Talk:Megastructure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.	Architecture Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Merged entries 2 Bishop ring 3 Great Wall of China 4 Definitions vary 5 Possible and impossible materials 6 Symbolism

[edit] Merged entries

I've merged "orbital tower" and "space elevator" entries in this list, as to the best of my knowledge, they're the same type of structure. I've also merged "rotovator" and "skyhook", for the same reason.

At present, both "rotovator" and "skyhook" are redirects that point to "space tether", which is incorrect. I'll fix this later if nobody else does.

I added "Bishop Ring" again, and put a stub article on the other end. It's a bona fide megastructure; IMO it's better to fill the target of a broken link with a stub than to remove it. --Christopher Thomas 18:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bishop ring

fyi, Bishop ring and Bishop Ring (two separate articles on the same topic) are listed on Votes For Deletion: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bishop ring if you wish to voice your thoughts. —Stormie 19:14, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

The Bishop ring page was very poorly written. The request for deletion notice on that page mentions unclear distinction between fact and fiction, which my new entry for Bishop Ring doesn't suffer from. The VFD for the old Bishop Ring page must have passed, because the page did not exist when I created my version. If you want to add my new page to VFD, please read its contents first, to assess whether this is justified. I feel that the new page has merit. --Christopher Thomas 20:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, the VFD was for Bishop ring, I added Bishop Ring to it since it's another article about the same topic. Please do not take this as any criticism of the quality of your article - VFD is supposed to be about the notability of the topic, not the quality of the article. On that note, you asked why Ringworld and Culture Orbital should be acceptable while Bishop Ring is not - imho, those are major topics from the works of major science fiction authors, whereas as far as I can tell, Bishop Ring is a very minor topic (certainly the Orion's Arm web page didn't seem to give it any great prominence) from unpublished internet fiction. Not really the same thing. —Stormie 10:27, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed "bishop ring" from the megastructure article.--Christopher Thomas 05:49, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Wall of China

Wouldn't the Great Wall of China be considered an existing megastructure?.--Shawn Wilson 18 Feb 2005

Indeed it is. I've added it, along with Mega-City One, and have broken the document into sections by category (existing, space-based fictional, other fictional). Thanks for the heads-up :).--Christopher Thomas 06:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd think that engineering projects like systems of roads, railroads, and canals would count as megastructures, no? They're certainly big enough. Frjwoolley 16:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's actually usually a constraint imposed that the megastructure has to be rigid and self-supporting. This actually excludes pretty much all of the existing examples listed in the article. I'll make clear the distinction between these two categories of megastructure once I figure out how to phrase it properly (requiring the structure to be rigid eliminates space elevators, for instance). --Christopher Thomas 20:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Distinction added. --Christopher Thomas 23:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added a secion for "Mega-scale" Structures that do not meet the ridget and self supporting requirements. I also split Orbital into orbital for things that actually orbit, and Trans-orbital for things that a ground based but project into space. Fosnez 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions vary

As far as I'm aware, there isn't any single rigorous and widely-accepted definition of what a "megastructure" is - the author of the external link [1] only gives his "current best attempt" at one and no other sources are cited. I've rewritten the article to be more vague in the meantime, but does anyone know of other references a definition may be based on? Bryan 16:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is not an exact defination of a megastructure, but one way I could say to constrain it would be "not buildable with todays' technology". Fosnez 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily a universal constraint, though, since many things that are commonly called megastructures could indeed be built with today's technology (though not with today's industrial capacity). A Dyson sphere doesn't need to be particularly sophisticated, gazillions of ordinary solar panels and microwave emitters could be used for it. Space elevators could be built on the Moon or Mars using materials already available in bulk quantities. Etc. Bryan 00:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

True, so should we add that "most megastructures could not be constructed with today's level of industrial technology" or something?

[edit] Possible and impossible materials

Both the Alderson Disk and the Dyson Shell require materials that are flat-out impossible if we're restricted to chemical bonds. These should probably be moved to the "fictional megastructure" section, in line with the rationale for keeping Ringworld there. --Christopher Thomas 16:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "fictional" is too, well, harsh, for lack of a better word. Human flight was fictional 100 years ago. Fosnez 19:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that 100 years ago it was obvious to science that we could develop flying machines, it was just a question of engineering. A ringworld requires materials with properties that no known laws of physics predict are possible. Bryan 19:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only one specific sub-type of dyson sphere is hopelessly unrealistic- the solid shell with a biosphere magically glued to the inner surface. This is the type that's most common in fiction, but the other types that are actually discussed in plain old science literature are realistic. Check out the Dyson sphere article for more detail. Bryan 19:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why I specifically mentioned Dyson shell, not Dyson sphere, Dyson swarm, or Dyson bubble. All of these are listed in the article, in various places. A rigid shell around a star is subjected to stresses that cannot be maintained with chemically-bonded material. A swarm (Dyson's original idea) works just fine. The bubble idea can't be built with present materials, but its requirements don't seem to be demonstrably be beyond materials that _may_ exist (a conducting mesh with holes substantially smaller than one micron might be light eonugh while still being reflective). --Christopher Thomas 20:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symbolism

I wonder if this is the place to mention the literary meanings and symbols that the Megastructure represents. It is more than just an architectural or scientific concept - there are symbols ranging from obvious Freudian ones to those more complex. The Megastructure pops up in abstract conceptual form in many, many types of fiction (I'd put BLAME! on one end, House of Leaves in the middle, and The Dark Tower on the more abstract side). I think there is a wealth of psychological exploration to be done about an idea so widespread and resonant with humans from such diverse backgrounds. Unfortunately, I'm new to the wikiworld, and I'd like your opinions. Thanks. --Eli Brody 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing to do if you want material about this to be added is to look for publications that talk about the psychological and literary implications of megastructures. The idea is that any information presented in the article has to be properly sourced (and the article does a bad enough job of this already). You're probably in a better position to look for these publications than I am (I'm in engineering). With citations in-hand, you can then add a section to the article that outlines the different authors' views on the associated symbolism.--Christopher Thomas 20:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)