[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 336x326, DysonSphere2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3892293 No.3892293 [Reply] [Original]

The Dyson shell in the habitable zone, the first step to exploit the full potential of solar power. With a habitable surface on the inside, 500mio times as big the surface of the earth. Humanity thrives in there into unimaginable numbers and unimaginable sophistication. Until interstellar travel and stellar travel become a synonym. No need for "starships". No need to colonize planets. They are more useful as building material.

But this shell will contain the solar wind, and all the stuff this wind normally deflected from an untapped star will bombard the outside of the shell. What unknown threats will we fear? Ordinary interstellar objects are all I can imagine now, at the moment. Dark matter. Tell me what else. Which horrors still lurk out there in the dark? What can even destroy a sun?

And yes, I am fully aware that we lack the building materials as well as the contruction methods to finish the shell before next summer. This is not the point. Allow yourself a dream, a small step into science fiction.

>> No.3892318

So what, humans will just hang from the dyson sphere above the Sun?

>> No.3892324

I think we would probably want the solar wind to escape, so a ring or a cage would probably be more practical.

>> No.3892337

>>3892324
A better idea would be a wire mesh (Faraday cage) between the sun and shell. The danger of solar winds is the charged particles fucking up electronics.

>> No.3892334

Seriously, why put it at Earth's orbit? Why not bring it in closer? It's not like humans will actually be living ON the inner surface. That would be ridiculous.

>> No.3892340

>>3892334
I suppose that we wouldn't want to Earth to become totally uninhabitable.

>> No.3892343

>What can even destroy a sun?
Time.

>> No.3892349

>>3892340
You could leave an Earth-sized hole in the shell. Problem fixed.

>> No.3892350

i suppose people want to stand on the inside of the dyson sphere? where's all that gravity coming from?

artificial gravity is as insane as building a dyson sphere.

>> No.3892363

>>3892293
>a habitable surface on the inside

What? No. Anything on the inside would just fall into the sun.

A Dyson sphere is for harvesting all of the output of the sun. It's not for living on.

>> No.3892364

>>3892350
The inside could spin. Granted, people would only be able to live on the "Dyson-equator" but it's not like that's a small area.

>> No.3892368

>>3892340
The fuck? Why are you worrying about the Earth? We would have used its mass for the Sections A1 through C1 of the Dyson Sphere.

>> No.3892375

>>3892364
Just build a god damn ring world then.

Dyson spheres are for energy.

>> No.3892376

>>3892364

For it to spin fast enough, it would need comically huge tensile strength.

>> No.3892379

>>3892364
it would need to spin pretty fast, so there's a high chance that it will simply collapse if you dont use unobtanium to construct it.

and if you only intend to live on the equator, why bother with a full sphere if cant use 99.99999 % of it for anything but energy production?

>> No.3892380

>>3892363
>It's not for living on.
But it could easily double as that. The first Dyson-sphere of a species is bound to be at least partially a habitat.

>> No.3892393

>>3892379
The energy will be used to power the Large Dyson Collider housed within the shell.

>> No.3892395

I think the whole concept is sort of silly. The only reason we would need so much energy would be malthusian population growth, which a sufficiently advanced civilation would have left behind long ago.

>> No.3892399

>>3892380
>But it could easily double as that.

No, not "easily" at all. It would have to be much, much, much larger, so the surface was in the habitable zone. It would have to spin, and thus need to be built of unobtainium in order not to fly apart.

>> No.3892404

>>3892376
>it would need comically huge tensile strength.

OR, the power obtained from the sun could power ion engines accelerating the equator inwards to offset some of the tensile stress.

>> No.3892405

>>3892393

The thought of that gave me such a hadron.

>> No.3892409

>>3892399
>so the surface was in the habitable zone
Unnecessary. You could use the harnessed energy for more localized heat.

>> No.3892415

>>3892376
Or we could spin it just fast enough to get a zero-g environment. We wouldn't have to worry about obtaining unobtainium. For non-vecs who prefer the feel of gravity, habitats with centripetally induced "gravity" could be constructed near to the main ring in orbit around the Sun.

>> No.3892419

The majority of the 'sphere' would be close-in foils that convert sunlight to electrical potentials, which would have to be tapped in some innovative fashion to allow more foils flying than tappers and beamers. The foils would make use of the solar wind to maneuver in place. The tappers would tap these foils and send the electrical power on to the beamers, who would convert the power into microwave beams, to be used arbitrarily by nearby Humanity. The 'shell' radius would need to be near Humans; it's an engineering calculation how far. And the 'shell' itself could be staggered to allow for usage plans.
The equator of the shell would need to be empty to allow the planets to continue receiving sunlight. Pluto's orbital canting would likely not be given any consideration, so it would receive less sunlight than ever, not that that made much difference to chilly Pluto in the first place.

In addition to the shell, Humans would be colonizing the heck out of inner-system space with habitats, which as O'Neill clearly determined, are the proper places for an expanding technological civilization, NOT planetary surfaces. The habitats would be linked to the foils, being close to the power that was built in the first place to be used.

This system is extremely expandable and scalable. Too bad only nerds understand this, as every politician and corporate executive and economist FUCKING DOES NOT.

>> No.3892421

ridiculous idea, think of it, millions and millions of kilometers of sphere

>> No.3892424

sage for fiction

>> No.3892427

>>3892395
>The only reason we would need so much energy would be malthusian population growth
Don't be so small minded. By the time we build Dyson spheres or Dyson swarms we won't be homo sapiens any longer. Civilization will likely be dominated AI gods. All that energy would give them even more computational power, or the energy to accelerate craft across the galaxy or to other galaxies, or to drill a fucking hole through space-time.

>> No.3892428

sage

>> No.3892432
File: 3 KB, 300x57, eoseli-&Hebrew.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3892432

Build a ringworld first; to act as a habitable backbone for the rest of the sphere. This will give us plenty of space to spread out and mutate while also acting as a stable-ish platform from which to build the rest of the sphere.

Of course we won't have enough building material by next summer, but if we work at it; we can have the Earth dismantled and ready for use by mid December.

>> No.3892442

the idea is so so so retarded it hurts my brain

>> No.3892447

>>3892427
Matrioshka brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_brain

>> No.3892446
File: 74 KB, 596x650, globus cassus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3892446

i'd rather build this one.

it's slightly more sane than a dyson sphere.

>> No.3892452
File: 74 KB, 362x344, 1316826034287.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3892452

If the dyson sphere is close enough to the star, it could be perfectly balanced against the star's gravity and the pressure of the light... I just realized a Dyson sphere wouldn't require absurd materials to build... Holy fuck.

>> No.3892453

>>3892442
Even Dyson himself said that a solid shell was retarded. A Dyson sphere is a cluster of satellites orbiting the sun, which is more doable.

>> No.3892454

>>3892446
The fuck am I looking at here?

>> No.3892455

>>3892447
That too.

>> No.3892467

>>3892453
1) I think you mean a "dyson SWARM" is more feasible.
2) See >>3892452. I'm surprised I have never heard anyone mention this idea before.

>> No.3892468

>>3892452
The absurdity of the materials required is a minor issue compared to the staggering AMOUNT of them required. Better start with swarm modules. It won't matter if it ever becomes a full Dyson swarm; it'll be immensly useful nonetheless.

>> No.3892471

>>3892454
I remember seeing that graphic alongside some scifi engineering plan. As the image suggests, it involves tearing the Earth apart and using the mass to construct something with more habitable surface area.

>> No.3892487

>Collect solar energy with satellites.
>Have to shoot it in beams to be reconverted into electrical potential where humans actually live.
>Congratulations, you've created satellites to do what the sun already does through solar radiation.

Full retard. Why don't you all study a practical science (e.g. political science) and fix problems of redistribution first.

>> No.3892491

>>3892468
>dyson swarm
A Dyson sphere that levitates above the star would invariably be constructed incrementally. It would technically be a dyson swarm until completion. The best part about it is that every step will increase output. There will be no upfront cost that isn't immediately beneficial. It is all one natural progression from a few solar collectors to a Dyson sphere.

>mass required
It really depends on the size and output of the star in question. The swarm would initially be constructed from comets and similarly sized space debris, but as power output increases larger and larger objects will be converted, all the way up to planets or perhaps brown dwarfs.

>> No.3892494

>>3892487
Who the fuck said that stuff?

>> No.3892496

>>3892467

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere
>>Such a "sphere" would be a system of orbiting solar power satellites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_shell
>>The variant of the Dyson sphere most often depicted in fiction is the "Dyson shell": a uniform solid shell of matter around the star.

Everybody gets Dyson spheres and Dyson shells confused because every SciFi show ever has gotten it wrong. Ready Dyson's book "Disturbing the Universe" where he describes these things.

>> No.3892500

>>3892491

>>3892419

>> No.3892503
File: 30 KB, 367x451, fgt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3892503

>>3892293
>Allow yourself a dream
>>>/x/

>> No.3892505

>>3892487
You could cover a larger area with a satellite, and depending on the distance to the sun, the effect per m^2 could be far greater. Also, the atmosphere of the Earth filters out a lot of useful energy.

But you're right in that if the energy delivery system is inefficient, the whole think is pointless.

>> No.3892521

>>3892496
I know the idea of placing the components of a dyson swarm in positions where the gravity of the star and the pressure of the star's light cancel each other out isn't new. I am surprised that no one has ever applied the same concept to a full fledged Dyson sphere. It wouldn't need to be made out of absurd materials. It would simply float above the star.

>> No.3892530

>>3892500
What about that post?

>> No.3893797
File: 66 KB, 400x260, InterstellarSail.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3893797

OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE bump!!!!
>missed the first time :P

>> No.3893820

Wouldn't the shell completely fuck the gravity of everything in and around it?

Wouldn't it be more concieveable to build small, planet-sized Dyson spheres for protection?

>> No.3893848

>>3893820
Inside the shell, it would appear not to have any mass.

Outside the shell, it would be as if the shell were added to the mass of the sun.

>> No.3893863

>>3892471
>tear earth apart
but how

>> No.3893886

>>3893863
Magnets?

I don't know. It wasn't my idea... I guess they could have millions of large mass accelerator stations on the surface that launch everything excavated into orbit. Or maybe they could use thousands of space elevators.

>> No.3893887

>>3892471

>Tearing the Earth for raw materials

Full retard. Why do that when there's a perfectly good asteroid belt near us, and the Oort Cloud at the edge where we'd be building the sphere anyway.

>> No.3893904
File: 193 KB, 800x600, 800px-Dyson_Swarm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3893904

A dyson swarm is much easier. We can't make a dyson sphere with any known material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Dyson_swarm

>> No.3893921

>>3893887
It's already been used up? Mankind has mother issues? I don't fucking know.

>> No.3893975

>>3893904
>We can't make a dyson sphere with any known material.
Actually, I pointed out earlier in this thread that we COULD create a Dyson sphere using known materials.

If the pull of the Sun's gravity is balanced with the pressure of the Sun's light and solar wind, then the sphere's surface would simply float above the Sun.

>> No.3893998

What I never understand is where all of the materials for photovoltaic cells would come from. Asteroids don't just have every metal you need, a lot are just rock.

>> No.3894155

>>3893998
The method one uses to make the energy of the Sun is not that important when compared to the shear scale of the sphere's construction. By the time technology and infrastructure has expanded enough to allow such large scale projects any technology we use today would be outdated. They could use any number of ways to make the energy of the Sun's radiation useful. Putting much thought into the matter would be like paleolithic human wondering what type of fuel source the first space craft would use, wood or animal oil.

If modern-esk photovoltaic cells were used then there is plenty of silicon in the solar system to utilize. Earth for one is full of it!

>> No.3894437

Guys, does Dyson not know about how much easier and more energy we could get from just making a fusion reactor?

We're almost, just almost able to make a sustainable fusion reaction (essentially our own star, skipping the swarm part in the dyson swarm). It's just so much more effective.

>> No.3894464

>dyson sphere
dumb
>dyson swam, made of self-replicating components which automatically acquire asteroids for raw materials
better

since technically you only need to build one, or a few, and wait.

>> No.3897410

>>3894464
A Dyson Sphere IS a swarm of satellites. FFS I feel like I'm the only one who ever read any of Dyson's books in this thread. A Dyson shell is a solid sphere. A Dyson sphere is a swarm of satellites. That one TNG episode with Scotty fucked it all up and now everybody gets it wrong.