| |
| ▲ | andsoitis 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >> Dyson Sphere > What do you think the limiting factor is? You need to be able to harness enough raw material and energy to build something that can surround the sun. That does not exist in the solar system and we do not yet have the means to travel further out to collect, move, and construct such an incredibly huge structure. It seems like a fantasy. | | |
| ▲ | tlb 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The inner planets contain enough mass to create a shell of 1 AU radius with mass of 42 kg/m^2. That sounds like a plausible thickness and density for a sandwich of photovoltaics - GPUs - heat sinks. You don't build a rigid shell of course, you build a swarm of free-floating satellites in a range of orbits. See https://www.aleph.se/Nada/dysonFAQ.html#ENOUGH for numbers. | | |
| ▲ | FridgeSeal 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I am dying to know where you’ll get the energy and manufacturing scale in order to achieve this with current, or current+50-years technology. Do tell. | | |
| ▲ | tlb 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The energy to build the system comes from the partial assembled system, plus some initial bootstrap energy. It grows exponentially. We seem to have enough today to build small factories in orbit. The manufacturing scale comes from designing factory factories. They aren't that far in the future. Most factory machinery is made in factories which could be entirely automated, so you just need some robots to install machines into factories. | | |
| ▲ | jcgrillo an hour ago | parent [-] | | I was told ca. 2003 or so that because features on computer chips were getting smaller at some rate, and processor speed was getting faster at some other rate, that given exponential this or that I'd have tiny artificial haemo-goblins[1] bombing around my circulatory system that would make me swim like a fish under the sea for hours on end. But it turned out to be utter bullshit. Just like this. [1] https://www.writingsbyraykurzweil.com/respirocytes |
|
| |
| ▲ | fluoridation 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Great. Now run the numbers to find the energy required to disassemble the planets and accelerating the pieces to their desired locations. For reference, it takes over 10 times of propellant and oxidant mass to put something in LEO. | | |
| ▲ | tlb 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The burned propellant and oxygen mass (as H2O and CO2) almost all ends up back in the atmosphere when you launch to LEO, so you can keep running electrolysis (powered by solar) to convert it back to fuel. | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but if we're talking about solar engineering, that mass is going to be dispersed in orbit around the sun. You're not going to be reaccumulating that any time soon. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | rtkwe 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Also it's gravitationally unstable, like Dyson Rings, where as soon as you have any perturbance from the center means that the closer side is more attracted to the sun so it enters a feedback loop. |
| |
| ▲ | singleshot_ 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There are only so many people who can make satellites; there are only so many things to make satellites out of; and there are only so many orbits to put them in. There are only so many reasons why a person might want a satellite. There are only so many ways of placing satellites in orbit and each requires some amount of energy, and we have access to a finite amount of energy over time. Finally, if we limited ourselves to earth-based raw materials, we would eventually reach a point where the remaining mass of the earth would have less gravitational effect on the satellite fleet than the fleet itself, which would have deleterious effects on the satellite fleet. Seven reasons are intuitive; I’m sure there are many others. | | |
| ▲ | SJC_Hacker 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Finally, if we limited ourselves to earth-based raw materials, we would eventually reach a point where the remaining mass of the earth would have less gravitational effect on the satellite fleet than the fleet itself, which would have deleterious effects on the satellite fleet. The Earth's crust has an average thickness of about 15-20 km.
Practically we can only get at maybe the top 1-2 km, as drill bits start to fail the deeper you go. The Earth's radius is 6,371 km. So even if we could somehow dug up entire crust we can get to and flung it into orbit, that would barely be noticeable to anything in orbit. | | |
| ▲ | tlb 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Once you dig up the top kilometer of a planet's crust, what's under your feet? The next kilometer! That would suck to do to Earth, but we can launch all of Mars's mass into the swarm. |
| |
| ▲ | tlb 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | People can build a factory that makes satellites. And then a factory that makes factories to make satellites. There is plenty of material in the solar system (see my other response), and plenty of orbits, and launch capability can scale with energy harvested so the launch rate can grow exponentially. Lots of people will probably decide they don't want any more satellites. But it only takes a few highly determined people to get it done anyway. | | |
| ▲ | moralestapia 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Just imbest[1] and it will grow exponentially. That's how that argument sounds like, particularly when you hear it from someone who is as broke as it can be. It's easy to type those ideas in a comment, or a novel, or a scientific paper ... bring them to reality, oh surprise! that's the hard part. 1: The dumb version to invest |
|
| |
| ▲ | bluescrn 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | After a few decades, you need to start replacing all the solar panels. And the robot army being used to do the construction and resource extraction will likely have a much shorter lifespan. So needs to be self-replicating/repairing/recycling. | |
| ▲ | skywhopper 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The physical amount of material in the solar system is a pretty big limiting factor. | | |
| ▲ | willturman 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, but besides not having the physical amount of material available in the solar system, or the availability of any technology to transfer power generated to a destination where it can serve a meaningful purpose in the foreseeable future, or having the political climate or capital necessary for even initiating such an effort, or not being able to do so without severely kneecapping the habitability of our planet, there are aren't really any meaningful barriers that I can see. | | |
| |
| ▲ | sollewitt 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In 2026? Grift. |
|
