respects,
except not anchored at the bottom. IIRC, that actually makes it
even *more* impossible, from an engineering standpoint.
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to
aproximately 99.99% elevator.
But the biggest flaw is that it's just stupid.
I'm not challenging that conclusion.
Once again, you manage to not be quite a stupid as you look.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Peter Trei
2017-03-29 17:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
In order to take 24 hours to orbit, it has to be in an orbit
22,000 miles or so high, equitorial or not. A 32 km tall
building would still be about 22,000 into outer space. An orbit
32 km high isn't even outside the atmosphere.
The diagram shows it all hanging from its asteroid at 50,000 Km.
So it will actually take longer than 24 hours, meaning the lower
end of the building would be moving at hundreds of miles per hour?
I don't recall numbers for the weight of the asteroid, building, and cable.
If they balance out so the center of mass of the system is at 35,786 km, the
complex will have a 24 hour orbit (actually, you have to adjust for the
stronger pull of gravity on the building, which is nearer Earth, as well).
Since it's not in equatorial orbit, but is in a 24 hour one, it will trace the
same analemma over the surface of the Earth each day (hence the name of the
building), and indeed, it will move *fast*. Their proposed analemma has it
moving between NYC and Quito twice a day.

Of course, this points out another flaw in the plans. The building is inside
the atmosphere, and will be subject to air friction. It will act as a drag,
slowing the system down. Its orbit will rapidly decay unless boosted.

The project is clearly successful as an attention-getter, but that's all.

pt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-03-29 18:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, March 29, 2017 at 1:04:52 PM UTC-4, Gutless
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Greg Goss
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
In order to take 24 hours to orbit, it has to be in an orbit
22,000 miles or so high, equitorial or not. A 32 km tall
building would still be about 22,000 into outer space. An
orbit 32 km high isn't even outside the atmosphere.
The diagram shows it all hanging from its asteroid at 50,000 Km.
So it will actually take longer than 24 hours, meaning the
lower end of the building would be moving at hundreds of miles
per hour?
I don't recall numbers for the weight of the asteroid, building,
and cable. If they balance out so the center of mass of the
system is at 35,786 km, the complex will have a 24 hour orbit
(actually, you have to adjust for the stronger pull of gravity
on the building, which is nearer Earth, as well). Since it's not
in equatorial orbit, but is in a 24 hour one, it will trace the
same analemma over the surface of the Earth each day (hence the
name of the building), and indeed, it will move *fast*. Their
proposed analemma has it moving between NYC and Quito twice a
day.
Of course, this points out another flaw in the plans. The
building is inside the atmosphere, and will be subject to air
friction. It will act as a drag, slowing the system down. Its
orbit will rapidly decay unless boosted.
The project is clearly successful as an attention-getter, but
that's all.
And sadly, when you are both narcisitic and stupid, there is no
such thing as bad attention on the internet.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David DeLaney
2017-03-31 03:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to aproximately
99.99% elevator.
There's a relevant xkcd, of course. Well, a what-if xkcd, anyway.

Dave, the proof is left to the reader
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Scott Lurndal
2017-03-31 13:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to aproximately
99.99% elevator.
There's a relevant xkcd, of course. Well, a what-if xkcd, anyway.
OTOH, the actual article (as opposed to the various news reports)
addresses the elevator issue, and a clever docking station in
columbia.
John F. Eldredge
2017-04-01 00:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to aproximately
99.99% elevator.
There's a relevant xkcd, of course. Well, a what-if xkcd, anyway.
OTOH, the actual article (as opposed to the various news reports)
addresses the elevator issue, and a clever docking station in
columbia.
Judging from the description, the building and skyhook will be in
continuous motion relative to the Earth, so you won't really have
a docking station in the sense of the building coming to a stop.
Instead, aircraft will have to dock with the moving building in
mid-air, a process usually considered too risky for nonmilitary
aircraft.
--
Scott Lurndal
2017-04-03 12:54:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John F. Eldredge
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to aproximately
99.99% elevator.
There's a relevant xkcd, of course. Well, a what-if xkcd, anyway.
OTOH, the actual article (as opposed to the various news reports)
addresses the elevator issue, and a clever docking station in
columbia.
Judging from the description, the building and skyhook will be in
continuous motion relative to the Earth, so you won't really have
a docking station in the sense of the building coming to a stop.
Instead, aircraft will have to dock with the moving building in
mid-air, a process usually considered too risky for nonmilitary
aircraft.
Not quite - scroll down <http://www.cloudsao.com/ANALEMMA-TOWER>
and you'll see the transfer station linkage.
Peter Trei
2017-04-03 13:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by John F. Eldredge
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Best I can figure, a 32 km tall building would have to aproximately
99.99% elevator.
There's a relevant xkcd, of course. Well, a what-if xkcd, anyway.
OTOH, the actual article (as opposed to the various news reports)
addresses the elevator issue, and a clever docking station in
columbia.
Judging from the description, the building and skyhook will be in
continuous motion relative to the Earth, so you won't really have
a docking station in the sense of the building coming to a stop.
Instead, aircraft will have to dock with the moving building in
mid-air, a process usually considered too risky for nonmilitary
aircraft.
Not quite - scroll down <http://www.cloudsao.com/ANALEMMA-TOWER>
and you'll see the transfer station linkage.
Be quite a trick to make that work when the building is swinging by at
half the speed of sound.

pt
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-03-28 23:35:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@bid.nes
A NY architectural firm has published its "speculative" plans for a
http://www.cloudsao.com/ANALEMMA-TOWER
They propose to build a tower 32 kilometers tall in Dubai, "which has
proven to be a specialist in tall building construction at one fifth the
cost of New York City construction", then hook it to an asteroid to be
captured and put into LEO....
Actually, apparently lot. The caption says, "Analemma inverts
the traditional diagram of an earth-based foundation, instead
depending on a space-based supporting foundation from which the
tower is suspended."

In other words, it appears they're going to *build* it in LEO,
once they've captured the anchoring asteroid.

Granted that Dubai is really into building tall towers (never
mind if they work properly or if they can fill it with occupants,
since last I heard Burj Khalifa is still mostly empty);

But how good are they at capturing asteroids? Do they HAVE any
kind of space program? Or do they intend to hire one?

/scrolls down

Okay, they intend to hire ESA.

If I were running the UAE, I'd work on getting my investmennt
back on Burj Khalifa before I tried building anything else.

Since these guys are, I assume, pious Muslims who don't drink,
I am left wondering what they are smoking.

Looks pretty, though. It could rank with Boullee's Cenotaph
design for Isaac Newton,

http://www.archdaily.com/544946/ad-classics-cenotaph-for-newton-etienne-louis-boullee

which never got built either.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

so that it goes into a sort of modified
Post by ***@bid.nes
geosynch orbit that looks like an analemma (peaking over NY and offshore
of Lima Peru), which is not coincidentally the name of the hypothetical
building.
32 km of tower, assembled on a temporary foundation by the lowest
bidder. That seems safe, right?
I see not a few issues with such a building (ignoring the challenges
of catching and orbiting the rock in the first place, assembling 32 km
of tower IN THE MIDDLE EAST and then attaching it to the asteroid AS IT
WHIZZES BY.
I'd like to see the atmospheric drag estimates, the predicted wind
loading in various (HURRICANE) weather conditions, the thermal expansion
and contraction effects on the altitude of the bottom end AS IT PASSES
OVER MOUNTAINS AND CITIES, and the required structural strength of the
building itself since it has to survive being yanked off its temporary
foundation when it's hooked up to the cable dangling from the passing
asteroid.
Oh, and they forgot the counterweight ABOVE the asteroid.
Haven't we established that you build these things from the asteroid
down, not from the ground up?
Damn architects who don't research prior art anyway.
Mark L. Fergerson
J. Clarke
2017-03-29 00:09:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by ***@bid.nes
A NY architectural firm has published its "speculative" plans for a
http://www.cloudsao.com/ANALEMMA-TOWER
They propose to build a tower 32 kilometers tall in Dubai, "which has
proven to be a specialist in tall building construction at one fifth the
cost of New York City construction", then hook it to an asteroid to be
captured and put into LEO....
Actually, apparently lot. The caption says, "Analemma inverts
the traditional diagram of an earth-based foundation, instead
depending on a space-based supporting foundation from which the
tower is suspended."
In other words, it appears they're going to *build* it in LEO,
once they've captured the anchoring asteroid.
Granted that Dubai is really into building tall towers (never
mind if they work properly or if they can fill it with occupants,
since last I heard Burj Khalifa is still mostly empty);
But how good are they at capturing asteroids? Do they HAVE any
kind of space program? Or do they intend to hire one?
/scrolls down
Okay, they intend to hire ESA.
If I were running the UAE, I'd work on getting my investmennt
back on Burj Khalifa before I tried building anything else.
Since these guys are, I assume, pious Muslims who don't drink,
I am left wondering what they are smoking.
Looks pretty, though. It could rank with Boullee's Cenotaph
design for Isaac Newton,
http://www.archdaily.com/544946/ad-classics-cenotaph-for-newton-etienne-louis-boullee
which never got built either.
They're rich third-worlders--money's something
to spend, not something to invest.
Robert Carnegie
2017-03-29 00:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Star Wars book I'm currently reading features
a passage on distinctive buildings on the planet
Coruscant, including the Aquala Tower made of
water and the levitated headquarters of Kiskar
Repulsorlifts. Google Books will show you their
full description.

They do not appear to have anything to do with
the story, or with any other story, but a regular
feature of Star Wars tales is gosh-wow scenery.
And either or both of them may be dropped on
Darth Vader at the end if he shows up. The book
is set between Episode Three and Four so he'll
survive, but water in his ear (or his helmet)
may contribute to the climax of Four.
"I have you now. ...Agh! Again? Still?
This is the /worst/..."
Greg Goss
2017-03-29 03:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@bid.nes
Oh, and they forgot the counterweight ABOVE the asteroid.
Haven't we established that you build these things from the asteroid down, not from the ground up?
Damn architects who don't research prior art anyway.
The asteroid IS the counterweight. Notice that they place the rock
well above the "Clarke belt."

But yeah, they're handwaving the cables that hang the building from
the rock. And I don't see what any of this has to do with Dubai.

The diagram seems to show the tower having eight discrete segments.
Are they proposing to build four-Km towers, then lift these as the
tower swings by on its daily perigrination? Wouldn't it make more
sense to bring your Dubai engineers to Quito or something, so at least
the tower would stand still while you tried to bolt it to the
supporting cables. (rather, I mean, the cables would stand still.)
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David DeLaney
2017-03-31 03:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@bid.nes
32 km of tower, assembled on a temporary foundation by the lowest bidder.
That seems safe, right?
Well, once you've got it skyhooked you don't have to WORRY about the foundation
any more, right? (Just about constructing a building which will ALSO work fine
when the stresses and strains change to 'hanging down from the roof' from
'standing up on the ground' - that should be easy, right?)
Post by ***@bid.nes
I see not a few issues with such a building (ignoring the challenges of
catching and orbiting the rock in the first place, assembling 32 km of tower
IN THE MIDDLE EAST and then attaching it to the asteroid AS IT WHIZZES BY.
I can see no way this could possibly go wrong! -- (tm) J. Nicoll

Dave, he'll have to be tuckerized into it somewhere of course
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Greg Goss
2017-03-31 13:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by ***@bid.nes
32 km of tower, assembled on a temporary foundation by the lowest bidder.
That seems safe, right?
Well, once you've got it skyhooked you don't have to WORRY about the foundation
any more, right? (Just about constructing a building which will ALSO work fine
when the stresses and strains change to 'hanging down from the roof' from
'standing up on the ground' - that should be easy, right?)
Well, if you generalize from 12 floors to 4 Km chunks of a 32 Km tower
...

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Qube_(Vancouver)>
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Loading...