Swarms are quite currently feasible. Japan has launched what amounts to a swarm member, any station or satellite that collects energy from the sun and beams it elsewhere, though Japan's satellite doesn't orbit the sun I don't think...

But a single solar satellite doesn't offer any real advantage over a slightly larger terrestrial solar platform.

The entire point of Dyson's design is how utterly, ridiculously massive it is.

Well yeah, but multiple solar satellites are also within our abilities. Just keep building them on a production line, shipping them up into orbit (great time to build a space elevator, btw) and you'll have plenty of power in no time. I would imagine faster than building sections of a Dyson ring.

The problem with a Dyson shell (or a solid ring, like Halo or something) I believe has already been discussed, but I'll point it back out again anyway. If you make a single solid object of that size, then tensile strength becomes a humongous issue. Any given point on the shell is basically supporting the weight of the entire rest of the shell in order to maintain its shell shape and not collapse into a solid mass. There is no material structure even theoretically feasible that could support anything on that scale. Even saying "it's the future" doesn't solve this problem, since I'm not sure even centuries from now we'd have to technology and materials to compensate for that.

So if we have the technology for individual platforms, then we in fact do NOT have the technology for a shell, I'm sorry to say. A shell is simply physically impossible to build. The only solution I could think of is maybe some internal thrusters that push outward to compensate, but constructing an array of thrusters powerful enough to do that might just use up all the energy you were collecting in the first place. It'd require a LOT of VERY strong thrusters. It just seems easier to make individual platforms that are relatively easy to maintain.


Well, it doesn't HAVE to orbit the sun. Just as long as it orbits whatever it's orbiting in such a manner that it's always exposed to the sun.


Gotta start somewhere.

I figured to be able to call it a Dyson whatevertheheck it should probably orbit the sun, but w/e.

Darlos, with a Dyson sphere, you've got your propulsion force right in front of you: the sun. Ion and/or solar sail propulsion.

That said, if you set the whole thing SPINNING, and put it in freefall around the actual sun, that'd also solve most of the problems. Where you'd get the energy to apply to something that massive in order to spin it, I know not. But, it's technically possible.

but hey, we may want it for a insanely huge two player map someday. "why hello sir, i see your tank is 20 screens away. oh wait. i don't see a tank anymore."

Dyson, I'm really happy for ya. Imma let you finish but Fusion Technology is a much more practical means of generating energy in the short term.


Considering the current progress in Fusion power, wouldn't it make more sense to work that out?
It's got to be cheaper to finish our current fusion prototypes rather than build 10 000 solar panels around the sun and send zoomy death rays of power back home.

Just sayin'

Aw, nuclear power stopped being cool in the 60s.

yeah sure fusion is great

if we can ever make it self-sustaining without a mass of fusionable material the size of an actual star

Actually, as I keep trying to point out: no, you don't.



The words "within our abilities" should have nothing to do with this conversation. I think you underestimate the enormous amount of power required to lift something out of our atmosphere. Even if we were to ignore the fact that long range wireless electricity transport does not exist, an orbiting solar array would not be able to pay itself off within the life expectancy of current solar technology, which most scientists agree has very finite limits anyway.

In addition, everyone talking ♥♥♥♥ about nuclear here has to go do some research. It stopped being cool in the 80s, actually, and that is directly a result of bad press from the Three Mile Island incident in conjunction with really bad bureaucracy surrounding the licensing and construction of reactors which led to huge budget snafus. TMI happened because, instead of advanced computerized monitoring systems, plant workers relied on a ♥♥♥♥ light bulb which didn't turn on. Not going to happen again. And don't bring up Chernobyl: that was in Soviet ♥♥♥♥ Russia, and there were so many problems with that plant that the simple fact that nothing happened earlier should act as support for nuclear.

Fusion is great, but it's been 20-30 years away for the past 50 years, so you're really not supposed to bring it up in conversations about alternative energy sources. Then again, long range energy transport doesn't exist yet either, so we're comparing a hypothetical with a hypothetical, which I suppose is alright. On this I'd have to side with fusion as being much much much more likely to happen. That said, let's remember to compare fusion power ONLY to things like the Dyson Sphere, and not to terrestrial solar. If fusion power is in fact 200 years away from being possible, then putting all our chips on that and no other alternative energy sources will surely lead to some extreme global warming.

Damn man, I was just kidding. Though I agree the handling of its development could have been a lot better. The absolute ignorance of ergonomics and human factors in the history of designing power plants is staggering. CERTAINLY the controls for power plants could have made less incomprehensible at some point, which would have directly avoided a lot of accidents and bad press.


Well, yeah, we ARE talking about the distant future here. We should be talking less about what's feasible now and more about what would be the most logical thing to arise in the future.

Also, long-range energy transport DOES exist. It's called a laser. NASA made a model plane equipped with photovoltaic panels fly by shooting a laser at it. It'd just be a matter of refining the technology and scaling it up.

[nuclear]
Ah, got it. Just making sure.

[hypothetical energy sources]
Right. The point of conceptualizing a Dyson Sphere wasn't to imagine how we might get power one day, but how some other alien race might do so, so that we know what to look for in our telescopes.

That said, I'll repeat: I think fusion is much more likely than Dyson.

[long range energy transport]
The plain was tiiiiiny and it barely counts as long range. We're talking DEEP space here. Hm, actually there's a problem to solve here. If someone can find out the no doubt ridiculous numbers on how much power a Dyson Sphere is supposed to produce, I'd like to know if it would be possible for a laser to transmit a sizable amount of this power to the earth without destroying the atmosphere. In any case, a huge amount of energy would be lost en transit, a number you'd have to add on to initial energy costs of making and transporting (BIGGY) all of these solar panels, not to mention maintenance. You might find that the payoff for such a project would far extend past the expiration date for the technologies involved.

Isn't the point of a Dyson sphere with habitats that you don't have an Earth anymore?

The concept I have is that you'd start with solar power stations in orbit, then expand them to include habitats, then slowly use the matter from Earth make more habitats to house the entire population of Earth. Then, begin mining asteroids and such to continue to expand your habitat/power station fleet. Each station would collect enough power for itself, more or less, the remainder deficit or surplus leapfrogged from station to station.

Here's one: satellite laser + modified solar panels. If you have enough satellites, you won't need to make each one powerful enough to damage the atmosphere.