Pyramid Skyscraper To Orbit?
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
Are you talking about a space elevator? I thought that the only known material which is strong enough (or rather has the potential to be strong enough) are carbon nanotubes which haven't been built on an industrial scale. I would think a pyramid would simply collapse under it's own weight, as well as being rather pointless and unbelievably expensive (unlike a space elevator).
Aye,LLAP, I think that the space elevator which you refer to is the 'sane' way of attempting to have a structure that can reach to vacuum and still have a base on the ground. Engineering and material technology wise, it's a major hurdle, but it would be far more feasible than to try and construct than a large solid simple structure like a pyramid, at least in terms of materials needed and the maintenence required.
"I suppose"? Which angle are you talking about? The faces of many of the biggest Egyptian pyramids range from 51° to 53°, with edge angles of between 41° and 43°.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I was simply curious about building a structure of that magnitude, building it to allow deployment of space vehicles or satellites was just an added idea I threw in there but you have to think it's not just being built for the space deployment aspect it would be a mega city capable of holding within it quite possibly the entire world population.
A solar power plant in space could collect solar energy and then beam that down to the top of the Pyramid (which will have a collector) as Microwaves to power some of the city. Solar cells on the slopes of the Pyramid could add some power. I think logically small underground nuclear reactors away from the city would be needed to power it properly.
The slopes could also collect rainwater to water the city. The entire structure does not necessarily have to be very compact, large areas within could be given up to vast areas of internal parks.
As I said, this would be a crazy thing to attempt and I was simply curious as the base size for a pyramid to space.
Logic would seem to indicate that 45 degrees would be the most stable angle for a pyramid which would allow it to reach space with a minimal ground base. Obviously greater angles could be used but the stability would become less.
I actually asked the question what angle could we use and still have stability on a structure that large.
Last edited:
Some points:
Mount Everest is 5 miles high. It's in the middle of the Himalayas. Think about that for a while. The support of the surrounding range. The effort it takes to get there. The storms. The lack of oxygen. And so forth. And so on.
Mountains cause weather. A pyramid like this would distort weather on a massive scale. It's one reason why space elevators were discussed instead of this kind of setup.
If you have to pump a gallon of water to the top of a 75 mile high building, it's going to take a lot of energy. Above a certain level (not entirely sure, but at least around the height of Everest), you won't get rain, it's as simple as that.
I'm no physicist, but even if it's fixed at a wide base, the top of such a pyramid would be moving at substantial speeds, even if there's no atmosphere. There would be problems.
How long do you think it would take to get to the top of the pyramid, via elevator or whatever? You wouldn't be moving at 75m/hr, so it's going to take a while.
I suppose it's a thought exercise, a complete blue sky what if (like scoring 3 goals in soccer without anyone else touching the ball), but this kind of thing cannot be discussed isolated from the environment around it.
Like a lot of Tacky's stuff, it is completely isolated from other real world events that would impact on it, an that it would impact on.
Mount Everest is 5 miles high. It's in the middle of the Himalayas. Think about that for a while. The support of the surrounding range. The effort it takes to get there. The storms. The lack of oxygen. And so forth. And so on.
Mountains cause weather. A pyramid like this would distort weather on a massive scale. It's one reason why space elevators were discussed instead of this kind of setup.
If you have to pump a gallon of water to the top of a 75 mile high building, it's going to take a lot of energy. Above a certain level (not entirely sure, but at least around the height of Everest), you won't get rain, it's as simple as that.
I'm no physicist, but even if it's fixed at a wide base, the top of such a pyramid would be moving at substantial speeds, even if there's no atmosphere. There would be problems.
How long do you think it would take to get to the top of the pyramid, via elevator or whatever? You wouldn't be moving at 75m/hr, so it's going to take a while.
I suppose it's a thought exercise, a complete blue sky what if (like scoring 3 goals in soccer without anyone else touching the ball), but this kind of thing cannot be discussed isolated from the environment around it.
Like a lot of Tacky's stuff, it is completely isolated from other real world events that would impact on it, an that it would impact on.
You could probably fly a billion shuttle missions for what it would cost - in no conceivable sense would it ever be worth it.
Another thing to consider: Being 75 miles high does not mean you are in orbit. You still have to achieve escape velocity. What keeps the shuttle in orbit is not the altitude, but the tens of thousands of MPH.
If you are interested in putting things in orbit, it would be much more cost efficient to have some sort of maglev track that went up a mountain, or something like that. That combined with some sort of rocket to get you up to speed to achieve escape velocity would be a much better solution.
If you are interested in putting things in orbit, it would be much more cost efficient to have some sort of maglev track that went up a mountain, or something like that. That combined with some sort of rocket to get you up to speed to achieve escape velocity would be a much better solution.
A triangle (which is the basis for a pyramid) is a widely used geometrical figure in engineering and more specifically Architecture.
This is mainly because an equal sided triangle is stronger than any other shape, , equal sided trianglees are 60° angled by default.
also except for many other problems a pyramid of 75 miles up would be impossible, there is a reason why mountains on earth are never higher than 30,000ft max., this has to do with the amount of gravity present, the bigger the mass, the bigger the gravity , the flatter the surface.
The biggest mountain known to man therefore is not on our planet but rather on MARS where gravity is a bit shy of 50% compared to earth and therefore it was able to have a mountain like OLYMPUS Mons which is 20KM (65,000ft+) high and at its base almost as big as Switzerland.
So I guess no pyramid at 100km high in the near future unless it would be build of superstrong and ultraleight materials (think, buckystrings and such).
If you really what something like that might look like , just have a look at this pyramid that was devised as a new city in Tokyo harbour, not 100km high but big enough to house a million people.
This is mainly because an equal sided triangle is stronger than any other shape, , equal sided trianglees are 60° angled by default.
also except for many other problems a pyramid of 75 miles up would be impossible, there is a reason why mountains on earth are never higher than 30,000ft max., this has to do with the amount of gravity present, the bigger the mass, the bigger the gravity , the flatter the surface.
The biggest mountain known to man therefore is not on our planet but rather on MARS where gravity is a bit shy of 50% compared to earth and therefore it was able to have a mountain like OLYMPUS Mons which is 20KM (65,000ft+) high and at its base almost as big as Switzerland.
So I guess no pyramid at 100km high in the near future unless it would be build of superstrong and ultraleight materials (think, buckystrings and such).
If you really what something like that might look like , just have a look at this pyramid that was devised as a new city in Tokyo harbour, not 100km high but big enough to house a million people.
Last edited:
Climbing to space is one thing, getting in orbit is another.
For this hairbrained scheme to work, the pyramid would have to be 22,500 miles tall for an object departing the top to be in orbit without having to expend massive amounts of delta vee.
Any lesser height, the tip of the structure would not be travelling at the required velocity for the object to maintain orbit, and it would start falling.
At that height, the object would be travelling at the correct velocity for orbit.
Any taller, and the object would be travelling too fast to maintain a circular orbit, and would probably move to a higher but elliptical orbit.
SO, how big would that pyramid base be, and how much volume? Hahahaha!
For this hairbrained scheme to work, the pyramid would have to be 22,500 miles tall for an object departing the top to be in orbit without having to expend massive amounts of delta vee.
Any lesser height, the tip of the structure would not be travelling at the required velocity for the object to maintain orbit, and it would start falling.
At that height, the object would be travelling at the correct velocity for orbit.
Any taller, and the object would be travelling too fast to maintain a circular orbit, and would probably move to a higher but elliptical orbit.
SO, how big would that pyramid base be, and how much volume? Hahahaha!
Last edited:
If we speed up the rotation of the earth to 16 revolutions per 24 hours, then the top of Tachyon's 75 mile high pyramid would be travelling at the correct orbital velocity. It would merely be a matter of driving a vehicle to the apex, and into orbit it would float.
So... you're saying all we have to do is spin the earth at an incredible velocity?
BRILLIANT!!
BRILLIANT!!
Squiggy, cool, but which plan? The 22,500 mile pyramid, or the 75 mile one with additional planet spin?
Wait, can we do both? Split the earth at the middle, build a 22,500 mile pyramid on one half, then the 75 mile on the other? Then we only have to spin half the planet to an incredible velocity, and if one pyramid fails, we have a backup!
Wait, can we do both? Split the earth at the middle, build a 22,500 mile pyramid on one half, then the 75 mile on the other? Then we only have to spin half the planet to an incredible velocity, and if one pyramid fails, we have a backup!
I have this great idea, inspired by Tacky, for making a giant canoe large enough to hold the entire population of Poland. And it'll travel through space!!!
Now, I know the idea is totally stupid, impractical, and the whole space-going aspect serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, but I'd really like to get some serious feedback on how it might be accomplished, and why.
Now, I know the idea is totally stupid, impractical, and the whole space-going aspect serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever, but I'd really like to get some serious feedback on how it might be accomplished, and why.
Psstch, I say we just fix Lunar into a geosynchronous orbit with Terra, and make a giant cable from one to the other, and build stations, elevators and the whole whazoo on the joining cable. Let's be ambitous about this people 
'Aim for the moon, if you miss you'll still be among the stars' and all that jazz...though not literally with this hair-brained idea, you'll just have a cable leading to nowhere 
'Aim for the moon, if you miss you'll still be among the stars' and all that jazz...though not literally with this hair-brained idea, you'll just have a cable leading to nowhere
Similar threads
