I bet the core planets didn't have anything as shiny as this! by Khyron

I'll be impressed when whole cities built into one massive skyscraper.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:06 AM

People are saying this money could be used to house the poor, but doesn't an old cardboard box do nicely? Are you saying the rich should spend their money on buying the poor a two story cardboard box?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 9:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
People are saying this money could be used to house the poor, but doesn't an old cardboard box do nicely? Are you saying the rich should spend their money on buying the poor a two story cardboard box?

No, I'm saying I'll be impressed when they build the entire business, living, recreation and infrastructure space of a city into a giant skyscraper in the middle of rainforests, with high-speed underground transport links across the Earth.

If the homeless get two story convenient living of corrugated formed structural paper construction, more power to them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:18 AM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'll be impressed when whole cities built into one massive skyscraper.

You mean like this?

http://vincent.callebaut.org/page1-img-lilypad.html

Okay, you said skyscraper, and this isn't a skyscraper, but still, and entire city in a man-made, err, bowl, of some sort. But it'll probably be some time before we get there.

By the way, I think Rallem was referring to the post by ShinyGoodGuy.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:19 AM

SPACEANJL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No, I'm saying I'll be impressed when they build the entire business, living, recreation and infrastructure space of a city into a giant skyscraper in the middle of rainforests, with high-speed underground transport links across the Earth.

Yeah, like I said, arcologies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:29 AM

KHYRON

This is probably closer to what Citizen had in mind (although I think this particular example is infeasible - interesting idea, though):

http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2008/05/two-mile-high-u.html

I agree, SpaceAnJL, arcology is definitely something anybody interested in this kind of stuff should keep in mind.

------------------------------

This isn't my signature. I have to type this every time I make a post.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAnJL:
Yeah, like I said, arcologies.

It's a dumb name, everyone living there would have to be an arcologist.

Also Khyron's thing was what I had in mind.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:46 AM

Why not build 64 mile high towers that could launch and reload space craft from the top levels and have the entire city live in it? Sure maybe the base would have to be 64 square miles to support it but wouldn't these single building cities leave a smaller footprint on the planet allowing more area to go towards farming and other activities like that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
Why not build 64 mile high towers that could launch and reload space craft from the top levels and have the entire city live in it? Sure maybe the base would have to be 64 square miles to support it but wouldn't these single building cities leave a smaller footprint on the planet allowing more area to go towards farming and other activities like that?

Because there is no material capable of supporting such a structure that we can currently of conceivably create.

Material loads don't scale linearly, you get to a point where the loads rise to high for the material. I used to think orbital tethers were a brilliant idea, until I realised that not only was the toughest steel hundreds of times too weak to support it, but it would take more than we've got too...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
Why not build 64 mile high towers that could launch and reload space craft from the top levels and have the entire city live in it? Sure maybe the base would have to be 64 square miles to support it but wouldn't these single building cities leave a smaller footprint on the planet allowing more area to go towards farming and other activities like that?
Because there is no material capable of supporting such a structure that we can currently of conceivably create.

Material loads don't scale linearly, you get to a point where the loads rise to high for the material. I used to think orbital tethers were a brilliant idea, until I realised that not only was the toughest steel hundreds of times too weak to support it, but it would take more than we've got too...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
]

I am not saying that some techonlogy in both materials and engineering won't be needed to be upgraded, but wasn't this the argument people used to fight against the idea of our current sky scrapers?

http://swyzzlestyx.com/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
I am not saying that some techonlogy in both materials and engineering won't be needed to be upgraded, but wasn't this the argument people used to fight against the idea of our current sky scrapers?

Not really. Current sky scrapers weren't possible while people were building with brick, but then someone had the bright idea of using steel, and buildings started getting taller.

Though even if that was the case, it's a level of degrees. Is there enough resources on the planet to build a structure of that size? Enough money in our economies? Would even carbon nano-tubes be strong enough? What would happen too the ground?

There's lots of engineering problems that are simply not saleable, no matter how good your engineering knowledge or materials. These are the hard limits. Skyscrapers were a soft limit.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:41 PM

I don't think any material around today besides maybe a variation of Carbon Fiber would be strong enough for the job, and I think enough carbon fiber could be made. With that said though, I think that when we are discussing the idea of building objects of this size on our planet, we might be considering the mining of the asteroid belt for additional materials which would be made easier if we had buildings of this size to assist in the transport of the extra-terrestrial material. Not only would the construction of these buildings be a boom to our economy, but the mining of the asteroid belt would too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 12:54 PM

I think it would be rather more economical to use smarter lift vehicles over the brute force rockets currently used for LEO insertion. Then permanent space stations and Orbit to Orbit craft for the rest of the journey.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:00 PM

These large buildings could take care of more problems than just space travel like reducing a city's footprint on the planet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:15 PM

A 64 mile high building is very likely structurally impossible, and unnecessarily large. A two mile high structure can house the population of a modern city. 64 Miles across the base isn't exactly small either.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 1:40 PM

a 64 square mile base would be 8 miles x 8 miles which is smaller than just about any city. Whether or not it is possible to build a building 64 miles high is not really for you or me to say, but I will agree that with today's technology in materials and engineering it probably is impossible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:07 PM

TRAVELER

The foundation required to construct a 64 mile high building would be colossal. Examine the construction of the buildings we have today and start multiplying. You would probably have to use more material to create the foundation to hold such a structure than in the main building. And if you are thinking carbon fiber the cost would be staggering.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 2:23 PM

There is no doubt the cost for a building of this size would be staggering, and as more of these building were made and their cost reduced it probably would still be staggering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 26, 2008 3:43 PM

FREELANCERTEX

why not just fuckin colonize space?

*walks out*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 27, 2008 1:33 AM