# Could we build a bridge across the Pacific Ocean? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 23, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152 "2013-01-23T21:12:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/21 "2013-01-24T00:56:58Z")
> [@John\_Bredin](#): > > I would imagine its biggest traffic would be freight rather than passengers, and the long distances between islands – and especially between islands that are significant traffic generators in their own right – suggests rail rather than road. No “gas stations & motels in the middle of the ocean” issues, for one thing. 😛 > > IIRC, one of the significant costs in shipping freight is changing mode, hence the rise of containerization. A through rail route would avoid having to unload containers and other freight from trains or trucks to ships, then back from ships to trains. Closer to the real world 😛 people float the idea of an Alaska-Bering Strait-Siberia rail route for this reason. But when you consider the cost of building the Trans Pacific Bridge compared to an equivalent number of mega-container ships, it starts to look a lot less appealing. > [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > This statement is not just grandiose and overly optimistic, it’s flat out wrong. We most certainly do **NOT** have the technology to built any kind of a bridge hundreds (let alone thousands) of miles long across stormy ocean seas thousands of feet deep. Find me one credible engineer who would state otherwise. I think he means that assuming cost weren’t an issue (a huge “if”), such an engineering feat wouldn’t require materials that haven’t been invented yet. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/22 "2013-01-24T00:59:53Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > rouge waves The [red tide](http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/redtide.html)? Yep, that is a huge pain in the butt, sure enough. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/23 "2013-01-24T01:04:37Z")
Here’s a nice Wiki article on the [Bering strait bridge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_bridge) proposal. It’s across the Pacific, just a hair’s breadth below the border between the North Pacific and the Arctic oceans. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/24 "2013-01-24T01:08:33Z")
> [@Johanna](#): > > The [red tide](http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/redtide.html)? Yep, that is a huge pain in the butt, sure enough. Sure enough. Abnormal sea color makes me twitchy. A bigger threat to such a bridge keeping sustained operation is rogue waves however. > **[What is a rogue wave?](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/roguewaves.html)** > > Rogues, called 'extreme storm waves' by scientists, are those waves which are greater than twice the size of surrounding waves, are very unpredictable, and often come unexpectedly from directions other than prevailing wind and waves. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/sCxr_XzyGO8/hqdefault.jpg "ROGUE WAVES 100 FOOT HIGH FINALLY DOCUMENTED") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCxr_XzyGO8) [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/yLzgzvVxUV4/hqdefault.jpg "Rogue Waves") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLzgzvVxUV4) ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/25 "2013-01-24T01:16:40Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Or we could make a giant arch, which might even have to rise out of the atmosphere to be strong enough for that span, and solve a lot of space travel issues at the same time. Not sure if this is serious, but we definitely can’t build an arch that big, for the same reason that we can’t build a 10-mile-high skyscraper. We don’t have any materials to build it out of that wouldn’t get crushed under their own weight. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/26 "2013-01-24T01:19:17Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Not sure if this is serious, but we definitely can’t build an arch that big, for the same reason that we can’t build a 10-mile-high skyscraper. We don’t have any materials to build it out of that wouldn’t get crushed under their own weight. \ ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/27 "2013-01-24T01:30:54Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > … > > I think he means that assuming cost weren’t an issue (a huge “if”), such an engineering feat wouldn’t require materials that haven’t been invented yet. This is a vital difference. One question is if sufficient raw materials, engineering knowledge, and manpower exist that would allow humanity to complete the project assuming that a sufficiently high number of people, raw materials, equipment, land, and money that actually exist are diverted to such an activity and the proper permits can be obtained. Sure, it might require that new, heretofore never before built construction equipment like super tall cranes or floating concrete factories be built, but that’s ok as long as we can build the cranes and other stuff. If we have to recurse (e.g. build A, then use A to build B, then use B to build C, then use C to build a trans-Pacific bridge, it’s ok as long as the plan would actually work). The second question includes everything in the first question but also requires that sufficient resources (manpower, raw materials, land, equipment, money, etc.) _are actually available or can reasonably be made available_ in a reasonable timeframe and that the necessary permits can actually be obtained in a reasonable amount of time (say, several years assuming that governments want detailed engineering plans, simulations, and 10 round reviews by the top minds from around the globe and that the conditions can actually be met). And who do you expect would fund it? Should we give it over to private companies and let them pay for it and then charge tolls? Welcome to the Microsoft Trans-Pacific Bridge. Pay $5,000 toll please. ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/28 "2013-01-24T02:25:18Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Not sure if this is serious, but we definitely can’t build an arch that big, for the same reason that we can’t build a 10-mile-high skyscraper. We don’t have any materials to build it out of that wouldn’t get crushed under their own weight. Not currently, but it might be possible to build both a 10km+ skyscraper and a transpacific arch in the distant future, using actively supported materials; the ‘launch loop’ concept could be used for the bridge, > **[Launch loop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop)** > > A launch loop, or Lofstrom loop, is a proposed system for launching objects into orbit using a moving cable-like system situated inside a sheath attached to the Earth at two ends and suspended above the atmosphere in the middle. The design concept was published by Keith Lofstrom and describes an active structure maglev cable transport system that would be around 2,000 km (1,240 mi) long and maintained at an altitude of up to 80 km (50 mi). A launch loop would be held up at this altitude by the mo... and the ‘space fountain’ concept could be used for the skyscraper. > **[Space fountain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain)** > > A space fountain is a proposed form of an extremely tall tower extending into space. As known materials cannot support a static tower with this height, a space fountain has to be an active structure: A stream of pellets is accelerated upwards from a ground station. At the top it is deflected downwards. The necessary force for this deflection supports the station at the top and payloads going up the structure. A spacecraft could launch from the top without having to deal with the atmosphere. Th Th... In fact, if we had the technology to manufacture unlimited amounts of pure diamond, we could build a skyscraper higher than 10km without active support. But none of this counts as currently available engineering technology, so it doesn’t really answer the question in the original post. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/29 "2013-01-24T02:35:14Z")
Perhaps a floating but detachable and even submersible bridge could work, this way when rought seas happen that section can break away for a bit to reattach later. ---
**Author:** ![Daylate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Daylate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylate)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/30 "2013-01-24T02:43:29Z")
> [@](#): > > ``` > Perhaps a floating but detachable and even submersible bridge could work, this way when rough seas happen that section can break away for a bit to reattach later. > > ``` Check with the Washington Department of Highways (or maybe it’s Department of Transportation nowadays). They’ve build several submersible bridges withing the past few decades. Not intentionally, but oh well… ---
**Author:** ![Daylate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9dc877/32.png) [@Daylate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daylate)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/31 "2013-01-24T02:48:21Z")
Regarding a bridge across the Pacific, it would depend on how much nonavailium you had available. With plenty of balognaium rivets. Jeez, guys, I think faster than light travel might come sooner. And cheaper. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/32 "2013-01-24T02:53:48Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Perhaps a floating but detachable and even submersible bridge could work, this way when rought seas happen that section can break away for a bit to reattach later. It is one idea but you just upped the cost by a factor of 100 or more. The key point people see to be missing is that a bridge is only a bridge if it stays 100% intact and sustainable throughout its entire length. Detachable bridges wouldn’t solve the problem of having a workable bridge. The whole thing is a failure once any section breaks off and I am not sure there is any benefit to doing that in the first place. You would need to build the structure so that there is 99.9999% chance that would never happen on any section of it and that is impossible given the constraints. Submersible bridges are a cool idea but completely unworkable even if you have unlimited money and time. Remember, there will be people and goods crossing it when that earthquake or rogue waves hits. You can’t just have the bridge do a duck and cover maneuver to save itself while drowning and destroying everything crossing it. We can’t completely predict either undersea earthquakes or rogue waves so that is one reason I say it is impossible. This is a weird thought problem because it will probably never be possible at all even though superficially harder sounding problems will. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/33 "2013-01-24T02:53:55Z")
[ol] [li]Toll bridge? How much?[/li][li]Pedestrian walkway?[/li][li]Proposed name: Terrorist Magnet Bridge[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/34 "2013-01-24T03:04:34Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > I agree. I don’t think it could be done even if you gave a time-table of 20 years and all the possible resources in the world devoted to it. I believe building a practical and sustainable bridge across the Pacific would be harder than a moon base and probably harder than a manned Martian base. > > The key attribute a bridge needs to have is that it has to stay unbroken throughout its entire length. Any temporary breaks in any section make the whole thing useless. With inevitable large rouge waves, random seismic activity and failures of whatever anchoring mechanism someone designs (even if they can come up with something that works twice as deep or much more as has ever been done), I don’t think you can say that we have the technology to do it either. > > I agree that technology includes not just raw tech that works on a small scale but also the ability to scale up dramatically and also deal with inevitable failures in parts of the design. I am not seeing it for a bridge that big no matter how much money is spent. It is in the same realm as a space elevator except much less useful. Rogue waves wouldn’t be an issue. I mean, you could build the deck 100 meters above sea level. There are plenty of bridges that high, or higher. You’d need whole nations of people to inspect, maintain and repair the thing. But there are whole nations of unemployed right now. So manpower’s not an issue either. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/35 "2013-01-24T03:14:17Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > Rogue waves wouldn’t be an issue. I mean, you could build the deck 100 meters above sea level. There are plenty of bridges that high, or higher. You’d need whole nations of people to inspect, maintain and repair the thing. But there are whole nations of unemployed right now. So manpower’s not an issue either. Yeah…that’s what stopping this project. Manpower. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/36 "2013-01-24T03:22:34Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > This is a vital difference. > > One question is if sufficient raw materials, engineering knowledge, and manpower exist that would allow humanity to complete the project assuming that a sufficiently high number of people, raw materials, equipment, land, and money that actually exist are diverted to such an activity and the proper permits can be obtained. Sure, it might require that new, heretofore never before built construction equipment like super tall cranes or floating concrete factories be built, but that’s ok as long as we can build the cranes and other stuff. If we have to recurse (e.g. build A, then use A to build B, then use B to build C, then use C to build a trans-Pacific bridge, it’s ok as long as the plan would actually work). > > The second question includes everything in the first question but also requires that sufficient resources (manpower, raw materials, land, equipment, money, etc.) _are actually available or can reasonably be made available_ in a reasonable timeframe and that the necessary permits can actually be obtained in a reasonable amount of time (say, several years assuming that governments want detailed engineering plans, simulations, and 10 round reviews by the top minds from around the globe and that the conditions can actually be met). > > And who do you expect would fund it? Should we give it over to private companies and let them pay for it and then charge tolls? Welcome to the Microsoft Trans-Pacific Bridge. Pay $5,000 toll please. Not to mention that for every vertical pylon you would need to build (and you would need thousands), you could build maybe two Maersk Triple E class container ships. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/37 "2013-01-24T03:31:22Z")
There are floating oil platforms. So presumably we could build a series of structures like those, moor them to the ocean floor, and stretch a roadway between them. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/38 "2013-01-24T04:06:37Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > Pedestrian walkway? Someone’s going to walk to Asia? Although if one end is here in Oregon, you’ll have to include a bike lane. It’s pretty much required for any Oregon bridges… > [@](#): > > Proposed name: Terrorist Magnet Bridge Terrorists wouldn’t need a pedestrian walkway. Boats would do just fine. ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/39 "2013-01-24T04:34:32Z")
I have an idea to make a floating pontoon bridge work: Instead of linking them all together and dealing with the hassle of trying to drive from one pontoon to the other as waves keep shifting their position relative to each other, we drive a whole bunch of cars onto the first pontoon, then, drive the pontoon across the ocean, and then drive the car off the pontoon to the other shore. While that’s happening, other pontoons of the bridge can be driven full of cars in one great non-connected ‘bridge’! ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2013, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152/40 "2013-01-24T04:39:02Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > Well, to me that’s the exact same thing as not having the technology. The resources to build a practical, viable, real-world structure is _ **part of ‘having the technology!’** _ It’s like saying we can now make carbon nanotubes in the lab, so we now have the technology to built a space elevator. No, we don’t. No having the technology and having the resources to build it are NOT the same. Real world example. I want to build one of [these](https://www.factoryfive.com/kits/mk4-roadster/). I have all the tools, knowledge and technology. I don’t have 20 grand. ☹ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-build-a-bridge-across-the-pacific-ocean/648152.md?page=3)