←back to thread

214 points SkyMarshal | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.314s | source
Show context
ardit33 ◴[] No.28231727[source]
The whole concept of a Dyson sphere is kinda idiotic. Any civilization that is capable to build one, it is probably able to work out fusion energy very efficiently.

There is no point to go and harness energy around a star or a black hole, when you can just produce it locally with a lot less resources/waste and materials. The sun itself is actually very inefficient in producing energy.

There is no need to harness the sun million of km away, when you can recreate it in your home planet. The only way to produce a dyson like of sphere, is to tame an over-heated sun, and reflect away un-needed energy. But there is no point to build one to just harness it.

It makes great sci-fi stories, but that's about it. Scientifically, it just doesn't make sense.

replies(16): >>28231746 #>>28231799 #>>28231848 #>>28231889 #>>28231938 #>>28231949 #>>28232030 #>>28232082 #>>28232103 #>>28232722 #>>28233342 #>>28234206 #>>28234221 #>>28234793 #>>28235507 #>>28242881 #
zaarn ◴[] No.28231799[source]
There is a point still, because a star is massively more efficient at fusion by way of "production at scale" effects.

The additional benefit is the amount of power. With the power of a star at your disposal, beaming your energy using lasers and microwaves, even if only 1% efficient, would instantly solve the energy needs of any planet in a solar system. If we did it, we could instantly colonize all planets in our solar system because things like "running an AC on Mercury" or "Hovercraft in Jupiter Atmosphere" becomes trivial when you have limitless power.

Heck, you could start projects like moving planets in orbits or collecting astroids to built a planet if you wanted.

Black holes are the stage after that since you can use a spinning black hole to convert a given mass into energy at >10% efficiency (given E=MC^2). That would allow a civilization to power multiple solar systems at the cost of a few planets per year.

Granted, the sphere is difficult to build, but that is what you have dyson swarms for.

replies(1): >>28232083 #
TheOtherHobbes ◴[] No.28232083[source]
The sphere isn't difficult to build. It's impossible to build.

It's unstable without active stabilisation. The stabilisation has to be perfect because otherwise you get massive distorting spherequakes propagating through it, which will make it a very uncomfortable ride for a short time and will soon tear it apart.

A perfect spherical stabilising solution with components and sensors that are light minutes - or possibly light hours - from each other is impossible because of the signalling delays.

Ringworlds have the same problem. Even if the ring is made of infinitely strong unobtanium, it won't stay in a useful orbit for long enough to be built, never mind inhabited.

Swarms have more potential, because you can build them with sparse shells and move things around to handle instabilities. But you still need massive computational effort to keep swarm units from colliding with each other, possibly at very high speed.

None of this matters, because the limiting factor for civs is collective intelligence, not energy.

We already have access to far more energy than we could possibly use on earth for any technology that's actually buildable. But we're not using it because we don't have the species IQ to make the right choices.

replies(10): >>28232159 #>>28232435 #>>28232509 #>>28233003 #>>28233694 #>>28234006 #>>28234120 #>>28235495 #>>28236626 #>>28236891 #
wruza ◴[] No.28232159[source]
collective intelligence, not energy

This. The entire “moving planets” and “powering asteroids” theme is just a projection of our historical aggressive reproduction, which is not even a requirement for an advanced civilization. Earth alone could serve us a few billions of happy years, if we didn’t have the happy urge to multiply until critical shortage. That’s far from intelligent, imo.

replies(3): >>28232256 #>>28232532 #>>28232782 #
coldacid ◴[] No.28232782[source]
We don't even have a billion years before the sun heats up to the point that Earth's oceans boil away.
replies(2): >>28233782 #>>28233986 #
1. wruza ◴[] No.28233782[source]
Right, I remembered this term incorrectly.