Deep space just makes things better actually. When you shoot a laser through a vacuum, you don't have to worry about air particles making the photons spread apart. You could shoot a well-focused laser beam a long, long way. Like, easily the distance between the Earth and the Moon, and beyond. And I wasn't using the plane as an example of distance, just an example that the concept is operable (where you were saying the technology didn't exist at all). Like Metal Meltdown said, you could easily refine the process with a photovoltaic receiver specially constructed to receive the laser. Since all of the photons in a laser are in sync with each other (as opposed to regular light which has light of randomly different frequencies and wavelengths) it also makes the receiving a lot easier and decreases the energy loss. None of this is really that far-out with current technology. It's just that there's not much that really demands the technology yet. A Dyson sphere would.


Well, the funny thing here is that Dyson IS fusion. It's just using an already existing fusion reactor: the Sun.

All I really know right now is that fusion reactors currently use up more energy then they produce. I figure we'll probably get over that hurdle at some point in the future, but the ratio of effort-to-return will have to surpass other energy sources for it to be a viable replacement. I don't really know enough about fusion reactor research to speculate on when or how we would reach that point.


Uh, I guess you could go in that direction. Though you'd have to start taking a substantial amount of material out of the Earth to need to ditch it. Plus I can't see humanity just leaving the Earth behind entirely. Too many memories, yo.

I'm pretty sure a while a go they were going to make a big fusion reactor that would produce a small amount of energy... gonna go look that up now.
EDIT: Apparently still in construction, but yeah, it will apparently result in net power gain

Fusion power IS doing Ok at the moment guys.
ITER reckons to have a prototype that actually produces more power than it uses (but doesn't generate electricity yet herp derp) finished by 2018.
So, if everything goes according to plan, we might have a real fusion power plant by 2050. Maybe.

But a Dyson Sphere seems a much better idea long term, satellites would be cheap. The only problem is we need a way of getting energy from the satellites through several thousand kilometres of space without having big wires (which would just be silly). I'm sure you can do that, but we can't do it yet.

Also, solar panels need work. They are so inefficient at the moment it's comical. And they have fusion power syndrome, but worse. (verge of a breakthrough, 3 years, etc etc. for the last 10).

DAMNIT SCIENCE, HURRY UP.

self sustaining fusion reactions are one thing

capturing a self sustaining fusion reaction and using that as energy (specifically in order to power the selfsame fusion reactor + a net gain) is quite another

there are two basic schools of fusion power production: small, intense microbursts of "fusion" which are immediately captured for energy, or longer, sustained periods of fusion; quite literally miniature suns. now, on a much smaller scale, you can obviously do things you can't exactly do with the actual sun, so you wouldn't need a dyson sphere per se, but you will need some kind of technology to capture the radiated energy, and you can't just directly convert it.

Also, Exalion, lasers are the perfect method of transferring energy through space, especially if we can tighten up the focus more (or have "power poles" every few hundred thousand km which recollect and tighten the beam). All that's needed is a direct (or indirect) recombination into electrical power at the other end.

what about pure electron beams? i suppose any charged body would seriously skew their course, but it would be a more direct transfer... but then again, looking at long term usability, you'd want something less volatile, like light. <_< *defuses own argument*
we really do need better photovoltaic cells.

I know eh.

And Grif, couldn't you just put the fusion generator in a bath of water, and generate steam? IE same process as fission and coal powerplants.
Make water hot. Makes steam. Turns turbines.

Because suns are hot, right?

Well heating water is still what is done to get power from the fusion reactor, just in a slightly less crude way.

at that point, you're losing any energy released as light anyway, but i suppose it would be somewhat viable..

As I said, it seems a little more viable short term than building 100 million satellites to cruise around a star.

Actually I was speculating: of course you'd focus it as much as possible. But, even if it spread out, couldn't you just make the receiver have an accordingly wider area to catch it all? I mean, as long as all of the light hits the receiver, you'd think it'd work out. We're not trying to burn a hole in something. So it'd be nice if it ended up to where blooming wasn't really a big deal, as long you adjusted for it.

I think we'd want to have as few transferals as possible, since the inefficiency would cut down the end output. Of course, these "power poles" could just be a bunch of mirrors that refocus the laser and aim it elsewhere, which I guess wouldn't be so bad.

Mirrors actually reduce light by... 20% I think.
So yeah, cut down the 'power poles' to a minimum, if you can't avoid them entirely.

I think it would depend on the mirroring material. You would mostly need lenses though, I would imagine, to refocus the beam into a more compact shape.

yeah, it's more a question of the highest efficiency lens you can get that still refocuses the beam

mirror albedo is a whole other issue, though I think it factors into laser generation

It's mainly due to imperfections in the mirror. If you could get better mirrors or do it some other way I suppose that'd work.

lenses are not mirrors

refocusing a diffuse beam would be the job of a lens, not a mirror

mirrors reflect, lenses direct, prisms split