What reason would an alien civilization have for building a Dyson Sphere (or Swarm) if cheap Nuclear fusion is available?Brown Dwarves: Dyson Spheres in disguise?What is the likelihood that inhabitants of an alien planet similar to Earth geologically would have races?Would a Type 2 Kardashev Civilization really build a Dyson Sphere around their own sun?Is A Solar Dyson Sphere Habitable?What does Earth have to offer for an alien civilizationWould building a Dyson sphere inside the Earth's orbit render our planet uninhabitable?Nuclear apocalypse! What would it take for people to survive in the underground of a large metropolis?When and how would a Dyson sphere civilization in a fantasy setting learn size and shape of the sphere?Logical reasons for Forgoing a Dyson SwarmWhat would discovery of a magnetic monopole do for a civilization?What adaptations would an alien have to chew food in a humanoid manner without a tongue?
Cut the gold chain
Did the CIA blow up a Siberian pipeline in 1982?
Is this proposal by U.S. presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg to change the composition of the Supreme Court constitutional?
Why is it recommended to mix yogurt starter with a small amount of milk before adding to the entire batch?
Non-flat partitions of a set
How to remove this component from PCB
Prime sieve in Python
When can you leave off “le/la” to say “it” in French?
Why did pressing the joystick button spit out keypresses?
Why tighten down in a criss-cross pattern?
Why does this method with an optional parameter not override the base class method?
What could exist inside and between the walls of a Dyson Sphere?
What's currently blocking the construction of the wall between Mexico and the US?
How large would a mega structure have to be to host 1 billion people indefinitely?
Array initialization optimization
Why are < or > required to use /dev/tcp
How do I handle a table mixing up the DM and the players' roles too often?
Loss of power when I remove item from the outlet
Helping ease my back pain when I'm studying 13 hours everyday, even weekends
Has there been any indication at all that further negotiation between the UK and EU is possible?
What does the hyphen "-" mean in "tar xzf -"?
Can humans ever directly see a few photons at a time? Can a human see a single photon?
What's the difference between a deep fryer and a chip pan?
What reason would an alien civilization have for building a Dyson Sphere (or Swarm) if cheap Nuclear fusion is available?
What reason would an alien civilization have for building a Dyson Sphere (or Swarm) if cheap Nuclear fusion is available?
Brown Dwarves: Dyson Spheres in disguise?What is the likelihood that inhabitants of an alien planet similar to Earth geologically would have races?Would a Type 2 Kardashev Civilization really build a Dyson Sphere around their own sun?Is A Solar Dyson Sphere Habitable?What does Earth have to offer for an alien civilizationWould building a Dyson sphere inside the Earth's orbit render our planet uninhabitable?Nuclear apocalypse! What would it take for people to survive in the underground of a large metropolis?When and how would a Dyson sphere civilization in a fantasy setting learn size and shape of the sphere?Logical reasons for Forgoing a Dyson SwarmWhat would discovery of a magnetic monopole do for a civilization?What adaptations would an alien have to chew food in a humanoid manner without a tongue?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
The Dyson Dilemma states that every civilization of a great enough development stage will want to capture all of the energy from it's home star and surround it with a Dyson Swarm that uses solar panels to capture every last square meter of sunlight. Such a structure should be detectable within 1 kpc and yet our current sky surveys have turned up bubkis.
Building millions of solar panels in space and dealing with the cosmic rays, solar flares and micrometeorites seems like a real hassle. Having your entire civilization in one location also seems like it would make it vulnerable to interstellar warfare, rogue nanobots, and so on...
On our current technological development timeline, we will have Nuclear Fusion power well before any Dyson Swarm gets up and running (Decades vs Centuries). The Sun is also extremely inefficient running at 10^4 times slower than any man-made fusion process. It's so slow that, per unit volume, the sun puts out about the same energy as your average compost heap.
A civilization that grows large enough to need a Dyson swarm is going to keep growing to the point where its star's output is no longer fast enough and it will need to access the hydrogen directly (Starlifting) in order to power all of it's fusion reactors.
So why would any alien civilization ever build these Dyson Swarms?

reality-check technological-development dyson-spheres
New contributor
Benjamin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
The Dyson Dilemma states that every civilization of a great enough development stage will want to capture all of the energy from it's home star and surround it with a Dyson Swarm that uses solar panels to capture every last square meter of sunlight. Such a structure should be detectable within 1 kpc and yet our current sky surveys have turned up bubkis.
Building millions of solar panels in space and dealing with the cosmic rays, solar flares and micrometeorites seems like a real hassle. Having your entire civilization in one location also seems like it would make it vulnerable to interstellar warfare, rogue nanobots, and so on...
On our current technological development timeline, we will have Nuclear Fusion power well before any Dyson Swarm gets up and running (Decades vs Centuries). The Sun is also extremely inefficient running at 10^4 times slower than any man-made fusion process. It's so slow that, per unit volume, the sun puts out about the same energy as your average compost heap.
A civilization that grows large enough to need a Dyson swarm is going to keep growing to the point where its star's output is no longer fast enough and it will need to access the hydrogen directly (Starlifting) in order to power all of it's fusion reactors.
So why would any alien civilization ever build these Dyson Swarms?

reality-check technological-development dyson-spheres
New contributor
Benjamin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"yet our current sky surveys have turned up bubkis" maybe and then again maybe not it depends on the final shell temperature being emitted by the sphere, some objects we think are red giants may in fact be Dyson type constructs.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Interesting. I've never heard that before. Can you link a source?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in here, it's definitely a Larry Niven suggestion I'm just not 100% as to where he wrote it.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash More likely we'd think they were brown dwarfs, with all their radiation in infrared -- and only if we could manage a parallax distance measurement might we notice that they're much further away, hence much more intrinsically bright in IR than is possible for a brown dwarf...
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"But beings whose chemistry is based on molten copper, say, would want a hotter environment. They might have evolved faster, in temperatures where chemistry and biochemistry would move far faster. There might be a lot more of them than of us. And their red-hot Dyson spheres would look deceptively like red giant or supergiant stars. One wonders." --Larry Niven
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
The Dyson Dilemma states that every civilization of a great enough development stage will want to capture all of the energy from it's home star and surround it with a Dyson Swarm that uses solar panels to capture every last square meter of sunlight. Such a structure should be detectable within 1 kpc and yet our current sky surveys have turned up bubkis.
Building millions of solar panels in space and dealing with the cosmic rays, solar flares and micrometeorites seems like a real hassle. Having your entire civilization in one location also seems like it would make it vulnerable to interstellar warfare, rogue nanobots, and so on...
On our current technological development timeline, we will have Nuclear Fusion power well before any Dyson Swarm gets up and running (Decades vs Centuries). The Sun is also extremely inefficient running at 10^4 times slower than any man-made fusion process. It's so slow that, per unit volume, the sun puts out about the same energy as your average compost heap.
A civilization that grows large enough to need a Dyson swarm is going to keep growing to the point where its star's output is no longer fast enough and it will need to access the hydrogen directly (Starlifting) in order to power all of it's fusion reactors.
So why would any alien civilization ever build these Dyson Swarms?

reality-check technological-development dyson-spheres
New contributor
Benjamin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
The Dyson Dilemma states that every civilization of a great enough development stage will want to capture all of the energy from it's home star and surround it with a Dyson Swarm that uses solar panels to capture every last square meter of sunlight. Such a structure should be detectable within 1 kpc and yet our current sky surveys have turned up bubkis.
Building millions of solar panels in space and dealing with the cosmic rays, solar flares and micrometeorites seems like a real hassle. Having your entire civilization in one location also seems like it would make it vulnerable to interstellar warfare, rogue nanobots, and so on...
On our current technological development timeline, we will have Nuclear Fusion power well before any Dyson Swarm gets up and running (Decades vs Centuries). The Sun is also extremely inefficient running at 10^4 times slower than any man-made fusion process. It's so slow that, per unit volume, the sun puts out about the same energy as your average compost heap.
A civilization that grows large enough to need a Dyson swarm is going to keep growing to the point where its star's output is no longer fast enough and it will need to access the hydrogen directly (Starlifting) in order to power all of it's fusion reactors.
So why would any alien civilization ever build these Dyson Swarms?

reality-check technological-development dyson-spheres
reality-check technological-development dyson-spheres
New contributor
Benjamin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Benjamin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 hours ago
Benjamin
New contributor
Benjamin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 8 hours ago
BenjaminBenjamin
235
235
New contributor
Benjamin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Benjamin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$begingroup$
"yet our current sky surveys have turned up bubkis" maybe and then again maybe not it depends on the final shell temperature being emitted by the sphere, some objects we think are red giants may in fact be Dyson type constructs.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Interesting. I've never heard that before. Can you link a source?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in here, it's definitely a Larry Niven suggestion I'm just not 100% as to where he wrote it.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash More likely we'd think they were brown dwarfs, with all their radiation in infrared -- and only if we could manage a parallax distance measurement might we notice that they're much further away, hence much more intrinsically bright in IR than is possible for a brown dwarf...
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"But beings whose chemistry is based on molten copper, say, would want a hotter environment. They might have evolved faster, in temperatures where chemistry and biochemistry would move far faster. There might be a lot more of them than of us. And their red-hot Dyson spheres would look deceptively like red giant or supergiant stars. One wonders." --Larry Niven
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
"yet our current sky surveys have turned up bubkis" maybe and then again maybe not it depends on the final shell temperature being emitted by the sphere, some objects we think are red giants may in fact be Dyson type constructs.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Interesting. I've never heard that before. Can you link a source?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in here, it's definitely a Larry Niven suggestion I'm just not 100% as to where he wrote it.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash More likely we'd think they were brown dwarfs, with all their radiation in infrared -- and only if we could manage a parallax distance measurement might we notice that they're much further away, hence much more intrinsically bright in IR than is possible for a brown dwarf...
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"But beings whose chemistry is based on molten copper, say, would want a hotter environment. They might have evolved faster, in temperatures where chemistry and biochemistry would move far faster. There might be a lot more of them than of us. And their red-hot Dyson spheres would look deceptively like red giant or supergiant stars. One wonders." --Larry Niven
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
"yet our current sky surveys have turned up bubkis" maybe and then again maybe not it depends on the final shell temperature being emitted by the sphere, some objects we think are red giants may in fact be Dyson type constructs.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
"yet our current sky surveys have turned up bubkis" maybe and then again maybe not it depends on the final shell temperature being emitted by the sphere, some objects we think are red giants may in fact be Dyson type constructs.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Interesting. I've never heard that before. Can you link a source?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Interesting. I've never heard that before. Can you link a source?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in here, it's definitely a Larry Niven suggestion I'm just not 100% as to where he wrote it.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in here, it's definitely a Larry Niven suggestion I'm just not 100% as to where he wrote it.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash More likely we'd think they were brown dwarfs, with all their radiation in infrared -- and only if we could manage a parallax distance measurement might we notice that they're much further away, hence much more intrinsically bright in IR than is possible for a brown dwarf...
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash More likely we'd think they were brown dwarfs, with all their radiation in infrared -- and only if we could manage a parallax distance measurement might we notice that they're much further away, hence much more intrinsically bright in IR than is possible for a brown dwarf...
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
"But beings whose chemistry is based on molten copper, say, would want a hotter environment. They might have evolved faster, in temperatures where chemistry and biochemistry would move far faster. There might be a lot more of them than of us. And their red-hot Dyson spheres would look deceptively like red giant or supergiant stars. One wonders." --Larry Niven
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
"But beings whose chemistry is based on molten copper, say, would want a hotter environment. They might have evolved faster, in temperatures where chemistry and biochemistry would move far faster. There might be a lot more of them than of us. And their red-hot Dyson spheres would look deceptively like red giant or supergiant stars. One wonders." --Larry Niven
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Our sun produces something like $3.8 times 10^26$ Watts.
That requires something in the neighborhood of 600 million tonnes of Hydrogen per second.
Getting a similar power from fusion would require a similar consumption of Hydrogen. Even for a culture that could build a Dyson sphere, that's a lot of Hydrogen to get if you are not using a star to do it. Are there ways to get it? Oh, probably. Are they as easy as would be cuddling up to a star? Probably not. One might imagine scooping up interstellar hydrogen, for example. Or vacuuming nearby solar systems.
As to meteorites, they would certainly scour the system they started in. They would want the mass, if nothing else. They might need to scour some nearby systems as well. They might even need to harvest mass from nearby stars, and do some nuclear synthesis.
As to cosmic rays, they will have a huge device from which to project any protective measures. Cosmic rays can be deflected with magnetic fields, for example. One expects there are other ways of dealing with radiation from space that would be discovered.
A Dyson sphere might well be easy to detect during construction, especially as the star's brightness starts to do wacky things. After all, Tabby's Star was pretty exciting for a while. It seems that natural explanations have been found. But for a while, it was tempting to hypothesize that we might have exciting "neighbors."
Once it's constructed it might be a lot harder to detect. It will radiate the same amount of energy but at a much lower temperature than the star inside. I'm not an astronomer, so I could be completely wrong here.
Plus, when you have $3.8 times 10^26$ Watts to play with, you might be able to construct some exciting defense systems. Imagine they could direct some appreciable fraction of their star's solar wind into a beam, just as an example.
Having a culture with a huge number of citizens in one place has interesting possibilities. Imagine, for example, the computer network they could construct. A Dyson sphere with the orbit of the Earth has an area of $2.8 times 10^17$ square km. If you had even one fairly modest CPU in each of those square km, you'd have a truly enormous parallel computer. It's quite difficult to project what you could do with such a system. But it would certainly not be boring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Good answer. I suppose the real question becomes then, what does a civ needs 10^26 watts of power for? Seems a bit excessive.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
FTL travel maybe?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Dyson Spheres should be easily detectable. Unless you're "storing" massive amounts of energy to create heavy elements, energy into the sphere equals energy out. You take in 10^26 watts of power, you radiate 10^26 watts of heat. It's going to be obvious that something's up. Power and spectra don't match up with a star.
$endgroup$
– ltmauve
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor D - A manned mission that reaches 50% of the speed of light would take a group of lasers at 75 x 10^6 GW or 0.000000075% of our Sun's current output. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel)
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin What about 99 or 100% speed of light?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
To power nuclear fusion, you need hydrogen. The overwhelmingly largest hydrogen reservoir in any solar system, and conveniently an already working fusion reactor is its star.
In other words, there is far more energy to collect from a star than you could ever hope to generate in reactors.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, you could also use any element lighter than iron, but guess where you’ll find most of those too...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Earth has so much water that hydrogen for fusion power would last for billions of years; which is longer than the Sun will last to power a Dyson Swarm.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you take the scientific limits further, dubbed Stellar Engineering if I'm right, you could start slicing up the stars to smaller, manageable sizes. "Easier" to use them as battery after overcoming the initial hurdle.
$endgroup$
– Lupus
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Benjamin not if you want to produce a compareable power output.
$endgroup$
– ths
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin The assumption that Dyson makes is that our civilization's energy needs will continue to expand geometrically along with our population and that inevitably we will require more energy than our planet can provide.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Your question is like asking "why build an oil power plant with all the related hassle, when we can chop wood and light a fire?".
The answer is: the order of magnitude of the produced energy. A star emits Petawatts of energy, while a fusion power plant can produce Megawatts, several order of magnitude less.
And a star saves the hassle of harvesting all the fuel, since gravity already did the job.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The commonly given reason for building any version of a Dyson Sphere is because the civilization needs an amount of energy comparable to the output of their star. A Dyson sphere captures a significant fraction of that ouput, and does it more or less passively.
I would posit that a civilization could not create a Dyson sphere without first having fusion (both for electrical/thermal power, and for space propulsion), because of the tremendous amount of matter that needs to be moved around. There comes a time, however, when the materials (copper or superconductor precursors, for instance) to make fusion devices become too scarce, while (presumably) common structural materials are easier to source, and those to make solar collectors are also common.
If all the high quality conductors in the Earth were tied up in fusion generators, it would still be possible to collect more energy from solar emissions, if one could cover enough of the sky -- and eventually, if our civilization lasts long enough, we'll need that energy badly enough to begin construction of a Dyson sphere.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So, I'm going to frame challenge this, and say "no alien civilization entirely surrounds their stars with solar collectors."
Piecewise assembly
Here's the thing about a Dyson Swarm: It's not a single massive project that returns nothing until it's complete.
All you need is solar-orbiting structures that (also) collect solar power, and some sort of orbital traffic control. As long as people keep building orbital structures, the power collected by the system increases, and eventually you get a Dyson swarm. No one ever decides one day "we should make a Dyson swarm." Instead they decide to make one (or some other reasonable number) of solar-orbiting structures. They quickly get the benefit of that structure - whether it's a habitat, research structure, manufacturing hub, etc.
But then what?
This continues until either the unused mass in the system vanishes or the civilization kills itself. Once the unused mass in the system is gone, no more structures will be put around the star. Sure, going to another star is possible, but why bother to ship the mass back? Power is power, regardless of where you get it. Interstellar shipping is expensive in terms of energy. And, as you said, having your entire civilization in one place is a bad idea.
Therefore, advanced alien civilizations put partial Dyson swarms around every star they can get their mitts on. No star is ever fully surrounded.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Defense.
Your civilization has built up its system. It can meet its energy needs through fusion and more esoteric sources. But the sun is aging and as it ages, it becomes brighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_age_estimation#Luminosity_increase_and_the_Hertzsprung–Russell_diagram
The civilization does not need all that energy. Really does not need it - it is throwing things out of balance and threatening the habitability of terraformed planets closer to the star.
The answer is to soak up the extra. The Dyson sphere is a defensive maneuver to regulate the output of the star. It is analogous to damming a river - it is nice to have the river by your town but it is also potentially destructive. Its power output must be controlled and channeled.
The Dyson sphere reradiates output to simulate the younger star, and captures and converts the excess. The question of what to do with excess energy is an interesting one. Maybe they convert it back to matter.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Benjamin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149220%2fwhat-reason-would-an-alien-civilization-have-for-building-a-dyson-sphere-or-swa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Our sun produces something like $3.8 times 10^26$ Watts.
That requires something in the neighborhood of 600 million tonnes of Hydrogen per second.
Getting a similar power from fusion would require a similar consumption of Hydrogen. Even for a culture that could build a Dyson sphere, that's a lot of Hydrogen to get if you are not using a star to do it. Are there ways to get it? Oh, probably. Are they as easy as would be cuddling up to a star? Probably not. One might imagine scooping up interstellar hydrogen, for example. Or vacuuming nearby solar systems.
As to meteorites, they would certainly scour the system they started in. They would want the mass, if nothing else. They might need to scour some nearby systems as well. They might even need to harvest mass from nearby stars, and do some nuclear synthesis.
As to cosmic rays, they will have a huge device from which to project any protective measures. Cosmic rays can be deflected with magnetic fields, for example. One expects there are other ways of dealing with radiation from space that would be discovered.
A Dyson sphere might well be easy to detect during construction, especially as the star's brightness starts to do wacky things. After all, Tabby's Star was pretty exciting for a while. It seems that natural explanations have been found. But for a while, it was tempting to hypothesize that we might have exciting "neighbors."
Once it's constructed it might be a lot harder to detect. It will radiate the same amount of energy but at a much lower temperature than the star inside. I'm not an astronomer, so I could be completely wrong here.
Plus, when you have $3.8 times 10^26$ Watts to play with, you might be able to construct some exciting defense systems. Imagine they could direct some appreciable fraction of their star's solar wind into a beam, just as an example.
Having a culture with a huge number of citizens in one place has interesting possibilities. Imagine, for example, the computer network they could construct. A Dyson sphere with the orbit of the Earth has an area of $2.8 times 10^17$ square km. If you had even one fairly modest CPU in each of those square km, you'd have a truly enormous parallel computer. It's quite difficult to project what you could do with such a system. But it would certainly not be boring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Good answer. I suppose the real question becomes then, what does a civ needs 10^26 watts of power for? Seems a bit excessive.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
FTL travel maybe?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Dyson Spheres should be easily detectable. Unless you're "storing" massive amounts of energy to create heavy elements, energy into the sphere equals energy out. You take in 10^26 watts of power, you radiate 10^26 watts of heat. It's going to be obvious that something's up. Power and spectra don't match up with a star.
$endgroup$
– ltmauve
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor D - A manned mission that reaches 50% of the speed of light would take a group of lasers at 75 x 10^6 GW or 0.000000075% of our Sun's current output. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel)
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin What about 99 or 100% speed of light?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Our sun produces something like $3.8 times 10^26$ Watts.
That requires something in the neighborhood of 600 million tonnes of Hydrogen per second.
Getting a similar power from fusion would require a similar consumption of Hydrogen. Even for a culture that could build a Dyson sphere, that's a lot of Hydrogen to get if you are not using a star to do it. Are there ways to get it? Oh, probably. Are they as easy as would be cuddling up to a star? Probably not. One might imagine scooping up interstellar hydrogen, for example. Or vacuuming nearby solar systems.
As to meteorites, they would certainly scour the system they started in. They would want the mass, if nothing else. They might need to scour some nearby systems as well. They might even need to harvest mass from nearby stars, and do some nuclear synthesis.
As to cosmic rays, they will have a huge device from which to project any protective measures. Cosmic rays can be deflected with magnetic fields, for example. One expects there are other ways of dealing with radiation from space that would be discovered.
A Dyson sphere might well be easy to detect during construction, especially as the star's brightness starts to do wacky things. After all, Tabby's Star was pretty exciting for a while. It seems that natural explanations have been found. But for a while, it was tempting to hypothesize that we might have exciting "neighbors."
Once it's constructed it might be a lot harder to detect. It will radiate the same amount of energy but at a much lower temperature than the star inside. I'm not an astronomer, so I could be completely wrong here.
Plus, when you have $3.8 times 10^26$ Watts to play with, you might be able to construct some exciting defense systems. Imagine they could direct some appreciable fraction of their star's solar wind into a beam, just as an example.
Having a culture with a huge number of citizens in one place has interesting possibilities. Imagine, for example, the computer network they could construct. A Dyson sphere with the orbit of the Earth has an area of $2.8 times 10^17$ square km. If you had even one fairly modest CPU in each of those square km, you'd have a truly enormous parallel computer. It's quite difficult to project what you could do with such a system. But it would certainly not be boring.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Good answer. I suppose the real question becomes then, what does a civ needs 10^26 watts of power for? Seems a bit excessive.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
FTL travel maybe?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Dyson Spheres should be easily detectable. Unless you're "storing" massive amounts of energy to create heavy elements, energy into the sphere equals energy out. You take in 10^26 watts of power, you radiate 10^26 watts of heat. It's going to be obvious that something's up. Power and spectra don't match up with a star.
$endgroup$
– ltmauve
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor D - A manned mission that reaches 50% of the speed of light would take a group of lasers at 75 x 10^6 GW or 0.000000075% of our Sun's current output. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel)
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin What about 99 or 100% speed of light?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Our sun produces something like $3.8 times 10^26$ Watts.
That requires something in the neighborhood of 600 million tonnes of Hydrogen per second.
Getting a similar power from fusion would require a similar consumption of Hydrogen. Even for a culture that could build a Dyson sphere, that's a lot of Hydrogen to get if you are not using a star to do it. Are there ways to get it? Oh, probably. Are they as easy as would be cuddling up to a star? Probably not. One might imagine scooping up interstellar hydrogen, for example. Or vacuuming nearby solar systems.
As to meteorites, they would certainly scour the system they started in. They would want the mass, if nothing else. They might need to scour some nearby systems as well. They might even need to harvest mass from nearby stars, and do some nuclear synthesis.
As to cosmic rays, they will have a huge device from which to project any protective measures. Cosmic rays can be deflected with magnetic fields, for example. One expects there are other ways of dealing with radiation from space that would be discovered.
A Dyson sphere might well be easy to detect during construction, especially as the star's brightness starts to do wacky things. After all, Tabby's Star was pretty exciting for a while. It seems that natural explanations have been found. But for a while, it was tempting to hypothesize that we might have exciting "neighbors."
Once it's constructed it might be a lot harder to detect. It will radiate the same amount of energy but at a much lower temperature than the star inside. I'm not an astronomer, so I could be completely wrong here.
Plus, when you have $3.8 times 10^26$ Watts to play with, you might be able to construct some exciting defense systems. Imagine they could direct some appreciable fraction of their star's solar wind into a beam, just as an example.
Having a culture with a huge number of citizens in one place has interesting possibilities. Imagine, for example, the computer network they could construct. A Dyson sphere with the orbit of the Earth has an area of $2.8 times 10^17$ square km. If you had even one fairly modest CPU in each of those square km, you'd have a truly enormous parallel computer. It's quite difficult to project what you could do with such a system. But it would certainly not be boring.
$endgroup$
Our sun produces something like $3.8 times 10^26$ Watts.
That requires something in the neighborhood of 600 million tonnes of Hydrogen per second.
Getting a similar power from fusion would require a similar consumption of Hydrogen. Even for a culture that could build a Dyson sphere, that's a lot of Hydrogen to get if you are not using a star to do it. Are there ways to get it? Oh, probably. Are they as easy as would be cuddling up to a star? Probably not. One might imagine scooping up interstellar hydrogen, for example. Or vacuuming nearby solar systems.
As to meteorites, they would certainly scour the system they started in. They would want the mass, if nothing else. They might need to scour some nearby systems as well. They might even need to harvest mass from nearby stars, and do some nuclear synthesis.
As to cosmic rays, they will have a huge device from which to project any protective measures. Cosmic rays can be deflected with magnetic fields, for example. One expects there are other ways of dealing with radiation from space that would be discovered.
A Dyson sphere might well be easy to detect during construction, especially as the star's brightness starts to do wacky things. After all, Tabby's Star was pretty exciting for a while. It seems that natural explanations have been found. But for a while, it was tempting to hypothesize that we might have exciting "neighbors."
Once it's constructed it might be a lot harder to detect. It will radiate the same amount of energy but at a much lower temperature than the star inside. I'm not an astronomer, so I could be completely wrong here.
Plus, when you have $3.8 times 10^26$ Watts to play with, you might be able to construct some exciting defense systems. Imagine they could direct some appreciable fraction of their star's solar wind into a beam, just as an example.
Having a culture with a huge number of citizens in one place has interesting possibilities. Imagine, for example, the computer network they could construct. A Dyson sphere with the orbit of the Earth has an area of $2.8 times 10^17$ square km. If you had even one fairly modest CPU in each of those square km, you'd have a truly enormous parallel computer. It's quite difficult to project what you could do with such a system. But it would certainly not be boring.
edited 5 hours ago
JBH
55k8125265
55k8125265
answered 7 hours ago
puppetsockpuppetsock
4685
4685
$begingroup$
Good answer. I suppose the real question becomes then, what does a civ needs 10^26 watts of power for? Seems a bit excessive.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
FTL travel maybe?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Dyson Spheres should be easily detectable. Unless you're "storing" massive amounts of energy to create heavy elements, energy into the sphere equals energy out. You take in 10^26 watts of power, you radiate 10^26 watts of heat. It's going to be obvious that something's up. Power and spectra don't match up with a star.
$endgroup$
– ltmauve
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor D - A manned mission that reaches 50% of the speed of light would take a group of lasers at 75 x 10^6 GW or 0.000000075% of our Sun's current output. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel)
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin What about 99 or 100% speed of light?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
Good answer. I suppose the real question becomes then, what does a civ needs 10^26 watts of power for? Seems a bit excessive.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
FTL travel maybe?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Dyson Spheres should be easily detectable. Unless you're "storing" massive amounts of energy to create heavy elements, energy into the sphere equals energy out. You take in 10^26 watts of power, you radiate 10^26 watts of heat. It's going to be obvious that something's up. Power and spectra don't match up with a star.
$endgroup$
– ltmauve
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor D - A manned mission that reaches 50% of the speed of light would take a group of lasers at 75 x 10^6 GW or 0.000000075% of our Sun's current output. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel)
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin What about 99 or 100% speed of light?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
Good answer. I suppose the real question becomes then, what does a civ needs 10^26 watts of power for? Seems a bit excessive.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Good answer. I suppose the real question becomes then, what does a civ needs 10^26 watts of power for? Seems a bit excessive.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
FTL travel maybe?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
FTL travel maybe?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Dyson Spheres should be easily detectable. Unless you're "storing" massive amounts of energy to create heavy elements, energy into the sphere equals energy out. You take in 10^26 watts of power, you radiate 10^26 watts of heat. It's going to be obvious that something's up. Power and spectra don't match up with a star.
$endgroup$
– ltmauve
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Dyson Spheres should be easily detectable. Unless you're "storing" massive amounts of energy to create heavy elements, energy into the sphere equals energy out. You take in 10^26 watts of power, you radiate 10^26 watts of heat. It's going to be obvious that something's up. Power and spectra don't match up with a star.
$endgroup$
– ltmauve
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor D - A manned mission that reaches 50% of the speed of light would take a group of lasers at 75 x 10^6 GW or 0.000000075% of our Sun's current output. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel)
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Trevor D - A manned mission that reaches 50% of the speed of light would take a group of lasers at 75 x 10^6 GW or 0.000000075% of our Sun's current output. (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel)
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin What about 99 or 100% speed of light?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin What about 99 or 100% speed of light?
$endgroup$
– Trevor D
4 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
To power nuclear fusion, you need hydrogen. The overwhelmingly largest hydrogen reservoir in any solar system, and conveniently an already working fusion reactor is its star.
In other words, there is far more energy to collect from a star than you could ever hope to generate in reactors.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, you could also use any element lighter than iron, but guess where you’ll find most of those too...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Earth has so much water that hydrogen for fusion power would last for billions of years; which is longer than the Sun will last to power a Dyson Swarm.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you take the scientific limits further, dubbed Stellar Engineering if I'm right, you could start slicing up the stars to smaller, manageable sizes. "Easier" to use them as battery after overcoming the initial hurdle.
$endgroup$
– Lupus
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Benjamin not if you want to produce a compareable power output.
$endgroup$
– ths
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin The assumption that Dyson makes is that our civilization's energy needs will continue to expand geometrically along with our population and that inevitably we will require more energy than our planet can provide.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
To power nuclear fusion, you need hydrogen. The overwhelmingly largest hydrogen reservoir in any solar system, and conveniently an already working fusion reactor is its star.
In other words, there is far more energy to collect from a star than you could ever hope to generate in reactors.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, you could also use any element lighter than iron, but guess where you’ll find most of those too...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Earth has so much water that hydrogen for fusion power would last for billions of years; which is longer than the Sun will last to power a Dyson Swarm.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you take the scientific limits further, dubbed Stellar Engineering if I'm right, you could start slicing up the stars to smaller, manageable sizes. "Easier" to use them as battery after overcoming the initial hurdle.
$endgroup$
– Lupus
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Benjamin not if you want to produce a compareable power output.
$endgroup$
– ths
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin The assumption that Dyson makes is that our civilization's energy needs will continue to expand geometrically along with our population and that inevitably we will require more energy than our planet can provide.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
To power nuclear fusion, you need hydrogen. The overwhelmingly largest hydrogen reservoir in any solar system, and conveniently an already working fusion reactor is its star.
In other words, there is far more energy to collect from a star than you could ever hope to generate in reactors.
$endgroup$
To power nuclear fusion, you need hydrogen. The overwhelmingly largest hydrogen reservoir in any solar system, and conveniently an already working fusion reactor is its star.
In other words, there is far more energy to collect from a star than you could ever hope to generate in reactors.
answered 8 hours ago
thsths
2,152411
2,152411
$begingroup$
Well, you could also use any element lighter than iron, but guess where you’ll find most of those too...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Earth has so much water that hydrogen for fusion power would last for billions of years; which is longer than the Sun will last to power a Dyson Swarm.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you take the scientific limits further, dubbed Stellar Engineering if I'm right, you could start slicing up the stars to smaller, manageable sizes. "Easier" to use them as battery after overcoming the initial hurdle.
$endgroup$
– Lupus
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Benjamin not if you want to produce a compareable power output.
$endgroup$
– ths
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin The assumption that Dyson makes is that our civilization's energy needs will continue to expand geometrically along with our population and that inevitably we will require more energy than our planet can provide.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Well, you could also use any element lighter than iron, but guess where you’ll find most of those too...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Earth has so much water that hydrogen for fusion power would last for billions of years; which is longer than the Sun will last to power a Dyson Swarm.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you take the scientific limits further, dubbed Stellar Engineering if I'm right, you could start slicing up the stars to smaller, manageable sizes. "Easier" to use them as battery after overcoming the initial hurdle.
$endgroup$
– Lupus
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Benjamin not if you want to produce a compareable power output.
$endgroup$
– ths
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin The assumption that Dyson makes is that our civilization's energy needs will continue to expand geometrically along with our population and that inevitably we will require more energy than our planet can provide.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, you could also use any element lighter than iron, but guess where you’ll find most of those too...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, you could also use any element lighter than iron, but guess where you’ll find most of those too...
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Earth has so much water that hydrogen for fusion power would last for billions of years; which is longer than the Sun will last to power a Dyson Swarm.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Earth has so much water that hydrogen for fusion power would last for billions of years; which is longer than the Sun will last to power a Dyson Swarm.
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you take the scientific limits further, dubbed Stellar Engineering if I'm right, you could start slicing up the stars to smaller, manageable sizes. "Easier" to use them as battery after overcoming the initial hurdle.
$endgroup$
– Lupus
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
If you take the scientific limits further, dubbed Stellar Engineering if I'm right, you could start slicing up the stars to smaller, manageable sizes. "Easier" to use them as battery after overcoming the initial hurdle.
$endgroup$
– Lupus
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Benjamin not if you want to produce a compareable power output.
$endgroup$
– ths
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin not if you want to produce a compareable power output.
$endgroup$
– ths
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin The assumption that Dyson makes is that our civilization's energy needs will continue to expand geometrically along with our population and that inevitably we will require more energy than our planet can provide.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Benjamin The assumption that Dyson makes is that our civilization's energy needs will continue to expand geometrically along with our population and that inevitably we will require more energy than our planet can provide.
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Your question is like asking "why build an oil power plant with all the related hassle, when we can chop wood and light a fire?".
The answer is: the order of magnitude of the produced energy. A star emits Petawatts of energy, while a fusion power plant can produce Megawatts, several order of magnitude less.
And a star saves the hassle of harvesting all the fuel, since gravity already did the job.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your question is like asking "why build an oil power plant with all the related hassle, when we can chop wood and light a fire?".
The answer is: the order of magnitude of the produced energy. A star emits Petawatts of energy, while a fusion power plant can produce Megawatts, several order of magnitude less.
And a star saves the hassle of harvesting all the fuel, since gravity already did the job.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your question is like asking "why build an oil power plant with all the related hassle, when we can chop wood and light a fire?".
The answer is: the order of magnitude of the produced energy. A star emits Petawatts of energy, while a fusion power plant can produce Megawatts, several order of magnitude less.
And a star saves the hassle of harvesting all the fuel, since gravity already did the job.
$endgroup$
Your question is like asking "why build an oil power plant with all the related hassle, when we can chop wood and light a fire?".
The answer is: the order of magnitude of the produced energy. A star emits Petawatts of energy, while a fusion power plant can produce Megawatts, several order of magnitude less.
And a star saves the hassle of harvesting all the fuel, since gravity already did the job.
edited 5 hours ago
JBH
55k8125265
55k8125265
answered 8 hours ago
L.Dutch♦L.Dutch
99.5k31234478
99.5k31234478
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The commonly given reason for building any version of a Dyson Sphere is because the civilization needs an amount of energy comparable to the output of their star. A Dyson sphere captures a significant fraction of that ouput, and does it more or less passively.
I would posit that a civilization could not create a Dyson sphere without first having fusion (both for electrical/thermal power, and for space propulsion), because of the tremendous amount of matter that needs to be moved around. There comes a time, however, when the materials (copper or superconductor precursors, for instance) to make fusion devices become too scarce, while (presumably) common structural materials are easier to source, and those to make solar collectors are also common.
If all the high quality conductors in the Earth were tied up in fusion generators, it would still be possible to collect more energy from solar emissions, if one could cover enough of the sky -- and eventually, if our civilization lasts long enough, we'll need that energy badly enough to begin construction of a Dyson sphere.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The commonly given reason for building any version of a Dyson Sphere is because the civilization needs an amount of energy comparable to the output of their star. A Dyson sphere captures a significant fraction of that ouput, and does it more or less passively.
I would posit that a civilization could not create a Dyson sphere without first having fusion (both for electrical/thermal power, and for space propulsion), because of the tremendous amount of matter that needs to be moved around. There comes a time, however, when the materials (copper or superconductor precursors, for instance) to make fusion devices become too scarce, while (presumably) common structural materials are easier to source, and those to make solar collectors are also common.
If all the high quality conductors in the Earth were tied up in fusion generators, it would still be possible to collect more energy from solar emissions, if one could cover enough of the sky -- and eventually, if our civilization lasts long enough, we'll need that energy badly enough to begin construction of a Dyson sphere.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The commonly given reason for building any version of a Dyson Sphere is because the civilization needs an amount of energy comparable to the output of their star. A Dyson sphere captures a significant fraction of that ouput, and does it more or less passively.
I would posit that a civilization could not create a Dyson sphere without first having fusion (both for electrical/thermal power, and for space propulsion), because of the tremendous amount of matter that needs to be moved around. There comes a time, however, when the materials (copper or superconductor precursors, for instance) to make fusion devices become too scarce, while (presumably) common structural materials are easier to source, and those to make solar collectors are also common.
If all the high quality conductors in the Earth were tied up in fusion generators, it would still be possible to collect more energy from solar emissions, if one could cover enough of the sky -- and eventually, if our civilization lasts long enough, we'll need that energy badly enough to begin construction of a Dyson sphere.
$endgroup$
The commonly given reason for building any version of a Dyson Sphere is because the civilization needs an amount of energy comparable to the output of their star. A Dyson sphere captures a significant fraction of that ouput, and does it more or less passively.
I would posit that a civilization could not create a Dyson sphere without first having fusion (both for electrical/thermal power, and for space propulsion), because of the tremendous amount of matter that needs to be moved around. There comes a time, however, when the materials (copper or superconductor precursors, for instance) to make fusion devices become too scarce, while (presumably) common structural materials are easier to source, and those to make solar collectors are also common.
If all the high quality conductors in the Earth were tied up in fusion generators, it would still be possible to collect more energy from solar emissions, if one could cover enough of the sky -- and eventually, if our civilization lasts long enough, we'll need that energy badly enough to begin construction of a Dyson sphere.
answered 8 hours ago
Zeiss IkonZeiss Ikon
6,2911131
6,2911131
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So, I'm going to frame challenge this, and say "no alien civilization entirely surrounds their stars with solar collectors."
Piecewise assembly
Here's the thing about a Dyson Swarm: It's not a single massive project that returns nothing until it's complete.
All you need is solar-orbiting structures that (also) collect solar power, and some sort of orbital traffic control. As long as people keep building orbital structures, the power collected by the system increases, and eventually you get a Dyson swarm. No one ever decides one day "we should make a Dyson swarm." Instead they decide to make one (or some other reasonable number) of solar-orbiting structures. They quickly get the benefit of that structure - whether it's a habitat, research structure, manufacturing hub, etc.
But then what?
This continues until either the unused mass in the system vanishes or the civilization kills itself. Once the unused mass in the system is gone, no more structures will be put around the star. Sure, going to another star is possible, but why bother to ship the mass back? Power is power, regardless of where you get it. Interstellar shipping is expensive in terms of energy. And, as you said, having your entire civilization in one place is a bad idea.
Therefore, advanced alien civilizations put partial Dyson swarms around every star they can get their mitts on. No star is ever fully surrounded.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So, I'm going to frame challenge this, and say "no alien civilization entirely surrounds their stars with solar collectors."
Piecewise assembly
Here's the thing about a Dyson Swarm: It's not a single massive project that returns nothing until it's complete.
All you need is solar-orbiting structures that (also) collect solar power, and some sort of orbital traffic control. As long as people keep building orbital structures, the power collected by the system increases, and eventually you get a Dyson swarm. No one ever decides one day "we should make a Dyson swarm." Instead they decide to make one (or some other reasonable number) of solar-orbiting structures. They quickly get the benefit of that structure - whether it's a habitat, research structure, manufacturing hub, etc.
But then what?
This continues until either the unused mass in the system vanishes or the civilization kills itself. Once the unused mass in the system is gone, no more structures will be put around the star. Sure, going to another star is possible, but why bother to ship the mass back? Power is power, regardless of where you get it. Interstellar shipping is expensive in terms of energy. And, as you said, having your entire civilization in one place is a bad idea.
Therefore, advanced alien civilizations put partial Dyson swarms around every star they can get their mitts on. No star is ever fully surrounded.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So, I'm going to frame challenge this, and say "no alien civilization entirely surrounds their stars with solar collectors."
Piecewise assembly
Here's the thing about a Dyson Swarm: It's not a single massive project that returns nothing until it's complete.
All you need is solar-orbiting structures that (also) collect solar power, and some sort of orbital traffic control. As long as people keep building orbital structures, the power collected by the system increases, and eventually you get a Dyson swarm. No one ever decides one day "we should make a Dyson swarm." Instead they decide to make one (or some other reasonable number) of solar-orbiting structures. They quickly get the benefit of that structure - whether it's a habitat, research structure, manufacturing hub, etc.
But then what?
This continues until either the unused mass in the system vanishes or the civilization kills itself. Once the unused mass in the system is gone, no more structures will be put around the star. Sure, going to another star is possible, but why bother to ship the mass back? Power is power, regardless of where you get it. Interstellar shipping is expensive in terms of energy. And, as you said, having your entire civilization in one place is a bad idea.
Therefore, advanced alien civilizations put partial Dyson swarms around every star they can get their mitts on. No star is ever fully surrounded.
$endgroup$
So, I'm going to frame challenge this, and say "no alien civilization entirely surrounds their stars with solar collectors."
Piecewise assembly
Here's the thing about a Dyson Swarm: It's not a single massive project that returns nothing until it's complete.
All you need is solar-orbiting structures that (also) collect solar power, and some sort of orbital traffic control. As long as people keep building orbital structures, the power collected by the system increases, and eventually you get a Dyson swarm. No one ever decides one day "we should make a Dyson swarm." Instead they decide to make one (or some other reasonable number) of solar-orbiting structures. They quickly get the benefit of that structure - whether it's a habitat, research structure, manufacturing hub, etc.
But then what?
This continues until either the unused mass in the system vanishes or the civilization kills itself. Once the unused mass in the system is gone, no more structures will be put around the star. Sure, going to another star is possible, but why bother to ship the mass back? Power is power, regardless of where you get it. Interstellar shipping is expensive in terms of energy. And, as you said, having your entire civilization in one place is a bad idea.
Therefore, advanced alien civilizations put partial Dyson swarms around every star they can get their mitts on. No star is ever fully surrounded.
answered 4 hours ago
ltmauveltmauve
3,281822
3,281822
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Defense.
Your civilization has built up its system. It can meet its energy needs through fusion and more esoteric sources. But the sun is aging and as it ages, it becomes brighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_age_estimation#Luminosity_increase_and_the_Hertzsprung–Russell_diagram
The civilization does not need all that energy. Really does not need it - it is throwing things out of balance and threatening the habitability of terraformed planets closer to the star.
The answer is to soak up the extra. The Dyson sphere is a defensive maneuver to regulate the output of the star. It is analogous to damming a river - it is nice to have the river by your town but it is also potentially destructive. Its power output must be controlled and channeled.
The Dyson sphere reradiates output to simulate the younger star, and captures and converts the excess. The question of what to do with excess energy is an interesting one. Maybe they convert it back to matter.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Defense.
Your civilization has built up its system. It can meet its energy needs through fusion and more esoteric sources. But the sun is aging and as it ages, it becomes brighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_age_estimation#Luminosity_increase_and_the_Hertzsprung–Russell_diagram
The civilization does not need all that energy. Really does not need it - it is throwing things out of balance and threatening the habitability of terraformed planets closer to the star.
The answer is to soak up the extra. The Dyson sphere is a defensive maneuver to regulate the output of the star. It is analogous to damming a river - it is nice to have the river by your town but it is also potentially destructive. Its power output must be controlled and channeled.
The Dyson sphere reradiates output to simulate the younger star, and captures and converts the excess. The question of what to do with excess energy is an interesting one. Maybe they convert it back to matter.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Defense.
Your civilization has built up its system. It can meet its energy needs through fusion and more esoteric sources. But the sun is aging and as it ages, it becomes brighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_age_estimation#Luminosity_increase_and_the_Hertzsprung–Russell_diagram
The civilization does not need all that energy. Really does not need it - it is throwing things out of balance and threatening the habitability of terraformed planets closer to the star.
The answer is to soak up the extra. The Dyson sphere is a defensive maneuver to regulate the output of the star. It is analogous to damming a river - it is nice to have the river by your town but it is also potentially destructive. Its power output must be controlled and channeled.
The Dyson sphere reradiates output to simulate the younger star, and captures and converts the excess. The question of what to do with excess energy is an interesting one. Maybe they convert it back to matter.
$endgroup$
Defense.
Your civilization has built up its system. It can meet its energy needs through fusion and more esoteric sources. But the sun is aging and as it ages, it becomes brighter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_age_estimation#Luminosity_increase_and_the_Hertzsprung–Russell_diagram
The civilization does not need all that energy. Really does not need it - it is throwing things out of balance and threatening the habitability of terraformed planets closer to the star.
The answer is to soak up the extra. The Dyson sphere is a defensive maneuver to regulate the output of the star. It is analogous to damming a river - it is nice to have the river by your town but it is also potentially destructive. Its power output must be controlled and channeled.
The Dyson sphere reradiates output to simulate the younger star, and captures and converts the excess. The question of what to do with excess energy is an interesting one. Maybe they convert it back to matter.
answered 4 hours ago
WillkWillk
127k30237528
127k30237528
add a comment |
add a comment |
Benjamin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Benjamin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Benjamin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Benjamin is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f149220%2fwhat-reason-would-an-alien-civilization-have-for-building-a-dyson-sphere-or-swa%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
"yet our current sky surveys have turned up bubkis" maybe and then again maybe not it depends on the final shell temperature being emitted by the sphere, some objects we think are red giants may in fact be Dyson type constructs.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Interesting. I've never heard that before. Can you link a source?
$endgroup$
– Benjamin
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in here, it's definitely a Larry Niven suggestion I'm just not 100% as to where he wrote it.
$endgroup$
– Ash
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ash More likely we'd think they were brown dwarfs, with all their radiation in infrared -- and only if we could manage a parallax distance measurement might we notice that they're much further away, hence much more intrinsically bright in IR than is possible for a brown dwarf...
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
6 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
"But beings whose chemistry is based on molten copper, say, would want a hotter environment. They might have evolved faster, in temperatures where chemistry and biochemistry would move far faster. There might be a lot more of them than of us. And their red-hot Dyson spheres would look deceptively like red giant or supergiant stars. One wonders." --Larry Niven
$endgroup$
– Mike Nichols
6 hours ago