I fucking hate normies.

>I hate this, here, let me link you so you can hate it too

>>8788117
space elevators are feasible if we can finally get graphene out of the lab, that picture is retarded though, what's the thing tethered to? the air?

>>8788117
>normies
>>>/r9k/
>>8788181
>>>/b/

Also that sounds like a dumb idea that would kill a lot of people should something bad happen.

>>8788178
>space elevators are feasible

Not on Earth they aren't. That shit is magic hand-waving bullshit. Graphene is just a popsci fictional material outside of a few non-electronic applications.

>>8788178
They want to float the damn thing in new york from geostationary. Space elevators do not work that way

Graphene is a meme, carbon nanotubes are what you would use to build a space elevator

The amount of shit that could wrong is hysterical.

>>8788202
>Also that sounds like a dumb idea that would kill a lot of people should something bad happen.
You mean if someone flew a space ship into it?

>>8788318
It's a skyscraper hanging from an asteroid, I mean if fucking anything.

>>8788271
>They want to float the damn thing in new york from geostationary. Space elevators do not work that way

Then building one is going to be a bit tricky, innit? Has to pass through that stage at some point.

Counterweight better be up beyondgeostationary though.

And then it hits me... Over New York?!? The fuck?

>>8788395
..and that made me read the article, and then my head asplode.

Brainlet checking in -- assume an orbit that passes north and south, going far enough north to reach New York so they can take that picture.

How fast is the building moving over the ground in a North-South direction as it passes the equator?

Disregard all the reasons you know this is nonsense, I'm just after how fast the building is.

>>8788178
Graphene already exists. I think you mean carbon tubes

>>8788178
If a material was so strong that you could make a space elevator from it then you could use that same material to make vacuum airships.

>>8788457
Well you don't know that, maybe the material would be very easy to manufacture in strings but not in rigid shell shapes.

>>8788405
>I'm just after how fast the building is.
if it were truly anchored to a geostationary asteroid then it would be totally stationary

>>8789031
The article describes it tracing a figure eight over the ground, so I am assuming they mean it is in a 24 hour orbit not in the plane of the equator so that it passes over New York for the picture.

Sorry if that was not clear to you.

>>8789060
the article is a piece of shit filled with many gross errors and you have to have cousins as parents to even consider it seriously.

sorry if that wasnt clear to you

(hehe)
(sorry i won over you too)

>>8789078
If you don't know how to find the answer, that's OK, just say so. I don't either.

Again, in case reading comprehension is really this hard for you, this is disregarding all the other reasons this is nonsense, I'm just curious about the speed-over-ground of the described orbit. I asked about "as it crosses the equator" on the assumption that's the fastest it will be going but Hell I might be wrong about that as well -- I am not conversant with orbital calculations, and am not assuming common-sense intuition is going to provide meaningful insight.

>>8788457
this doesn't follow, at all.

>>8789096
There is no answer, it all depends on the orbit of the asteroid, and they don't specify that. It can be from completely stationary (geostationary orbit), to many miles a second.

>>8788155
So much this. People who do this are the ultimate form of cancer on the internet.

>>8788210
>he fell for the "graphene is a meme" meme
> non-electronic

Stop lurking and go learn something for once.

File: geosynchronous1.png (29KB, 350x218px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 350x218px

>>8788405
Asteroid passes passes over NY every 24hrs, so we're looking at an inclined geosynchronous orbit (slightly different from geostationary, which constantly 'hovers' above a single point but is limited to orbits around the equator only)

Now if you're happy dipping in and out of the earth's atmosphere every 24 hours, we can utilise elliptical orbits and get the ground trace speed to virtually zero (consider Kepler's law at the apogee of a crazy elliptical orbit)

If not, you're restrained to strictly circular orbits. In ballpark terms, moving from 40deg to -40deg latitude and back takes you ~44% of the earth's circumference. So we're looking at a ground path of about 17 600km, but we'll boost it up to 20 000km to allow for the non-direct figure-eight pattern.

Over 24hrs, the average speed is 833km/hr or 230m/s. I'm not sure how much slower the lobe tips are from the average speed, but we can use 230m/s as an upper bound on our speed.

My best guess would be around 150m/s (540km/h) ground speed, so you'd probably need a plane and millisecond timing accuracy to even get to the lobby

???
It's going to slowly (or maybe not so slowly) pull the asteroid out of orbit if it's just positiobed at GTO. And that is assuming the cable can handle the weight.
And why is the lower supposed to oscillate in an 8-shape across the globe?

>>8788117
>>Firm Floats Plan to Hang Colossal Skyscraper From an Asteroid
>>Over NYC
What could go wrong?

File: Screenshot_20170330-082608.png (156KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1440x2560px

>>8788155
Here's your

>>8788155

>(you)

This is 4chan. This is what we do all the time every day across every board.

>>8788117
I can't wait to take my self-driving thorium car that lasts 100 years across the solar roadway to the hyperloop station to visit this. I'll sip from my water bottle that fills itself, sniff some powdered alcohol and say to myself "I fucking love science".

>>8790125
24 hour orbit, canted from the equator such that the extreme north position allows it to pass over New York.

Not specified in the article, but specified in the question.

>>8790217
>you're restrained to strictly circular orbits.

For a hovering sky scraper, I'd think that you don;t want much eccentricity.

>>8790217
Thank you -- that's very rough ballpark what I suspected -- that it moves WAY to fast to be practical, even if all other considerations were not going to rule it out.

>>8790432
I think you have to assume that the center of mass is at GTO rather then the anchor.

>And why is the lower supposed to oscillate in an 8-shape across the globe?

The other option is to have it sit over one spot on the equator, which means you don't get the nifty concept art of it hovering over New York and have to settle for the skyline of Qito.

File: capt32.jpg (29KB, 340x370px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 340x370px

>>8790795

>>8790876
so it really is just a space elevator except it doesn't have an elevating mechanism and some hotels along the way

File: this guy gets it archer.jpg (204KB, 628x434px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 628x434px

>>8790989
It's a space elevator that does not attach to the ground, but wanders around at a couple of hundred kilometers per hour, thus sacrificing the thing that would make a space elevator economically sound, if it could be made at all given the technological limitations.

Way to think it through, guys at Clouds Architecture Office in New York.

I got no beef with the architect firm that threw this nonsense together for some free publicity.

How the fuck does NBC's science desk let this get reported as anything other than foolishness, though? The state of science reporting is a disaster in the making.

File: 4 (8).jpg (197KB, 852x3018px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 852x3018px

B E H O L D

I'm not sure I get it. It's hard to tell what's the original proposal and what's being misreported via the telephone effect.

The asteroid is at, about, a geosynchronous orbit, 26,000 miles or so above the surface of the earth. The tower is to be 20 miles long, according to the source I saw, so 25,980 miles up. Plus, presumeably, a counterweight on the other side. So what's with all the graphics showing the tower just above, or connected to, the earth?

>>8791264
>The tower is to be 20 miles long, according to the source I saw, so 25,980 miles up.

Well that's just stupid then. On top of everything else, the "tower" is as hard to reach as the asteroid, why build a 20 mile long dangly space station? Build a fucking wheel.

File: delme.jpg (55KB, 625x314px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x314px

>>8791264
>It's hard to tell what's the original proposal and what's being misreported via the telephone effect.

> ...what's with all the graphics showing the tower just above, or connected to, the earth?

Pic related.

Somewhat less credulous article, for those who just want to keep reading about this.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2017/0329/A-20-mile-long-spacescraper-dangling-from-an-asteroid-Could-it-work

File: analemma_XFER-left-GIF.gif (316KB, 1098x400px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 1098x400px

Transfer Station: Linkage to allow transfer of people and goods between surface and orbiting tower

So this makes more sense now...

>>8791264
http://www.cloudsao.com/ANALEMMA-TOWER

On their site, they seem careful never to mention numbers. But their renderings clearly show the lower end of the tower very fucking close to the Earth.

>>8791626
Sounds too damn risky, what if falls and hits earth? It'd be a god damn disaster.

File: flying skyscraper wat.jpg (43KB, 596x623px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 596x623px

>>8791193

File: flying skyscraper more wat.jpg (34KB, 740x563px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 740x563px

>>8791639
Umm.... Guys... Guys!

>>8791647
The sky isn't falling, calm down

>>8788457
>tension strength = compression strength

No. A hollow shell needs to brace against itself to prevent collapse. There's a reason a steel canister can take hundreds or even thousands of PSI of internal pressure but crumples if you pull a vacuum inside it.

However, using graphene as a building material for constructing rockets would work, because rockets internally pressurize their fuel tanks, which would keep the graphene under tension and thus very strong. The weight savings plus the ability to press the tanks to a higher degree would make the rocket much more efficient and effective, being able to force more fuel into the turbopumps for the engines, as well as having a much lower dry mass.

>>8790217
You're getting there, but it moves over that path with a sinusoidal function. The velocity of an object moving in harmonic motion is v=2πf(sqrt(A^2 + x^2). The frequency is 1rev/24hr, the amplitude is half of 17600, and the x would be 0, since the fastest point would be as it is crossing the equator. That gives a passing-over-the-equator speed of 2300 km/hr, or around mach 2.

Looking at it's path, there is mostly ocean until south america, and there it passes through mostly parks and less populated areas. I'm nost sure that Bogota would appreciate the absolutely mammoth sonic booms originating from this tropos to stratos gigantic american dick swinging through their airspace at mach 2...

I changed my mind, I love it

>>8788117
This doesn't even sound cool on paper.
It's just fucking retarded.

>>8788117
Several years ago my friend said he wanted to hang his house from the moon. Like hang it so that it was ~300ft above the tallest obstacle along the orbit on Earth's surface.

Was a much more interesting than from an asteroid

>>8793384
Also because the building is passing through different densities of air at different distances from the observer, it would likely be a complex chain of booms that possible start as a sharp rip, then turns into a rumble that fades and slows over time.