Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TakeshiKusanagi t1_jdvr4er wrote

Where do we get the materials to build it? Nevermind, the world would never unite to try.

27

Kahoots113 t1_jdvsfbr wrote

Asteroid mining would actually be a great source. No need to take from earth and its already in space. Build a processing plant on say the moon to refine and manufacture things. Its doable. Just need some stupidly rich person ro realize the gold mine and then do it and then live like a king while fucking all of us peasents over as they monopolize the fucking sun...

25

TakeshiKusanagi t1_jdvtg1v wrote

>Just need some stupidly rich person ro realize the gold mine and then do it and then live like a king while fucking all of us peasents over as they monopolize the fucking sun

More like an evil corporation would do it. Wayland-Yutani, maybe?

15

MrZwink t1_jdw8328 wrote

You'd need to dismantle a few planets to make a Dyson sphere.

6

quettil t1_jdz9w2d wrote

Depends on how dense and wide it is. If you have it close enough to the sun you wouldn't need much material.

1

MrZwink t1_jdzawix wrote

Ye I've read papers with the math on this.

If just a few milimeters thick, you would still atleast need mercury and Venus. Remember the sun is hot, so you can't go to far in. You'd think getting a lower energy output star would help, but brown dwarves and red dwarves have unstable ejections and radiate making them unsuitable.

2

quettil t1_jdzcby8 wrote

A 1mm thick swarm at 0.1AU would need around 7% of the mass of Mercury. It's supposed to farm energy from the Sun so it has to tolerate heat. And just 1% of this is a trillion times Earth's current energy consumption.

2

MrZwink t1_jdzcnb1 wrote

You're assuming all the materials are useful. While infact you need metals. Luckily mercury has an iron core. And we were talking Dyson sphere not swarm. A swarm would be much easier, as it requires much less material, much less stabilisation. And you can construct it a segment at a time.

A Dyson swarm at 0.1 au would also be very toasty.

3

quettil t1_jdzcrro wrote

> And we were talking Dyson sphere not swarm.

A Dyson sphere is a swarm. Sphere is a misnomer. It was always a swarm.

0

MrZwink t1_jdzde4a wrote

Friedman Dyson proposed an actual sphere. But in practice the sphere would be very difficult to keep in orbit. A small imbalance and it would destabilize and fall into the sun.

Swarms are much more easily executable.

They are not the same thing.

2

Minibeave t1_jdzxpwc wrote

Just one, Venus.

1

MrZwink t1_je17kd4 wrote

tldr: venus is probably the worst choice.

venus is actually one of the most difficult to dismantle compared to mercury it has the following disadvantages:

- gravity:higher gravity on venus, means more energy is needed to launch mined material into space. on mercury a magnetic railgun powered by solar panels (that close to the sun) can more easily do it.

- atmosphere/climate:venus's atmosphere is thick, blocking most solar energy from reaching the surface. making solar a difficult power source. the rain on venus is so acidic almost noting survives on its surface for very long. where mercury has no atmosphere. meaning no friction, no hazardous weather etc. the fricture of venus' thick atmosphere would also be a huge detrimental force in lauching anything back up into space.

- surface temperature:venus has a much higher surface temperature than mercury, due to its runaway greenhouse effect. so high infact (up to 400*C) that most electronics will simply not operate. we would need to invent new cesium based electronics to operate anything on venus. Where mercury's day side is hot, its night side is actually very cold. ideal for operating electronics. and supercooling any magnets needed to operate a space launching railgun.

- available materials:mercury has large deposits of silicium on its surface, which can be used to locally product solar cells to operate machinery, factories and panels to power the dyson swarm. mercury also has a metalic core, which would be used to construct swarm segements, and electronics. where venus also has these materials (we think) its mostly its corrosive atmosphere with sulphuric acid rains that make production there almost impossible.

other more accesible targets:many asteroids in the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter would proably be mining targets sooner than venus is, simply because low gravity would make it easy to access, mine and launch towards the dyson swarm. some even have completely exposed metalic cores, could be moved into near earth orbit, or lunar orbit, and mined with more easy close to home.

this will be actually probably the first space mining industry's to develop, most people think blue origin and spacex final goal is space trips. but their final goal is probably space asteroid mining. capturing one of those metalic exposed asteroids and mining it, would make any company that achieves it an instant trillion dollar company. and it can probably me done with remotely controlled, or ai controlled space drones. within the next 50-100 years.

2

Scavenge101 t1_jdvsnaf wrote

A single stupidly rich person isn't stupidly rich enough to enable asteroid mining. One of the big 3 countries needs to do it for it to be possible. Takes a lot more than just spaceships and fuel.

5

Frenchtoad t1_jdwpjnk wrote

35 countries are joined for the ITER project for nuclear fusion. We'd need a complete union of all humanity to ever hope achieving a dyson sphere. It's certainly not for our current mindset, focused on easy, quick and dirty money, instead of survival.

−1

ShadoWolf t1_jdwlorr wrote

to get a full dyson sphere as depicted by freeman dyson.. and not the pop sci-fi version of a solid sphere shell. Would still likely require as dismantling mercury for raw materials .. that or we get really ambitious and try for stellar mass lifting and mine Sol directory for materials

5

psilorder t1_jdwae8w wrote

>Also if assuming a radius of 1 AU, there may not be sufficient building material in the Solar System to construct a Dyson shell. Anders Sandberg estimates that there is 1.82×10^26 kg of easily usable building material in the Solar System, enough for a 1 AU shell with a mass of 600 kg/m2—about 8–20 cm thick on average, depending on the density of the material. This includes the hard-to-access cores of the gas giants; the inner planets alone provide only 11.79×10^24 kg, enough for a 1 AU shell with a mass of just 42 kg/m2.
>
> - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

So they'd need to dismantle the planets to even get 8-20 cm thickness.

2

hawkwings t1_jdwa050 wrote

One scientist said that we could rip Mercury apart even with near future technology.

3

alt4614 t1_jdwv1vs wrote

Stick rockets behind asteroids, shove em out to location

1

CriticalMemory t1_jdxpdb4 wrote

We can't get people to put masks on. Your point is definitely proven.

1

Brittainicus t1_jdxz122 wrote

Its a dyson sphere, the proposal starts with taking apart a planet or a moon.

1

Minibeave t1_jdzxiqd wrote

https://youtu.be/fVrUNuADkHI

This video details pretty in depth the process of basically mining Venus for the resources we'd need to construct a Dyson swarm.

We could actually fairly feasibly build a swarm, or semi-swarm within our lifetimes.

>Where do we get the materials to build it? Nevermind, the world would never unite to try.

The first part I can answer. The second part? Lol, yeah we're pretty fucked.

1