Jump to content

Talk:Megastructure

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merged entries

[edit]

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)

Bishop ring

[edit]
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Bishop Ring is a very minor topic (certainly the Orion's Arm web page didn't seem to give it any great prominence) from unpublished internet fiction.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)
huff now I'm curious about it and I don't have a Wikipedia article to read on it. You have failed me my free encyclopedia! theanphibian 04:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop ring - redux

[edit]

I've restored Bishop rings, since Orbitals and Halos are the same type of structure, and all three have their own pages. Plus the result of the deletion was that the entry for Elysium incorrectly referred to it as a Stanford Torus. I've also added an entry for Ringworlds back under the theoretical stellar-scale structures, since it was immediately referred to, without explanation, by the very next entry, which seems unnecessarily confusing for readers. And certainly there's no conceptual difference between a ringworld and the other physically-impossible stellar structures listed. I also tweaked a few wrong or weak descriptions, shuffled a couple of items around and removed the funny but inappropriate See Also link to Cost overruns -- PaulxSA (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wall of China

[edit]

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)[reply]

Definitions vary

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
True, so should we add that "most megastructures could not be constructed with today's level of industrial technology" or something?
I would rather not add "not buildable with todays' technology" to the definition of "megastructure". After such a definition, pointing out that "most megastructures could not be constructed with today's level of industrial technology" is a mere tautology.
I suggest beginning this article with a very simple definition, before qualifying (or loosening) it in various ways, perhaps:
"A megastructure is a built structure typically at least 1,000 kilometers in length -- in other words, at least 1 megameter, hence the name. The definition is often informal and varies from source to source."
With such a definition (if we count "highway systems" only once, as 1 kind of megastructure), I think it still remains true (and is more informative) to point out that "most megastructures could not be constructed with today's level of industrial technology". --68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objections? OK, I'll go ahead with this definition in the lead. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible and impossible materials

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Symbolism

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

dingo Fence

[edit]

What about dingo fence, which runs across Australia (length comparable to Great Wall). SYSS Mouse 17:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article currently contains the following unsourced statement: "Networks of roads or railways, and collections of buildings (cities and associated suburbs), are usually not considered megastructures, despite frequently qualifying based on size." I'd say that if these and major oil/gas pipeline networks and electrical power networks don't qualify, neither should the Great Wall, Dingo fence or the rice terraces. But I may well be wrong. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol, good catch. That sure is a fun one to read about. I think the Great Wall of China has been a rather difficult inclusion from the start, and I'm sure you could find some source out there that would include it and some source that wouldn't include it. In every case of road or fence or wall the 100 km rule is just barely fit, but the great wall I think goes above and beyond due to the fact that it has both appreciable height and width. You can actually walk around in the inside and it could be said that it's just sort of a big house :-/ I agree that it's a difficult distinction to accept, but the dingo fence sadly doesn't seem anywhere close to getting on the list as long as interstates aren't. theanphibian 04:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly Straight of Gibraltar Ideas

[edit]

These have all been clearly notable proposals for the following things to build all the fregin way from Spain to Africa.

Which qualify as a megastructure and why? GO! theanphibian 04:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantropa

[edit]

This is listed a "proposed structure"; this and the way the details are described implies it is actually under serious consideration, which is clearly not the case.

Just to be sure...

[edit]

OK, I just read the article and theres one thing that really strikes me as something "unpolished". Actually, it's just a problem with the arrangement of the sections. In my opinion, planetary and orbital structures should precede the stellar structures. It's just about the size, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.242.52.41 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Effect

[edit]

The Citadel was constructed by the Reapers billions of years before the games. Space Commander Plasma (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the citation needed comment on Theoretical?

[edit]

I'm an infrequent editor of Wikipedia looking to get a better understanding of one of the tags.

The "Theoretical" section of this page is currently tagged as lacking citations. But this is a page listing examples of megastructures, and each of those items listed is linked to a page describing what it is, several of which define themselves as a megastructure. What kind of citation is needed to define something as an instance of something else when that is its own definition in its own entry?

This is one of those times when the citation needed tag seems to me to be very oddly applied, and I would like to understand what would make this section better in the eyes of other editors so I can better edit other entries. AristosM (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megastructure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megastructure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Ralph Wilcoxen

[edit]

Wikimedia received an email regarding the spelling of Ralph Wilcoxen. ticket:2018060710010904

One complication is that an article mentioning the publication make a structure was written by somebody who use a misspelled version of the name. As a consequence it is possible to find the misspelled version and what normally would be reliable sources. In addition, the misspelled name is becoming ubiquitous and Google searches due to the misspelling (now corrected) in the Wikipedia article.

However, careful Google searches of the incorrect and correct spelling will clarify the correct spelling of the name. In particular the Amazon link to the publication and the world cat link:

Star lifting

[edit]

Would a star lift count as a mega-structure do to its inherent size. If i'm wrong i understand, i was just simply curious why it wasn't here.

Added subsection for Star Wars

[edit]

There were a few from that franchise in the "[p]lanetary and orbital scale" section, so I added a section for Star Wars. Please let me know if this was a good or bad idea.--Thylacine24 (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Line

[edit]

Might the proposed Linear City in Saudi Arabia be considered a proposed megastructure? 2A0C:5BC0:40:2E34:8583:5287:F2D6:2680 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Large Hadron Collider

[edit]

This is no where near the 1,000km suggested lower limit, why is it included in existing megastructures? 81.170.70.180 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Supremacy

[edit]

Would Supreme Leader Snoke's flagship, the Supremacy, from Star Wars: Episode VIII The Last Jedi be considered a megastructure? It certainly seems to be large enough, but I'm not sure if spacefaring vessels can count as megastructures. Both Death Stars and Starkiller Base were/would have been mobile when fully operational, though. Yet Another Dragon (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megastructure&oldid=1264189074"