SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Designers Ostap Rudakevych and Masayuki Sono have unveiled a design for a skyscraper that would hang from an orbiting asteroid:
Clouds Architecture Office has unveiled plans for a futuristic skyscraper dubbed the "Analemma Tower." The building would hover majestically above the ground because it would be attached -- wait for it -- to an actual asteroid, in space, that is forcibly put into orbit around the earth.
If that's not enough to digest, consider that your exact address in this pendulous pad could be anywhere on Earth. The tower will be suspended via high-strength cabling from an asteroid and placed in "eccentric geosynchronous orbit". In other words, it would be always moving -- residents and visitors would take a daily journey between the northern and southern hemispheres with a prolonged visit over a main "home" point like New York City or Dubai (it's always New York City or Dubai, isn't it?)
[...] Analemma Tower's designer Ostap Rudakevych told CNN that the tower could be made of durable and lightweight materials such as carbon fiber and aluminum. Advances in cable engineering would be needed to achieve the cable strength required to support the structure. Power would come from space based solar panels that have a constant exposure to sunlight. Water for the tower will be captured from clouds and rainwater and maintained in a semi-closed loop system.
As proposed the top of the tower sits at 32,000m and would be expected to reach speeds of 300mph as it travels through the sky.
Elysium 1.0?
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:52PM (4 children)
If by 'building' the cable you mean the manufacturing, no. If you mean the energy used to put it into place, mostly.
As lifting a bowling ball off the floor and dropping it, potential energy is stored and then turned back into kinetic energy. This ludicrous contraption is a bit more complex but that is essentially the idea.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday March 30 2017, @10:05PM (3 children)
Apologies, my wrong choice of words there.
Though... it's not entirely false - as the cable burns (as in "combines with oxygen") due to the heat of atmospheric friction/impact, there will be some extra energy on top of the gravitational potential. But yeah, not the entire energy that went into the manufacturing it.
The interesting point here is: "to manufacture and lift the cable cannot be lower than the gravitational potential. Given that you can calculate this potential energy, establish the minimal energy necessary to have the cable in place. Then express this energy in total energy consumption of the world/year" terms. It would be interesting to see this comparison, it sorta give an idea of the minimal cost to run this project.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Friday March 31 2017, @02:00PM (2 children)
I'm not sure why you would express this energy in 'world/year' term. There may be energy used to maintain the stability of the system (which is much more than the cable) over time, but as far as the initial energy required to put the system in place, that is it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday March 31 2017, @06:46PM (1 child)
Because it gives an idea about the cost of building/raising the cable in terms similar to "libraries of Congress", "surface of Texas" or "Olympic swimming pools".
Or how many years worth of world energy one needs to sacrifice to build a skyscraper hooked to the sky.
Or how many years worth of world energy this would release over a day of falling back to Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Sunday April 02 2017, @04:24AM
I do not tend to think in those terms myself because I do not see it as a constant, but I suppose it may provide an intuitive frame of reference.