Dyson Shell

Again, you started a thread about the plausibility of such a thing, yet now you're trying to convince me of it's simplicity and utter ease we'd find in constructing it.

I never said building one is impossible, I didn't even say humans building one is impossible.

I'm stating we cannot build one yet, and most likely won't be able to in any foreseeable future.

Anyways, I'm bowing out. Have fun.

A Dyson "shell" is a bit out of our league right now, and also very impractical: no way to create gravity all over it's inner surface.

Dyson never really meant a "shell" as in a ridged shell surrounding a star in any case. What he was talking about is a swarm of orbital platforms around a star, more commonly referred to as a Dyson Swarm.

Dyson Swarm is completely within our reach right now. If anyone cared to spend the money and time to build orbital platforms around the sun.

Platforms for capturing energy from the sun. Platforms for manufacturing. Platforms for living (like a hollow cylinder that is spun for gravity.

A ridged shell is just too impractical, as there are many ways that are better to do this.

You guys should go to YouTube and catch Isaac Arthur's channel. He goes into great detail about this with his Mega Structure series, and covers a lot of other things, like planet building, orbital rings, and many other things.

a reply to: RAY1990

Actually, a space elevator is irrelevant, as, we could turn raw materials into useful products for such a purpose in outer space.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

As I have explained earlier and in earnest. Trying to focus, on creating a Dyson shell initially makes very little sense. It is possible we can achieve something like that in the future. But in relation to a Dyson swarm given today's technology, that is actually feasible.

Thoughts?

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

Wouldn't a solar flare destroy them?

Having platforms in space for living and manufacturing isn't the same as having platforms for energy production that'll be later used on Earth.

I'll check the videos out, I enjoyed the series that was on TV.

a reply to: Kashai

Why am I here?

Using space for resources is generally a good idea. See this is the kind of stuff I like

We've got problems to overcome in that regard though, we'll initially need to launch quite a bit of resources at first just to get started, my point with a space elevator though was more pollution related. Since rockets are rather dirty, we'll need to launch stuff.

Then we have the problem of energy requirements in space, we have plenty available but transferring that energy into propulsion is seemingly a problem still.

That's what I was alluding to earlier in this thread about how I'm going round in circles.

We either need some serious progress in some technologies (photon engines?) or we will be launching a lot of vessels just to supply the initial fuel.

Again, plenty of fuel and energy just not near home. Satellites carry their own propellant for example, we don't refuel them as it's cheaper to launch more, much cheaper.

Shielding is quite possible to do for living platforms (water shielding would be one of the bests to use as it can serve several purposes).

As for the other platforms: think of how many satellites we have in orbit about the Earth, and the sun itself right now. They do not all get snuffed out by flares from our sun.

Power collection platforms are not to just feed the Earth power, but the other platforms too.

It's about getting off the Earth and expanding. At some point the Earth isn't going to be able to sustain the human race forever if we keep increasing in population. At some point there will be too many people and not enough resources.

However, our solar system does have enough resources, for literally trillions of people, we just have to go out and utilize those resources.

Each of those platforms are not just limited to the Earth's orbit itself. They could orbit the sun at about the same distance, but you can have them orbit in a sphere all around the sun at that distance (hence the name Swarm).

You can put them a bit further out, and some a bit closer since you'd be controlling the climate too. Compared to actually trying to colonize a planet: colonizing space is easy:

Everything needed is already in orbit around the sun. Asteroids that contain minerals, metals and water are out there, and have hardly any gravity well to speak of, so you don't have to expend all that fuel and energy trying to get things up and out of the steep gravity well of a planet.

Trading and traveling between the platforms is a lot easier too: as again, you're not having to deal with a planet's gravity well.

Now, the further out you go, you won't be able to rely on the sun's output for energy any more, it's too weak if you go too far out (past Jupiter). That far out you'd need something else, like say fusion (we ain't got that yet....and it seems it's always "within the next 20 years").

But just think of all the resources and room you have from Jupiter's orbit inwards going towards the sun.

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

As for the other platforms: think of how many satellites we have in orbit about the Earth, and the sun itself right now. They do not all get snuffed out by flares from our sun.

But some do, I wanted to dig on that a bit because as I understand it, the closer to the sun the more chance of being hit. Kind of like a shotgun being shot, the further out the higher the spread. I'm not aware of anything that can stop electronics being frazzled by a flare... But then again I don't work for a military.

Power collection platforms are not to just feed the Earth power, but the other platforms too. 

Naturally
I mentioned earlier how we don't have good batteries though, as I understand it, here on earth we produce energy on demand because we really don't have a reliable way of storing large amounts of electricity. I know this is why the likes of hospitals have generators, because you just can't rely on batteries yet.

I'm not meaning to ignore the rest you wrote, I agree with a lot of it and colonisation of space is a necessity, just picking out the bits I have issue with or a lack of understanding.

Energy storage
Energy conversion
Propulsion

Those are the things I see as a hindrance, why we couldn't start this project tomorrow. A few things show promise but I'm guessing in time we'll be hearing about it as we do fusion.

That's a "maybe in 15-20 years" kind of a thing.

I do hate to be pessimistic though, Elon Musk is already achieving things my mind said is possible but will probably never happen and good on him.

The world isn't filled with Elon Musk's though. We can't be relying on Brunel's all the time.

Music break

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: Kashai

pretty sure if we had the ability to travel 40 light years away, we'd be well on our way to surviving with or without earth.

Dyson spheres aren't about Earth, they're about collecting energy. The sun is a massive fusion reactor. It far surpasses even the hypothetical fusion reactors we might produce here for our power needs. If you could catch even a fraction of its output and store it efficiently, you might use it to power your civilization. So the idea isn't to use these for people living on planets, but generally to fuel your civilization needs.

a reply to: jonnywhite

A sphere would capture all of that energy. And a technology which is capable of doing that implies a hell of a lot more.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jonnywhite

A sphere would capture all of that energy. And a technology which is capable of doing that implies a hell of a lot more.

Then explain how we might tap more robust energy sources than a star? What're the other options? If building a Dyson Sphere implies a hell of a lot more then what do we use to fuel the civilization?

My understnad is a type 2 civilization consumes stars to fuel its endeavors and a type 3 uses whole galaxies.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Indeed. Many stars.

But it seems you missed my point. If a civilization can build a Dyson sphere, its technology would enable its reach to go beyond the star it has tamed.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jonnywhite

Indeed. Many stars.

But it seems you missed my point. If a civilization can build a Dyson sphere, its technology would enable its reach to go beyond the star it has tamed.

It seems I was agreeing with you. See, the OP wrote we should go to a nearby star and build a dyson sphere to increase our odds of survival. Another poster wrote if we could travel there we probably won't have survival problems anymore. I guess I got confused and I wrote Dyson Spheres are about powering the space-faring civilization. I didn't state I'm already aware of type 2 and type 3 civilizations on that scale. I know that once we do that we're well beyond concerns over merely surviving. Type 1 civlizations dominate their home planet--as I understand. Type 2 is when they start dominating stars, as you're indicating.

a reply to: jonnywhite

Yeah. You got it right, I think.
Me too. I got it right, I think.

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
A Dyson "shell" is a bit out of our league right now, and also very impractical: no way to create gravity all over it's inner surface.

Dyson never really meant a "shell" as in a ridged shell surrounding a star in any case. What he was talking about is a swarm of orbital platforms around a star, more commonly referred to as a Dyson Swarm.

Dyson Swarm is completely within our reach right now. If anyone cared to spend the money and time to build orbital platforms around the sun.

Platforms for capturing energy from the sun. Platforms for manufacturing. Platforms for living (like a hollow cylinder that is spun for gravity.

A ridged shell is just too impractical, as there are many ways that are better to do this.

You guys should go to YouTube and catch Isaac Arthur's channel. He goes into great detail about this with his Mega Structure series, and covers a lot of other things, like planet building, orbital rings, and many other things.

Yup! I forgot about that. He didn't mean a solid sphere. Good catch. That's worth reiterating, if nobody else has.

After googling, it's evident Dyson's hypothesis may have been influenced by a couple fiction writers and maybe John Desmond Bernal. One of the books listed is Star Maker (1937). A "gauze of light traps" surround each star system to fuel the civliization:
en.wikipedia.org - Star Maker...

Star Maker is a science fiction novel by British writer Olaf Stapledon, published in 1937. The book describes a history of life in the universe, dwarfing in scale Stapledon's previous book, Last and First Men (1930), a history of the human species over two billion years. Star Maker tackles philosophical themes such as the essence of life, of birth, decay and death, and the relationship between creation and creator. A pervading theme is that of progressive unity within and between different civilizations. Some of the elements and themes briefly discussed prefigure later fiction concerning genetic engineering and alien life forms. Arthur C. Clarke considered Star Maker to be one of the finest works of science fiction ever written.

a reply to: jonnywhite

The ringworld is unstable!



I just said that because it's true.

Physics and stuff.

They count.

a reply to: Phage

Suppose it would not necessarily need to be a solid ring through but rather an interconnected lattice of different facilities and constructions that could be kept in place via station keeping thrusters and there like which may be able to address any stability concerns.

a reply to: Phage

I agree with andy06shake and would site that on a much smaller scale the F-117 Nighthawk.

The issue is, that the aircraft would be really good at making. a hole in the ground if not for what?

a reply to: proteus33



This video touches on some interesting subjects pertaining to Dyson like constructions and beyond. Give it a go if you have a spare 45 minutes.