When you consider that its a network and not a bunch of seperate items.
You would’t call a brick house to not be a single object, so why would a road network be broken into constituent parts ?
The federal road network shows that its even designed as a single network, to some extent, its just just a bunch of state highways that happen to cross paths.
Well, why limit it to the USA road network? It’s not as though all US roads stop at the borders.
True, once we look at a transnational road network we have something constructed by more than one party, but nothing in the OP limits the query to things constructed by just one party. In any event, different components of the US road network will have been constructed by different parties - different local, state and federal governmental agencies, and no doubt a few more entities besides.
So if we are looking at road networks, the likely answer is going to be the largest connected road network on the planet which, I’m guessing, is the Eurasian-African road network.
An interesting side question occurs to me: What’s the most expensive thing a private individual can actually buy? I mean, aircraft carriers and space rockets aren’t (to the best of my knowledge) available to anyone but governments. What could I buy if money was really no object?
Apple Inc. is valued at $537 billion today but if you wanted to buy it, it would cost you a lot more. I’m not sure that’s a single thing to the OP though.
Trying to find a single expensive thing, I looked at the cost of the Large Hadron Collider. Only $9 billion – for all the science we get out of it, it’s a bargain compared to an aircraft carrier.
[QUOTE=Travis McGee]
“It is the most valuable stuff, Mr. McGee, on a size and weight basis, the world has ever known. Some years ago Ray Weil and his brother Roger, bought a Hawaiian stamp at auction for forty thousand. Very thin paper. Some newspaper guy in New Orleans, I think it was, figured out that it came to one and a half billion dollars a pound.”
[/QUOTE]
The novel this quote came from (The Scarlett Ruse) was published in 1972. Prices have surely risen since then.
(Another candidate would be the trans-uranic elements, with billions spent to produce a few molecules.)
Even there, I suspect that you could legitimately argue that you could spread a lot of the costs of the bedrock scientific research into fission across all subsequent nuclear weapon programs AND any government funded research into civilian nuclear applications.
That’s the catch here; some of these *programs *are huge, but that’s not really the cost of the items themselves.
I suspect that absent the actual scientific development costs (i.e. figuring out how and if a fission bomb was feasible), the real costs to making the bombs themselves were in the uranium separation for** Little Boy**, and the plutonium generation for Fat Man/Trinity.
Nothing else come close really on a pound-for-pound basis.
A gram of antimatter costs around $25 billion to produce. Of course, there is nowhere near a gram of antimatter on earth so in real terms it costs less than other things listed here but in terms price/gram (or whatever weight measurement you want to use) nothing else comes remotely close. Not even the ISS.
The electric power grid is basically a single huge, world-spanning machine. (Even if we only count synchronous interconnections as a single “machine”, one of them is the size of Europe.) I don’t know what you would say it “cost”, but I expect it would probably take top honors if we could find out.
This gets into the whole subject of marginal cost: how much it costs to make one more of something after you’ve already covered the cost of being able to produce any at all. Typically, investment-heavy items benefit from economy of scale.