Hanging Skyscrapers

[Shpaget]

Another bonkers concept is unleashed upon us. You thought that space elevators were hard enough? Well, you haven't seen anything yet!

Take a look at a skyscraper that hangs from an asteroid placed in a geosynchronous orbit (not geostationary, mind you), so it travels around the world and always comes back to the same spot, in this case New York, because why not New York?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/29/living/analemma-tower-orbiting-skyscraper-trnd/

Even Popular Mechanics author (while not entirely optimistic) hasn't bothered to research what this abomination would take for more than 30 seconds.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a25853/clouds-architecture-asteroid-skyscraper/

Then look at the comments here, if you're brave enough.

http://www.unilad.co.uk/best/plans-unveiled-for-incredible-skyscraper-that-hangs-from-an-asteroid/

 

Come on journalists!! Do some basic research before you print rubbish!

 

[Majorjim!]

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

Then look at the comments here, if you're brave enough.

I just did... Oh dear.

 Having said that, a few comments are less.. moronic.

[p1t1o]

Ok, but will it have an air-dock for my flying submarine?

[kerbiloid]

52 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Ok, but will it have an air-dock for my flying submarine?

Of course, in the dungeon.

P.S.
Where are its sewers? Should they collect or pour down like from Avatar flying rocks?

Edited March 30, 2017 by kerbiloid

[WestAir]

I've got a feeling that the science behind this might drag this concept to the ground.

[1of6Billion]

What day is next saturday again?

[sevenperforce]

The stupid, the stupid, it burns, it burns.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, WestAir said:

I've got a feeling that the science behind this might drag this concept to the ground.

Theoretical is possible. 
In practice you have to make an space elevator capable of lifting tens of thousands tons just to have an building floating.
Unlike an space elevator it have no practical purpose but is pretty useless and very unpractical. 

I have problems coming up with an more stupid idea. 
 

[YNM]

I thought this was about that bonkers inverted U-shaped building with only one structural connection to the ground !

 

In any way, it's better to assume that making buildings that goes to space isn't that great an idea. ISS is the largest "building" so far we've sent up there, and I question our ability to even loft that in one go.

[Mikki]

There exist way dumber methods to pleasure billionairs... but funding such projects seems to be a way of proper punishment for the former robbery.

[Slam_Jones]

The rest of the numerous issues aside, assuming they were able to put it into a geostationary orbit instead, would that help with atmospheric drag?  Or is it still just as susceptible to orbital decay?

[GDJ]

1 minute ago, Slam_Jones said:

The rest of the numerous issues aside, assuming they were able to put it into a geostationary orbit instead, would that help with atmospheric drag?  Or is it still just as susceptible to orbital decay?

I would say yes to orbital decay due to gravitational tidal forces between the geosynchronous or geostationary asteroid "base" and the part of the living structure that is in the atmosphere close to the Earth's surface.

Edited March 30, 2017 by GDJ

[sevenperforce]

Geostationary orbit would remove atmospheric drag. Since it would be tidally locked, I'm not sure that orbital decay would come into play.

[p1t1o]

Geostationary would only work in an equatorial orbit, otherwise it is going to be swooshing through the air at a fair rate of knots and will come down quite rapidly.

Even in a geostationary, equatorial orbit it will be susceptible to winds, which would eventually perturb it enough to drag it down. Unless you anchored it to the ground, and then you've got a standard space elevator, with all the usual caveats of that.

I've got to imagine that with the geosynchronous version, there is significant drag as it dips in and out of the atmosphere each day as well. And I dont wanna be the engineer that has to come up with a method of re-boosting the danged thing.

[Raven Industries]

I think this is the sort of thing engineers have nightmares about.

[Shpaget]

4 minutes ago, KerbalSaver said:

I think this is the sort of thing engineers have nightmares about.

I don't think so. Any engineer worth his salt would just file the proposal in the drawer marked "Shredder".

[Ultimate Steve]

An April Fools joke two days early?

[cratercracker]

This very bad moment when you forgot about that there is a thing called "Atmospheric Drag".

[Hay]

RIP my eyes

[p1t1o]

Well it makes a lot more sense if you parse "Plans unveiled for...." as "Artist unveils...."

..."Plans"... sheesh

[jofwu]

Ugh! Saw this reported in two places and it made me scream. I mean, it makes for some fun sci-fi, but seriously... What a ridiculous publicity stunt.

[Zeiss Ikon]

There's also the little issue that the non-equatorial, super-GEO orbit of the asteroid would drag the suspension cables through the usual parking area for comsats.  How to bring down everyone's television before you even finish construction...

[Camacha]

11 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

The stupid, the stupid, it burns, it burns.

It is obviously an April Fools' Day joke. Typically, companies have a press release about something crazy somewhere in the two weeks leading up to the day, though generally it is fairly close to it. Then on the day itself the big reveal comes that it was all a joke.

[sevenperforce]

13 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

There's also the little issue that the non-equatorial, super-GEO orbit of the asteroid would drag the suspension cables through the usual parking area for comsats.  How to bring down everyone's television before you even finish construction...

As proposed, it's a sub-GEO orbit.

[insert_name]

On 3/30/2017 at 6:33 AM, magnemoe said:

Theoretical is possible. 
In practice you have to make an space elevator capable of lifting tens of thousands tons just to have an building floating.
Unlike an space elevator it have no practical purpose but is pretty useless and very unpractical. 

I have problems coming up with an more stupid idea. 
 

No, the planned orbit doesn't have a focus at earths center of mass