4 ms·

What do you think the limiting factor is? I don't see why we can't scale manufacturing of satellites up as far as we want. If we mine out a substantial fraction

by tlb 8mo ago

What do you think the limiting factor is? I don't see why we can't scale manufacturing of satellites up as far as we want. If we mine out a substantial fraction of the mass of the earth, we can go harvest asteroids or something.

skywhopper 8mo ago
The physical amount of material in the solar system is a pretty big limiting factor.
- willturman 8mo ago
  Yeah, but besides not having the physical amount of material available in the solar system, or the availability of any technology to transfer power generated to a destination where it can serve a meaningful purpose in the foreseeable future, or having the political climate or capital necessary for even initiating such an effort, or not being able to do so without severely kneecapping the habitability of our planet, there are aren't really any meaningful barriers that I can see.
  - ShroudedNight 8mo ago
    Are you suggesting that beggars would ride, if only wishes were horses!?
singleshot_ 8mo ago
There are only so many people who can make satellites; there are only so many things to make satellites out of; and there are only so many orbits to put them in. There are only so many reasons why a person might want a satellite. There are only so many ways of placing satellites in orbit and each requires some amount of energy, and we have access to a finite amount of energy over time. Finally, if we limited ourselves to earth-based raw materials, we would eventually reach a point where the remaining mass of the earth would have less gravitational effect on the satellite fleet than the fleet itself, which would have deleterious effects on the satellite fleet. Seven reasons are intuitive; I’m sure there are many others.
- tlb 8mo ago
  People can build a factory that makes satellites. And then a factory that makes factories to make satellites. There is plenty of material in the solar system (see my other response), and plenty of orbits, and launch capability can scale with energy harvested so the launch rate can grow exponentially. Lots of people will probably decide they don't want any more satellites. But it only takes a few highly determined people to get it done anyway.
  - moralestapia 8mo ago
    >Just imbest[1] and it will grow exponentially. That's how that argument sounds like, particularly when you hear it from someone who is as broke as it can be. It's easy to type those ideas in a comment, or a novel, or a scientific paper ... bring them to reality, oh surprise! that's the hard part. 1: The dumb version to invest
- SJC_Hacker 8mo ago
  > Finally, if we limited ourselves to earth-based raw materials, we would eventually reach a point where the remaining mass of the earth would have less gravitational effect on the satellite fleet than the fleet itself, which would have deleterious effects on the satellite fleet. The Earth's crust has an average thickness of about 15-20 km. Practically we can only get at maybe the top 1-2 km, as drill bits start to fail the deeper you go. The Earth's radius is 6,371 km. So even if we could somehow dug up entire crust we can get to and flung it into orbit, that would barely be noticeable to anything in orbit.
  - tlb 8mo ago
    Once you dig up the top kilometer of a planet's crust, what's under your feet? The next kilometer! That would suck to do to Earth, but we can launch all of Mars's mass into the swarm.
bluescrn 8mo ago
After a few decades, you need to start replacing all the solar panels. And the robot army being used to do the construction and resource extraction will likely have a much shorter lifespan. So needs to be self-replicating/repairing/recycling.
andsoitis 8mo ago
>> Dyson Sphere > What do you think the limiting factor is? You need to be able to harness enough raw material and energy to build something that can surround the sun. That does not exist in the solar system and we do not yet have the means to travel further out to collect, move, and construct such an incredibly huge structure. It seems like a fantasy.
- tlb 8mo ago
  The inner planets contain enough mass to create a shell of 1 AU radius with mass of 42 kg/m^2. That sounds like a plausible thickness and density for a sandwich of photovoltaics - GPUs - heat sinks. You don't build a rigid shell of course, you build a swarm of free-floating satellites in a range of orbits. See https://www.aleph.se/Nada/dysonFAQ.html#ENOUGH https://www.aleph.se/Nada/dysonFAQ.html#ENOUGH for numbers.
  - fluoridation 8mo ago
    Great. Now run the numbers to find the energy required to disassemble the planets and accelerating the pieces to their desired locations. For reference, it takes over 10 times of propellant and oxidant mass to put something in LEO.
    - tlb 8mo ago
      The burned propellant and oxygen mass (as H2O and CO2) almost all ends up back in the atmosphere when you launch to LEO, so you can keep running electrolysis (powered by solar) to convert it back to fuel.
      - fluoridation 8mo ago
        Sure, but if we're talking about solar engineering, that mass is going to be dispersed in orbit around the sun. You're not going to be reaccumulating that any time soon.
  - FridgeSeal 8mo ago
sollewitt 8mo ago
In 2026? Grift.
Cthulhu_ 8mo ago
> What do you think the limiting factor is? I don't see why we can't scale manufacturing of satellites up as far as we want. A reason. I'm sure that theoretically it's possible, assuming infinite money and an interest to do so. But literally, why would we? There's no practical ways to get the power back on earth, it's cheaper to build a solar field, etc. And I don't believe datacenters in space are viable, cost wise. Not until we can no longer fit them on earth, AND demand is still increasing.

by tlb 8mo ago

skywhopper 8mo ago

The physical amount of material in the solar system is a pretty big limiting factor.

willturman 8mo ago
Yeah, but besides not having the physical amount of material available in the solar system, or the availability of any technology to transfer power generated to a destination where it can serve a meaningful purpose in the foreseeable future, or having the political climate or capital necessary for even initiating such an effort, or not being able to do so without severely kneecapping the habitability of our planet, there are aren't really any meaningful barriers that I can see.
- ShroudedNight 8mo ago
  Are you suggesting that beggars would ride, if only wishes were horses!?

singleshot_ 8mo ago

There are only so many people who can make satellites; there are only so many things to make satellites out of; and there are only so many orbits to put them in. There are only so many reasons why a person might want a satellite. There are only so many ways of placing satellites in orbit and each requires some amount of energy, and we have access to a finite amount of energy over time. Finally, if we limited ourselves to earth-based raw materials, we would eventually reach a point where the remaining mass of the earth would have less gravitational effect on the satellite fleet than the fleet itself, which would have deleterious effects on the satellite fleet. Seven reasons are intuitive; I’m sure there are many others.

tlb 8mo ago
People can build a factory that makes satellites. And then a factory that makes factories to make satellites. There is plenty of material in the solar system (see my other response), and plenty of orbits, and launch capability can scale with energy harvested so the launch rate can grow exponentially. Lots of people will probably decide they don't want any more satellites. But it only takes a few highly determined people to get it done anyway.
- moralestapia 8mo ago
  >Just imbest[1] and it will grow exponentially. That's how that argument sounds like, particularly when you hear it from someone who is as broke as it can be. It's easy to type those ideas in a comment, or a novel, or a scientific paper ... bring them to reality, oh surprise! that's the hard part. 1: The dumb version to invest
SJC_Hacker 8mo ago
> Finally, if we limited ourselves to earth-based raw materials, we would eventually reach a point where the remaining mass of the earth would have less gravitational effect on the satellite fleet than the fleet itself, which would have deleterious effects on the satellite fleet. The Earth's crust has an average thickness of about 15-20 km. Practically we can only get at maybe the top 1-2 km, as drill bits start to fail the deeper you go. The Earth's radius is 6,371 km. So even if we could somehow dug up entire crust we can get to and flung it into orbit, that would barely be noticeable to anything in orbit.
- tlb 8mo ago
  Once you dig up the top kilometer of a planet's crust, what's under your feet? The next kilometer! That would suck to do to Earth, but we can launch all of Mars's mass into the swarm.

bluescrn 8mo ago

After a few decades, you need to start replacing all the solar panels. And the robot army being used to do the construction and resource extraction will likely have a much shorter lifespan. So needs to be self-replicating/repairing/recycling.

andsoitis 8mo ago

>> Dyson Sphere > What do you think the limiting factor is? You need to be able to harness enough raw material and energy to build something that can surround the sun. That does not exist in the solar system and we do not yet have the means to travel further out to collect, move, and construct such an incredibly huge structure. It seems like a fantasy.

tlb 8mo ago
The inner planets contain enough mass to create a shell of 1 AU radius with mass of 42 kg/m^2. That sounds like a plausible thickness and density for a sandwich of photovoltaics - GPUs - heat sinks. You don't build a rigid shell of course, you build a swarm of free-floating satellites in a range of orbits. See https://www.aleph.se/Nada/dysonFAQ.html#ENOUGH https://www.aleph.se/Nada/dysonFAQ.html#ENOUGH for numbers.
- fluoridation 8mo ago
  Great. Now run the numbers to find the energy required to disassemble the planets and accelerating the pieces to their desired locations. For reference, it takes over 10 times of propellant and oxidant mass to put something in LEO.
  - tlb 8mo ago
    The burned propellant and oxygen mass (as H2O and CO2) almost all ends up back in the atmosphere when you launch to LEO, so you can keep running electrolysis (powered by solar) to convert it back to fuel.
    - fluoridation 8mo ago
      Sure, but if we're talking about solar engineering, that mass is going to be dispersed in orbit around the sun. You're not going to be reaccumulating that any time soon.
- FridgeSeal 8mo ago

sollewitt 8mo ago

In 2026? Grift.

Cthulhu_ 8mo ago

> What do you think the limiting factor is? I don't see why we can't scale manufacturing of satellites up as far as we want. A reason. I'm sure that theoretically it's possible, assuming infinite money and an interest to do so. But literally, why would we? There's no practical ways to get the power back on earth, it's cheaper to build a solar field, etc. And I don't believe datacenters in space are viable, cost wise. Not until we can no longer fit them on earth, AND demand is still increasing.