It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Analemma Tower

page: 2
13
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 02:26 PM
Small question:
Where does the poop go?

I admit that I did not read the article because I am at work.

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 02:29 PM
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

that´s not correct.
First they say it´s going to do a trip around the world in 24h. While it is correct, that you are traveling at around 1,670 km/h on the equator, you have to add up that speed relative to the earths movement. So while you´re moving at roughly 1000 mph at the equator, relative to the core, to make a trip around the earth surface (parallel to the equator) you need to achieve an orbit that travels 1000mph faster than the surface on the equator does, if you move with the rotation.

This is evident by the higher orbit. The faster you go, the higher you orbit. Orbital mechanics can be non intuitive..
edit on 30-3-2017 by verschickter because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 02:39 PM

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

This is evident by the higher orbit. The faster you go, the higher you orbit. Orbital mechanics can be non intuitive..

Hmmm....True. However, at what height is wind resistance no longer an issue relative to the speed the thing needs to orbit.

Then again, is the atmosphere at the higher elevations also moving faster as the Earth rotates? If so, then say their might be some point say 40 miles up at which the building needs to rotate at "X" mph. Does the atmosphere at that altitude also move around the planet at "X" mph? If not, does the difference in speed matter considering that the atmosphere is extremely thin at 40 miles up, and there would be little wind resistance.

I don't know enough to know the answers offhand without doing some research, but it seems to me that the "relative speed the building needs to move" versus "the speed the atmosphere moves at certain altitudes" versus "the effect of wind resistance" would be what needs to be figured out.

Obviously, at 200 miles up, a person can move at least 17,000 mph relative to the ground, considering the space station is doing that as we speak.

A geosynchronous satellite makes a (approx.) 157,000 mile circumference orbit (25,000 miles * 2 * Pi) in 24 hours time -- which means it is moving at a little more the 6500 mph, but does so with virtually no atmospheric resistance.

edit on 30/3/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:09 PM
And today on the six o'clock news . . . yet another crop duster was destroyed when hit by the moving groundscraper floating across the landscape.

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:10 PM
Engineers have been talking about space elevators for some time and that only connects to a satellite it seems a bit overambitious to be trying to connect to an asteroid.
We haven't even been able to make carbon nano tubes in abundance yet to even get space elevators off the ground.

If you really want to dig into the nitty gritty space elevators Isac Arthur has a great video on it. I could not recomend his channel enough.

edit on 30-3-2017 by SolAquarius because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:20 PM
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Since these things are projected fairly above the ground, the atmospheric density/resistance should be the same as on ground, a bit less. For the cables however, that´s another thing.

Then again, is the atmosphere at the higher elevations also moving faster as the Earth rotates?

You confuse something I´m afraid. The jet stream does about 650km/h, relative to the earths surface. That would be the fastest you get naturally. Orbital mechanics are something completely different:
en.wikipedia.org...
What I want to say is, that building would make 1000mph relative to earths surface, if it´s taking 24h for a trip around. It is tethered to the asteroid, that is making a couple thousand mph probably. The faster you climb up the rope, the faster you get relative to earth. The asteroid is not affected by the atmosphere but it will loose speed and thus altitude over time anyways and fall to earth. Since the asteroid only can use the momentum it has (that we even reduce by steering it into a closer orbit and using the building as a airbrake) you can´t correct it, like satelites need to do sometimes.

There is drag, even in higher altitudes that slows you down and making you loose altitude. way up, if you reach the exosphere, that is also called the edge of space.
en.wikipedia.org...

overall, this is a very stupid idea, from any point of view I can come up with, except comedy.

edit on 30-3-2017 by verschickter because: added some sentences because I thought as it was, it was very confusing

edit on 30-3-2017 by verschickter because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:23 PM
nvm
edit on 30-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:41 PM
You wouldn't need an asteroid. Buckminster (the guy who had ideas about geodesic homes and domed cities) proposed the idea that you could build an entire floating city around a tetrahedral lattice - a tensegrity sphere. If you've seen those animals made from party balloons, it's the same idea. Create a spherical framework from tetrahedrons - the cylinders that form the segments can then be filled with helium or warm air simply through heating by sunlight. Create a large enough framework (2 miles across), and the volume/area ratio becomes identical to that of a party balloon, even though it is made from steel. Then you can add the human habitation.

en.wikipedia.org...(tensegrity_sphere)

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 03:45 PM
Isn´t that a geodesic sphere, meaning the warm air is inside the sphere, not in the outer shells framework?

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 04:00 PM

Nice, interesting post. I think this was probably more of a theoretical project more than a real plan; there's just too many obstacles beyond the purely practical problems of hanging a building from an asteroid. It's posts like this that lead to inspiration. Thanks again.

posted on Mar, 30 2017 @ 04:52 PM
You know that April 1 is very soon. They are just releasing this a bit early for more effect.

FOOLS!

posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 07:04 PM
call me inimaginative or what else but thats probaly the stupidest idea i have ever heard, i dont know why they even considered it(seriously it would be more pratical to build a irl death star)

posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:38 PM
Nobody has mentioned the most fundamental flaw of all: that name!

Come on, if Uranus still makes people smirk then what the heck will they do with Analemma?

posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 10:03 AM

originally posted by: Rob48
Nobody has mentioned the most fundamental flaw of all: that name!

Come on, if Uranus still makes people smirk then what the heck will they do with Analemma?

I knew a girl named Emma who...

...Wait. On second thought, I'll just stop right there before I get slapped down by a moderator.

edit on 10/4/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 02:39 PM

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

I knew a girl named Emma who...

Who did what?

Come on don't leave us hanging?

I bet you were going to tell us you knew a girl named Emma who volunteered to help out at assisted living homes and gave the rest of her time too rescuing and helping animals at the local animal shelter.

And even though she had a big heart for animals and old folks she still hated having to take care of the "blank" glands on dogs even though it was part of what she had to learn to become the future veterinarian who would devote all of her time to saving animals and old people.

top topics

13