To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Possible Realistic Approach To Dyson Swarms
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Space > Space

Quantum_Conundrum
Note that I'm talking a project that might begin 50 to 100 years out as the earth approaches true "Type 1" status.

While I'm sure this idea is nothing new, the goal here is simple: Convert existing moons and dwarf planets into world ships and Dyson Swarms directly.

Note also that I am talking about an economic model which "profitablity" is defined by the expansion and survivability of the human race(survivalism), as opposed to how many paper dollars one greedy individual can make(capitalism.) These projects are generational projects and will take decades or centuries before a pure "return" may be realized by the parent civilization, but in the greater scheme of things, they are ultimately beneficial to earth and all humans.



One key advantage of this approach is it addresses the gravity issue by making usage of an existing gravity well of the object's mass. The disadvantage is that a more massive object is harder to move.

Here, we use objects that are large enough to have SOME gravity (0.05g to 0.15g.) These are objects, I suppose, ranging in size approximately from that of asteroid Ceres to that of Europa. The first of these would be on the smaller to medium end of this scale, as even 0.15g is a very, very large object. While this is still far less than Earth, it is better than nothing. Now these objects are typically massive enough to give gravitational resistance for human bone and muscle health, and to keep stuff from flying away, but not massive enough to maintain their own atmosphere, at least not indefinitely.


Now, we build our civilization on the surface of this object in modular design using materials available on the target object itself, or imported from elsewhere in the solar system. The idea would be to eventually cover the entire surface of the object in structures which are enterlocking with air locks as I have previously described, constructed from metals, polymers, and composite materials. IN order to protect against radiation, this is then covered over in a sufficient layer of aggregate materials. Solar panels cover the sun-facing side.


The advantage of this approach as opposed to an entirely free-floating space station is the existence of gravity. Once such a colony obtained a decent population, this colony could be used for mining and processing asteroids on a large scale for useage by other portions of the human civilization. Because of its lower gravity (but not zero gravity), you can bring the asteroids here in transport ships, refine them, lift off with the refined metals much easier than from an earth, luna, or mars sized object. Left over "junk" is used to re-fill the core of the host object after it too has been mined out for the most valuable resources.


The ideal object would be one large enough to eventually support a human population and mining and refining facilities of every type, but small enough to actually be able to change its orbit around the sun(and presumably its original host planet,) to move it into the habitable zone around the sun. Solar panels become one of the primary power sources, supplemented by chemical and/or nuclear power as needed.

In other words, we have encased the entire object in an air-tight sphere of metals and polymers, with air locks between modules and docking ports(this is to minimize loss of atmosphere from living spaces). We mine out the most valuable resources from the core of the object, exporting them to earth, the moon, and mars. We also use this colony as the primary space-bourne refinery.
RobDegraves
It was already suggested in a Star Trek TNG show. It's massively unlikely for quite a long while for tech reasons.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 28 2009, 03:11 PM)
It was already suggested in a Star Trek TNG show. It's massively unlikely for quite a long while for tech reasons.

What was done in TNG episode was a sci-fi dyson sphere, which is not going to be doable for many ages. Also, the original idea for a Dyson Sphere is actually close to 50 years older than that TNG episode, and the Dyson Sphere in that episode is theoretically impossible to construct by any means anyway, because it is impossibly efficient.

A true Dyson Sphere constructed in our solar system could harness several billion times the amount of energy as earth recieves from the sun in the same amount of time. However, it would likely take millions or billions of years to construct one.

====

What I am talking about is the rudementary foundation of space colonization and mining of asteroids, comets, and dwarf planets. The construction of a Dyson Swarm in the manner I have here layed out is a bit of a trade-off since artificial gravity is likely impossible, and simulated gravity via rotation is too energy intensive over the long haul, particularly on the mega-engineering scales of which we are here discussing.


The point here is that the asteroid or dwarf planet serves as both the primary source of metal and aggregates for construction of residential and manufacturing modules, AND as the center of gravity. These particular worldships might not be well suited for deep space travel(except between exceptionally close stars,) but they are nearly ideal as colonies and processing/refining facilities inside the solar system.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 28 2009, 04:38 PM)
A true Dyson Sphere constructed in our solar system could harness several billion times the amount of energy as earth recieves from the sun in the same amount of time. However, it would likely take millions or billions of years to construct one.

In millions or billions of years, humanity will no longer consist of humans. Evolution.

QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 28 2009, 04:38 PM)
What I am talking about is the rudementary foundation of space colonization and mining of asteroids, comets, and dwarf planets. The construction of a Dyson Swarm in the manner I have here layed out is a bit of a trade-off since artificial gravity is likely impossible, and simulated gravity via rotation is too energy intensive over the long haul, particularly on the mega-engineering scales of which we are here discussing.

Humans can't live for extended periods of time without gravity. Astronauts who spend 6 months in space have to go through several months of rehabilitation.

QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Aug 28 2009, 04:38 PM)
The point here is that the asteroid or dwarf planet serves as both the primary source of metal and aggregates for construction of residential and manufacturing modules, AND as the center of gravity. These particular worldships might not be well suited for deep space travel(except between exceptionally close stars,) but they are nearly ideal as colonies and processing/refining facilities inside the solar system.

This is so pointlessly stupid. Why would anyone make a worldship? What practical purpose would that serve? Just because you saw it on Star Trek doesn't mean that it serves any practical purpose for humans.
Quantum_Conundrum
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 28 2009, 03:48 PM)
In millions or billions of years, humanity will no longer consist of humans. Evolution.


Humans can't live for extended periods of time without gravity. Astronauts who spend 6 months in space have to go through several months of rehabilitation.


This is so pointlessly stupid. Why would anyone make a worldship? What practical purpose would that serve? Just because you saw it on Star Trek doesn't mean that it serves any practical purpose for humans.

1)
Yes, it does serve a purpose, and that is mining resources from space for use by the citizens of this colony and other colonies in a manner which is far more efficient over the long haul than having a ship lift off from earth, the moon, or mars over and over. This is actually the most efficient form of space colonization, because once it is started, virtually all resources are coming from space, and there is no future cost to the earth.

With such a mining colony in space, ships would only land on earth, luna, or mars when absolutely necessary for the most sensitive of cargo(humans, computers, etc). You would extract the water and metals from asteroids and comets, process them in space, and parachute the goods down to the target planet. Well, in the case of the moon, since it has no atmosphere, there would need to be some sort of drop zone for some raw materials, and you'd use landers for sensitive cargo.



It is far cheaper over the long term to move goods from Asteroid A to planet B than to move resources from planet A to planet B simply because of gravity of Planet A being so much greater than that of Asteroid A. It makes no sense for earth to plan to have any sort of direct trade with a mars colony or even a lunar colony even over the long term, because the gravity of the earth is such that the earth could never manufacture goods and ship them out at the same price as another planet or asteroid could(once colony established, of course.)




2) The astronauts you are refering to spent 6 months in zero gravity. An object ranging from the size of Ceres to Europa has 5 to 15% of earth gravity, which is far more than zero gravity. I thought I made that perfectly clear in my original post which started this thread, in that the asteroid/dwarf planet thing solves the gravity problem automatically.



3) I am not proposing doing this "for the hell of it" I'm proposing doing this for the expansion of the human race. "practicality" is a relative term. Earth will obtain many benefits of this over the long term: resources from space, information, technology, etc. If you expect some capitalist pig to put an extra dollar in his pocket next year or ten years from now, and that is how you define "practical" then I would agree, by that definition, this isn't practical. However, in the greater scheme of things, space colonization is the most practical, rational endeavour in modern history.
AlexG
QUOTE
An object ranging from the size of Ceres to Europa has 5 to 15% of earth gravity, which is far more than zero gravity.


Ceres is the largest body in the asteroid belt, and the only asteroid large enough to be classified as a dwarf planet. Ceres gravity is estimated to be 0.27 m/s^2, which is only 2.7% of earth gravity.

Europa does have 15% earth gravity, which is the just about the same as our moon.

I do agree about the benefits of asteroid mining.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.