Talk:Globus Cassus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
  • Keep, September 11, 2006, AFD
  • No consensus, September 7, 2007, AFD

Contents

[edit] Size

"The largest structure that could be built using known materials is no more than two thousand kilometers in diameter, using carbon nanotube fibre"

I'm not surprised that this was unreferenced. As far as I know, no-one has ever made such a massive nanotube structure, so there would undoubtedly be unforseen problems building one this size. The solutions to the problems might even inspire a new way of building a structure more than 2000km in diameter...

I strongly suspect that the quote is just a lot of hot air anyway. It certainly didn't add anything to my understanding of the article! 212.137.27.116 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] First post

Exactly what is the relevance of the links to "Max Tegmark's Parallel Universes paper" & the "Many Worlds & Parallel Universes" discussion list to the Globus Cassus project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.254.196 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Rama

This is an interesting (and human) version of the vessel in Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama.

  • You sure? Is this supposed to actually go anywhere? I get the impression that it's supposed to stay in the solar system.Zafiroblue05 04:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Rama is also about a thousand times smaller. —Tamfang 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General

Would the original author redraft this article and clarify the construction methods for GC? It may be his/her use of english, but I cannot see how sunlight enters "diagonal" openings. Perhaps an image would help. --die Baumfabrik 14:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I am not the original author I did find an image for it here and uploaded it. Fosnez 16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I distinctly remember a ship like this in the book Time ship, by Stephen Baxter. Does anyone know if he got the concept from this? I thought the book was published before this theory came out. It makes me wonder whether the idea was truly conceived by those mentioned in the article.

I have grave reservations about the feasibility of this concept; there are many well-thought out habitat concepts around, including the Island One concept, the Stanford Torus, and the giant rings and cylinders described by Forrest Bishop and Tom McKendree; but the largest structure that could be built using known materials is no more than two thousand kilometers in diameter. And that uses carbon buckytube fibre; if you were to make a rotating habitat of steel as suggested in this 'Globus Cassus' concept and spun it to produce Earth-like gravity it would fall apart if it were more than about 20 kilometers in diameter. Additionally the 'Globus Cassus' design is the wrong shape; rotating a habitat produces centrifugal gravity which acts directly away from the axis of rotation, so the best configuration is a ring or cylinder (as can be seen by the design of the O'Neill colony and of the Stanford torus design). The design of this concept seems to be an oblate spheroid, which would result in a very small habitable region around the inside of the equator.

Basically the whole concept is pure fantasy, and does not represent a real engineering concept at all. (Eburacum)

Being at geostationary orbit, the equatorial regions of Global Cassus would have, in the absence of Earth's mass below, an artificial gravity equal to roughly 2% of normal Earth gravity. The same would hold in the archival nodes. Human beings and animals could not survive indefinitely in such microgravity. The physics of Globus Cassus need to be thoroughly re-examined. Texomaleo 11:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think something along these lines needs to be included in the article. I've started a feasibility section to get the ball rolling on this one, though it may need a bit of tidying up. — jammycakes (t) 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph describes Globus Cassus as "Earth/World's antipode". What is Earth/World? —Tamfang 23:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting a "Reasons for" section

When reading this article one thing I was looking for which was never explained was

why the hell would you want to turn the planet inside out?

Did the creator of the Globus Cassus offer a reason, or was this a "why the hell not" proposition?--DCAnderson 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the website calls it an "art project" - so the point is not so much do it, and certainly not to do it for practical reasons, but instead to get people all communing together just thinking about it. Or something like that. So, basically, yeah - it's just a "why the hell not?" idea. And it's totally impractical, and doesn't make much of a pretense towards being practical... zafiroblue05 | Talk 01:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It would greatly increase the area of habitable land. —Keenan Pepper 03:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Assuming *any* of it would be habitable. :p zafiroblue05 | Talk 07:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the most screwed up things I've ever heard, it would destroy the whole planetary ecosystem, kill millions of animals and ruin the Earth, this kind of stuff could NEVER happen.

Faris b 19:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Does this meet Wikipedia's notability criteria? It looks a bit like a bad April Fool joke from a tabloid newspaper to me. It only gets about 500 hits or so in Google, and the book itself is ranked seven hundred and something thousandth on Amazon.com, which seems a little bit on the obscure side. I've been considering nominating it for deletion for this reason, but even if it remains, there needs to be an overview of the myriad technical problems involved in such a project (as per the Dyson sphere article). Jammycakes 22:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 12:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted. I am listing it for deletion, it has no value and seems impossible and would only be the creation of a mental patient.

Faris b 19:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's an appalling idea but it was proposed - and published - by a notable architect in notable circumstances (the Venice Architecture Biennale), has been widely discussed and is therefore worthy of an article. There are articles on myriad horrendous subjects, but none should be deleted merely because they're horrendous. There is no way deletion is justified in this case. Pinkville 22:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? How could anyone support this?? Anyone who supports this should be shot and have their body burned!

Then maybe we need a new category "Warning, these articles are the most horrible stuff in the world, do not read unless you really want to!" or something like that!

Faris b 22:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the subject of the article, that doesn't mean you have to feel that way about the article itself. Why don't you add some verifiable criticisms of the idea? —Keenan Pepper 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The talk about deletion is pure nonsense. We need to discuss more such radical, astroengineering projects since they are the only way of saving our values from the impending catastrophes. - Milan

I'd like to point out that the issue of deletion has nothing to do with the merits (or lack therof) of the Globus Cassus project itself. Comments should be confined to the merits (or lack therof) of the article. Pinkville 13:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. —Keenan Pepper 18:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; but as an outsider I fail to see any good reason for keeping this article without a discussion of the technicalities. The guy who proposed it may have been an architect, but he seems to have done exactly no homework on the kinds of forces that would be involved in a project like this. The object would fall apart, and even if it didn't it would have almost no inhabitable area. Eburacum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.250.18 (talk • contribs)

As is argued above, the issue of whether or not this proposal is or ever will be practicable is irrelevant to the notability of the subject and its worthiness of being included in Wikipedia. One could argue that Globus Cassus is simply a thought experiment, not altogether different from the Turing test, for example. Regardless, the book and the ideas therein have been discussed (in print and elsewhere) by a wide variety of thinkers, and that fact in itself establishes the article's worthiness for inclusion. Pinkville 17:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. Please indicate which 'thinkers' have 'examined' this proposal, and what conclusions they have reached. The proposal is entirely impossible, for very good physical reasons; for a start there is no possible physical material which is strong enough to build a structure (rotating to provide centrifugal gravity) more than a couple of thousand kilometers in diameter without falling apart. This is just an idle fantasy. Eburacum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.250.18 (talk • contribs)

The concept was presented at the Venice Architecture Biennale and the book in which it was published has won an award. Evidence of notability that many subjects would envy. The Tempest is also fantasy, so is Star Wars, so is Schrödinger's cat (in the sense that no one serious would actually construct such an experiment). They all have articles. You need to separate your distaste for Globus Cassus (a sentiment I share) from any evaluation of the article, which is the issue of concern here. Finally, please sign your comments with 4 tildes:~~~~. Pinkville 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the book may have won an award for its artistic merit, while failing to attract any attention from critical thinkers. Is there any way that proper criticism of the concept can be introduced onto this page without breaking the 'No Original Research' or NPOV rules? I have had to point out the shortcomings of this concept a number of times now on various message boards. Quite a few people out there are quite interested in the design of space megastructures, in one way or another; this example is only worth presenting as a fantasy or example of an unworkable design. Eburacum 87.102.28.2 16:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No difficulty with presenting criticism of the concept as long as you provide examples of such with citations.
Personally, I'm much less interested in the idea's feasability (or lack thereof) than the (to my mind) abhorrent mentality it represents with regard to the environment, political and economic issues, etc.... but again, that's beside the point. Unless I or someone else can find a published critique of the concept along the same lines. Pinkville 16:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!

AAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Which idiot proposed destroying the earth (a loveley fully functioning planet) into this hidious structure? Imagine mother earth being ruthlessly torn apart to become the building material for a giant piece of junk! Why spend such a huge amount of money to destroy something perfectly suitible to human life (okay maybe the tsunamis can be a bit of a problem)? why not tear up venus or mercury? why do this at all? All the space on solid objects in the solar system is sufficient enough to house the entire human race (at its current size, based on a growing trend in first world countries hopefully this will decrease) even if they are housed inside domes (or some other structure). Why do this? does it help the earth dodge killer asteroids? stop the sun from burning out? or is it because if we dont mutilate the earth it will blow us up? never mind the financial and political difficulties with this? oh yeah, and dont forget the hippie enviroMENTAL groups. Good greif. they'll REALLY have a fit, more so then I am having now. The bottom line is that the earth is itself a "living creature"- its volcanic activity, magnetosphere and life help maintain its temperature at an average on 15 degrees C, atmospheric pressure of one bar, an atmosphere rich in oxygen and the conditions for liquid water to exist. and the other countries? well the ones not crazy enough to spend all their money to tear up the earth will probably start a war with the others, shoot nukes at each other, cause 90% of all life to go extinct and then let the earth regenrate itself (something it can do independant of man, a differace from the global junkpiece which will, like a giant space station need some people to control it. and all this is a bit anthropocentric. what do you think the animalswould have to say about this? what if it all collapses and kills everyone? what if the earth implodes, to much of its interior sucked out? the thing is, the earth is not in any imeneant danger, it has a perfectly working life support system and no one wants to spend all teir money one this. why even care. T.Neo 16:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, a couple of things...
No personal Attacks - You have no right to call anyone an idiot because they had an idea.
This project, like many others, if it were ever commenced would be done when the human race was at a difference place, socially, economically and spiritually ("Mother Earth")
I'm doubtful the animals would have much to "say" at all.
We are not going to be able to live on this rock forever - people have to have ideas Fosnez 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. A couple of other things: This wasn't supposed to become a personal attack which it did. Sorry. "This is supposed to happen at a time when the earth is at a different place socially, economically and spiritually ("Mother Earth")" I was using "mother earth" as a metaphor, to describe how the earth is home to all known life and that it is a rare fragile place. "Im doubtful the animals would have anything to say at all" Yeah. the animals won't have anything to say but by transforming the earth into this "globus junkpiece" will destroy the relatively stable environment vital to evolution, and if this structure becomes in some way unstable and kills everything inside it, where will life re-evolve? Such a structure will probably need constant human attention, something the earth has done without for the last 3 billion years. "we are not going to be able to live on this rock forever-people have to have ideas" I dont see this as quite a good idea. by the time the earth starts to have habitation problems humans will probably be able to counteract this, for example: the sun is burning itself out. Simple. Move the earth into a safe orbit, and, if it gets to cold, light up a few antimatter fueled power generators to keeps the earth warm. Anyway, the "globus junkpiece" isnt designed to survive the sun burning itself out. I think, the main premise of the idea, is to provide more surface area for humans (and animals). But why dismantle the earth when there are many other planets, without native life that human could disrupt. why not move to those other celestial bodies? give me one reson why this should happen. 41.240.127.10 10:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok, I'm not suggesting we do this. But just like we look back on old prediction on how the future would be, think how people 300 years in the future will look back on this idea and think - "Gee thats spot on" or "Good grief, what was he smoking?" - Fosnez 10:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wtfbbq

Being the Earth/World's antipode in many aspects, Globus Cassus acts as a philosophical model for the opposite-based description of the Earth/World and as a tool to understand the World's real functioning processes.

This sentence doesn't actually mean anything. It has no semantic value. It conveys no coherent point. It's like an HVAC technician talking about thermatic heat diffusors or an army cartographer talking about spare grid squares. Whoever wrote this is talking out of his/her ass. --76.224.64.68 22:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The globus cassus is no more then a silly art project. It is definately not a viable idea. T.Neo (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That doesn't confront his (valid) stylistic concerns —Preceding unsigned comment added by UndZiggy (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That picture needs to be replaced

It depicts Globus Cassus as M&M shaped, and the triangular faces don't line up at all the way they should. Whoever made it had no concept of how multiview drawings work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UndZiggy (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leipzig Book Fair

I've added a couple of references to the article, but it needs a better one for the Leipzig Book Fair -- all I could find on Google was a link to the Globus Cassus website itself. Can anyone come up with a reliable secondary source (preferably online, though a dead tree one will do fine) for this? Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)