Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

i am trying to figure the total mass, and so far i have: [math]M=(9X10_{16})(\pi)(thickness)(density)[/math]

Posted

I see. Hmmm.

 

Perhaps you are doing it all backwards. The mass will determine the gravitational stresses on the superstructure, so you're probably going to want it to be within a very specific mass range. Which will determine the thickness of the sections.

Posted

Question: If we did that to our sun, wouldnt Earth die out since it wouldnt be getting any sunlight? so whats the purpose of doing it, unless it is to another star?

Posted

i was also asking about it, because if it is too thin, it will act like a solar sail and be puched outwards in all directions. on PF, the suggested using a thinn(few milimeter thick) reflective foil that reflects the energy to collectors. wouldn't there be a big pressure on the foil pushing against its frame?

Posted

Yes i expect there would. What's stopping space debris from smashing into it and causing major damage?

 

Although, if the outward pressure of the wind balanced out the inward force of gravity then i guess it could be thinner; but again it would be too easily damaged.

Posted

unless the sphere had an opening, it would also restrict space travel to inside the sphere. well, i guess it depends on whether you had a dyson shell or a swarm. which are you talking about?

Posted
What's stopping space debris from smashing into it and causing major damage?
For one thing you've rounded up all the asteroids, comets, meteors, plutinos, Kuiper Belt Objects, scattered disc objects, minor planets, Oort cloud planetesimals, and anything that moves, to make the sphere in the first place.
Posted
For one thing you've rounded up all the asteroids, comets, meteors, plutinos, Kuiper Belt Objects, scattered disc objects, minor planets, Oort cloud planetesimals, and anything that moves, to make the sphere in the first place.

 

I doubt you could also round up all the dust that is out there, even up to a single AU. A particle of dust going 16,000 miles an hour can do a lot of damage.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

if you want a spinning thing around a sun then you are better off with a ring than a sphere as the structural loads and stresses can be lower andhow the hell would you accelerate a sphere that size?

Posted

Plus, the matter require to construct a ringworld around a star is... well, incredibly less than you'd need to totally encompass a star with the material bubble of a Dyson sphere.

Posted
I doubt you could also round up all the dust that is out there, even up to a single AU. A particle of dust going 16,000 miles an hour can do a lot of damage.

On the other hand, the vast majority of the inner surface is going to be unpopulated, so it can probably stand to take a good few hits, just like Earth does.

Posted

just thinking about the bowshock that the solar wind makes as the sun moves through the galaxy and i thought, if you make a dyson sphere then the solar wind is blocked and the galactic wind(is there a better name for it?) would eventually start hitting the sphere. Would this be serious or is it not worth bothering about?

Posted
just thinking about the bowshock that the solar wind makes as the sun moves through the galaxy and i thought, if you make a dyson sphere then the solar wind is blocked and the galactic wind(is there a better name for it?) would eventually start hitting the sphere. Would this be serious or is it not worth bothering about?

Would it be like increasing the air pressure inside a glass bottle until it breaks?

Posted

The reason to spin the sphere or ring is to generate artificial gravity. This is so old that it's new again. The enthusiasm for Jerry Pournelle's and Larry Niven's Ringworld stories apparently is well past its natural expiration date.

Posted

that idea has been around for a long time and considered by nasa quite often, although it takes a ship the length of the golden gate bridge in order to keep the astronauts from getting sick

 

 

however in a sphere the top and bottom and the rest of the shere except the area perpendicular to the axis of rotation (don't know a better way to say that) wouldn't get gravity

 

plus in the end if you have the tech to build this thing you have the tech to create artificial gravity, and heck you probably have the technology to get more energy than a star produces in its lifetime.

 

out of curiosity how much energy would it take just to move all that mass into an orbit of 1 au melt it all down smelt it and then make a sphere out of it. My guess more energy than a star produces in a billion years.

Posted

It seems like, given the vast internal surface area of a dyson sphere, even if the technology did exist to supply artificial gravity to the entire inner surface it would probably take a significant amount of the power generated by the star just to maintain it. If this were the case it would make the entire process pretty pointless, since the only real reason to build a dyson sphere in the first place is to harness the energy of the star within it - there are far easier ways to just get more living space.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.