How tall would the tallest man-made structure be? What would it be made from? Steel? Titanium? Wood...

How tall would the tallest man-made structure be? What would it be made from? Steel? Titanium? Wood? How would it be constructed? Men? Robots?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Neill_cylinder
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Like a theoretical structure?
I guess a Dyson sphere, probably would be constructed by robots of some sort.

>Dyson sphere
not around earth
not around the sun
not around the solar system
not around the galaxies supermassive black hole
but around the entire universe

Why doesn't USA have the tallest building in the world anymore? Oh yeah, they're all retarded fucks who reject math and science while complaining about white genocide and fluidity.

The cost is of a skyscraper goes up exponentially after the 50th or so story.

We're all about money here in murrica.

We can make more off 3 smaller buildings with the same total square foot than 1 big one.

>implying your can build faster than the speed of light.

once its wide enough to withstand the maximum windspeeds recorded/inflated for climate change, theres no real limit to its size because after a certain point weight stops being a problem as it leaves the atmosphere.

This would collapse in on it's own gravity long before it could become even remotely possible (which it can't) not enough matter.

>We're all about money here in murrica.
True, not about honor or achievements or showoff etc anymore. Only asia and maybe ru care about that nowadays. Thanks jews

naw, if we speak man-made structures, I'd say a dyson swarm.
Ofc this would just be billions, if not trillions of city-sized satellite habitats.
If we speak about structurally connected constructions, A ringworld comes to mind, but the high orbital velocity it would need to spin on, to generate 1g of centrifugal force, makes this improbable.

I guess the most reasonable construction would be just 2 rows of rings, orbiting at zero g, with tube-shaped, rotating habitats in between, forming something like a "ring-ladder-world", if you imagine it.
There is an actual name for such a structure, but it currently escapes me.

>they're retarded and reject science
>only nation in history to land on the moon or even come close

umad

He was talking about USA, not russia.

well a space elevator would have to reach beyond geostationary orbit (which is 22,236 miles above sea level) with its counterweight
and right now, we have no material capable of withstanding the tension it would require, so until we invent it, no one knows

because having the tallest building has long ceased to be an actual achievement.
If anything, it's comparable to people posting their gaming profiles, to establish who has the biggest e-peen.

tall builds do not necessarily represent the top notch in industrial capacity, and given that the U.S. has long ceased to persue prestige objects in a isolationistic manner, international efforts to send rovers / people to mars and other celestial bodies, are currently the state of the art of human technology.

Ofc, it's not completely devoid of an ironic spin of history, that our first habitats on other planets might be constructed in actual caves (volcanic tunnels on the moon / mars), following the footsteps of our oldest ancestors.

surely we could just increase its footprint though, assuming amount of material wasnt a problem.

>they're retarded and reject science
>only nation in history to land on the moon or even come close

the american never ceases to look ignorant

the architecture world has pivoted from tall buildings to unlikely shaped buildings/over hanging parts etc. Thats what sells at the moment.

This is why people say the american education system is one of the most flawed in the world.

>and right now, we have no material capable of withstanding the tension it would require
this is true for earth, but on the moon, currently available carbon-nano-fibers far exceed the structural requirements.
And given that the moon is a potentially-interesting industrial area (Helium2-availability / low gravity, easing the economic strains on ship-construction), we might construct space-elevators there sooner than you might think.
In fact, if we ever establish serious economic routes troughout the solar system, the moon is a far more attractive spaceport for goods heading towards earth, than earth itself.

>implying you can't create matter
>implying you can't convert energy into matter
>implying it wouldn't dispersed far enough for gravity to be a non issue
>implying the universe is expanding at the speed of light
>implying you can't use a blackhole cheatcode to suck it back in
nigga please, you even trying?

you realize the tallest buildings in the world, and the ones being built (which are going to be even taller than the current record holder) are all designed by american engineers... right? no? you're just a fucking moron?
ok.

1/10, made me reply.

>being this retarded
op if you mean on earth you're probs looking for a carbon nanotube space elevator. in theory a structure made from this stucc could be as tall as the moon is far away.
however the largest structure we could make would have to be smaller than 400km otherwise it would crush itself into a sphere via gravity.
but if could find a way to overcome this obstacle, either by the structure being a sphere or something else. the possible size will greatly vary. for example if you made a steel structure the size of the sun it would collapse under its own weight forming a black whole so thats out of the question.
once again i bring you to the carbon nanotube. a crystalline structure so strong and light that you could possible build a sphere the size of mars's orbit

pic related is a space elevator btw

"american" engineers, outsourced from other countries.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Neill_cylinder
that were the cylinders I was speaking about.
Now just imagine a series of them obriting the sun, connected on both ends by struts (including elevators / infrastructure) to the next cylinder in the line, to allow for the exchange of population, produced goods and basic resources.

from far away, it looks like a giant ladder, looped around the sun.

Funny enough, I believe it would look kinda like a pyradmid, as pyramids are the best example of self-stabilizing structures. Problem with space elevators (which is what exactly we would love to achieve as civil engineers, would cut a HUGE cost to transporting things into space) is that there are no solid enough matter to withstand such enormous forces. That particular structure would have to be strong enough as a matter and as well as stable enough (best simplified as a ruler you start to compress on the two ends, it will buckle). Certainly at one point as someone mentioned, the effect of gravity would start to drop off, but that's still a huge amount of weigth to support. Now as to the foundation, soil or rock for that matter is not homogenous and with such huge loads I would dread loading it with such a structure. I heard somewhere I think they would somehow float it on open ocean to negate a lot of issues a solid foundation would mean.

American "engineers" who copy and paste the pioneering work done by immigrants from India and China.

Gravity doesn't have much to do with size, but with mass, the 400km thing is taken out the ass.

We already build structures that overcome Earth's gravity, to have a bigger problem outside of Earth, we'd have to build something more massive than it. Unless we plan on scrapping a metric fuckton of space junk (possibly destabilising some orbits) the gravity of the structure is the least of our problems.

Triggered Amerifat. kek. Back to that third crate of breakfast donuts, Cletus.

this pic related.

lol forgot the pic

But it's at the bottom of the world. If you built one on the top it would be taller.

...

Weight stops being an issue as it leaves the atmosphere. You are an idiot.

...

...

...

What about the earth's rotation or orbit?
>inb4 muh flat earth
fuck off back to Sup Forums