Would it be easier to build Skyscrapers on a planet with 50% of Earth's gravity, and the same atmospheric pressure of the Earth. I noticed someone asked why the planet has lower gravity, this is because the planet is smaller than Earth and less dense. I'll leave some details about the planet below.

  • 0.282 (M⊕)

  • 0.50 G

  • 9564 km (diameter)

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you give some detail on why your planet has different gravity? Gravity isn't an independent variable. A variety of factors could be the cause of the reduced apparent gravity on a planet or even at various locations on that planet. These factors could have different effects on architecture. $\endgroup$
    – Kys
    Oct 13 '16 at 17:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Kys For a planet with 9564km diameter and 0.282 Earth's mass, the correct surface gravity is 0.5g. I can't see any reason for varying apparent gravity on the surface of such a planet; the gravity on Earth's surface doesn't vary in any meaningful way. $\endgroup$
    – kingledion
    Oct 13 '16 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ @kingledion I also checked the math, and it makes me happy that this is the correct gravity. But about how gravity "doesn't vary in any meaningful way": it may not be meaningful for making skyscrapers, but it can be used for things such as finding ore deposits or calculating the mass of mountains. $\endgroup$
    – Lacklub
    Oct 13 '16 at 18:45

Yes. About 50% easier.

Or, about the same, if you build them twice as high. A big factor in modern building design is withstanding the weather, so another question arises, is your planet stormy or tranquil? Is the atmospheric pressure similar, or also 50%? This'll have a big influence on the buildings, maybe moreso than gravity.

  • $\begingroup$ Going up, maybe 50% less energy intensive, but you are also going to have to excavate deep as well. A skyscraper could also be viewed as a giant lever. Any lateral stress will cause a nightmare of forces at the fulcrum/ground level. +1 for pointing out the weather as a factor, not many people think about that. $\endgroup$
    – Paul TIKI
    Oct 24 '19 at 21:33

No, not with current technology. Modern skyscrapers are limited by logistical factors, such as concrete drying on the way up to the top of the building. In terms of structural stability, we could build buildings 2 miles high. But raising this to 4 miles doesn't make a difference, many other factors prevent us from reaching this height first.

Edit: yes, you could build the skyscrapers with less material, and you could make them skinnier. Elevators would use less power. It would definitely make things easier, but you can't just assume that everything doubles.

  • $\begingroup$ Is it only cost that stops us from mixing concrete high up near the point of usage? $\endgroup$ Feb 7 '20 at 13:13

It would be much easier, as there is much less downward force. You could also build some wacky stuff...


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.