4 ms·
The technology for a Dyson sphere is primarily the technology for suspension bridges, solar farms, and intensive hydroponics (all well understood) + the technol
by lucubratory 2y ago
The technology for a Dyson sphere is primarily the technology for suspension bridges, solar farms, and intensive hydroponics (all well understood) + the technology for the ISS (well understood at this point). The only missing piece there is a fully sustainable (i.e. only energy input) life support system, which we have existence proofs for on Earth but haven't built to reliable engineering standards yet. If we have the material, we could start building it today and get designs that worked well quickly, even if we had to ship in life support maintenance alongside computer chips & pharmaceuticals.
The part we don't know how to do yet is getting the material. Building structures that large in space, the resources for it have to come from space, we cannot lift it off Earth. So we need to figure out how to mine asteroids, and maybe also how to mine Mercury. Either one would be sufficient at the start. Neither of those are a well-understood problem, let alone solved, so that's where you should invest resources if you're a billionaire looking to start a Dyson sphere and think SpaceX is on track for launch cost reduction.
I think in terms of science and engineering difficulty, it's a pretty even race as to which is more difficult between making fusion actually produce net useful energy and being able to mine & refine materials from an asteroid + build a sustainable life support system.
The reason fusion "seems easier" is because it is economically far more achievable, and there's a lot more political will behind it so it feels more possible.
- throwaway11460 2y agoAs a billionaire that wants to start a Dyson sphere, where is the profit / operational revenue?
- eep_social 2y agoThe ceiling on asteroid mining is orders of magnitude higher than anything constrained to earth. Put another way, imagine if you owned Australia because your company built it up off the ocean floor.
- lucubratory 2y agoWho said anything about profit? This is legacy building, a reason to have gotten all that money and power.
- throwaway11460 2y agoThis was not meant as a counter argument, I am interested in more on this topic. Legacy building seems like a good reason, but not scalable imho.
- lucubratory 2y agoWell, I guess the argument would be that a billionaire financing the construction of space habitats could make them effectively company towns, but of a highly educated workforce. Once enough of them are there they'll have their own economy, and whoever owns them/the oxygen supply/whatever would be getting a lot of return. I don't think that's a great argument, though, for multiple reasons. I think it's better to just frame it as building a legacy. Put humans in an entirely new place that many of us desperately want to be, end up having the equivalent of a city named after you.
- kiba 2y agoA dyson swarm is not a monolithic structure you build, but a civilization's collection of building.
- takinola 2y agoThe sphere does not need to be built or owned by a single entity. You too can own a single unit of the sphere for the low, low price of $2T. There can be different corporate entities owning different sections and monetizing it in all kinds of ways (e.g. the KY sector is ideal for powering asteroid mining in the Kuiper Belt)
- mrtransient 2y agoI hear people often talk online saying energy in the future will be either free or very cheap. Dont know what cheap means for them, but it will never be for free because abundance happens when the supply exceeds demand and I dont see the scenario where the demand for energy is declining in a long run.