The "Siberian Curse"

[RegisterMe]

I'm watching a programme called "Russia With Simon Reeve", a chap who basically does travelogues. Needless to say this one is about Russia. The series starts in the East and will head west.

One interesting comment just made was about what is known as "the Siberian curse". In other words the cost of maintaining communities in the remote east is prohibitive, regardless of the mineral, agricultural or strategic benefits that accrue.

Which I find interesting, because I wonder what it says about a Moonbase, or Elon Musk's plans for Mars?

[Rapier]

If you haven't seen it, I would recommend The 21st Century Race for Space (available for 10 days at time of typing - UK only etc. etc.):

A new age of space exploration, and exploitation, is dawning. But surprisingly, some of the boldest efforts at putting humans into space are now those of private companies started by a handful of maverick billionaire businessmen.
In this film, Brian Cox gains exclusive access behind the scenes at Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin and Spaceport America, exploring what is really happening in privately financed space flight right now. From space tourism to asteroid mining, and even dreams of colonies on Mars, these new masters of the universe refuse to limit their imaginations. But are private companies led by Jeff Bezos, Sir Richard Branson and Elon Musk really going to be able to pull this off? How will they overcome the technical challenges to achieve it? And is it really a good idea, or just a fool's errand?
Cox meets key players in the story - Bezos, founder of Blue Origin as well as Amazon, and Sir Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Galactic. He wants to find out how entrepreneurs - and engineers - really plan to overcome the daunting challenges of human space travel. It certainly hasn't been easy so far. Jeff Bezos has sold a further billion dollars of Amazon stock this year to fund Blue Origin. Branson has been working on Galactic for more than a decade. Lives have been lost. And some companies have already all but given up. But real progress has been made too. The origins of the new space boom, the X-prize in 2004, proved that reusable space craft could be built by private enterprise. Now the challenge is to work out how to run reliable, safe, affordable services that will show a return on the massive financial investments. Sixteen years since Dennis Tito became the first civilian in space, Cox explores the hardware and companies that are aiming to make daily tourist flights to space.
Beyond mass space travel, and even space mining and manufacturing, the dream of Elon Musk and others is true space exploration. His company, SpaceX, already delivers supplies to the International Space Station, and their next step is delivering astronauts too. But their true ambition is to ensure the survival of the human race by crossing our solar system and colonizing Mars in the next decade. Could commercial spaceflight companies eventually make us a space-faring civilization?

Thats' the long answer. TL;DW - (aka spoilers!) - Elon Musk isn't looking for commercial success, it's more the explorer vibe. Those that are looking for the financial return on investment are thinking robots.

[Morkonan]

...Which I find interesting, because I wonder what it says about a Moonbase, or Elon Musk's plans for Mars?

You're absolutely right to be concerned. This is the primary reason for us not already having a "Moon Base."

It does often come down to a case of costs vs. benefit, doesn't it?

But, I think that the costs of not doing this, not trying to explore the possibilities of a "base", which I think is an abused term, on Mars has become, in recent years, one that is more concerning than the costs associated with answering the question. What are the consequences if we don't?

TLDR at the bottom!

We have one rock. If anything happens to this rock, we're gone. Everything we are, were, and could be relies on the Earth staying the same and nothing bad happening to us while we're on this little rock. We can have the most amazing scientific achievements we've ever know, but as long as we're just here, on this one planet, we are forever at the mercy of random chance.

Heck, even if we had a permanent base on Mars, we'd still be barely clinging onto existence, in the wider scheme of "chance."

So, the "costs" of not doing this thing start to become more concerning than the fiscal costs of doing it.

Imagine you're a safety engineer and you're in charge of a large chemical plant. You're sitting in your office, going over some paperwork, reading about some recent criticisms of a control valve that is designed for harsh chemical environments, the sorts of chemicals you deal with and the very same valve most of your facility uses. As you read on, you start to get concerned - It appears that there's some really good evidence that this particular design may not only be flawed, but that flaw could cause a catastrophic failure resulting in the destruction of the entire facility. Moreover, it becomes evident that the longer these valves are in operation, the more likely they'll fail. At best, you'd lose your job if this happened. At the worst, there wouldn't be any jobs, because everyone there would wake up dead one day.

So, you recommend to senior management that all the control valves be replaced with a much more safe, more suitable, and, in the long-term, ultimately more beneficial and profitable for operations valve.

You're surprised when the response isn't enthusiastic. Senior management claim that the up-front costs are prohibitive and there won't be any measurable profitable returns for at least a decade, if not longer. They're aware that, ultimately, the plant isn't designed very well, in light of this new information. But, they think that instead of installing new, safer, better valves in all the equipment, they'll just dig a huge trench around the place and hope for the best in case there's a large-scale toxic release. Oh, and they decide to buy everyone a pair of gloves, in case bajillion-gallon tanks full of ethyl-methyl-badstuff explode all over everyone's faces...

So, yes, it's going to be expensive. Yes, it's going to be very difficult. But, those very real "costs" are much less concerning than the possibility of a catastrophic event should we not accept these safety-measure costs.

Eventually, we have to leave here... Unless we're willing to commit suicide by standing in the path of a train full of probabilities, we've got to leave here and establish safe havens on or around other worlds from which we can gain enough resources to live.

That's what fuels such projects. It's not the costs of doing them, it's the potential, increasingly probable, costs of not doing them.

TLDR: People buy insurance for the same reasons that some are willing to expend a lot of resources in order to go to Mars.

PS-On Siberia and natural resrouces: Russia is a country rich in untapped, natural resources. Untapped, these resources are sort of like a "savings account." Right now, considering current states, it's not profitable to exploit them in a large scale effort. It's actually more beneficial, right now, to leave them where they are, as a sort of backwards "investment" in the future. The lost opportunity costs, today, will be relatively insignificant compared to the gains that may be possible tomorrow, when these resources are much more critically valuable. IMO, it's a long-term, strategic, decision to refrain from exploiting such things right now if such exploitation isn't critically important, today.

[RegisterMe]

I understand and agree with all of the above, so I guess my initial question might have been better phrased as "what can be done to avoid "the Siberian Curse", when it comes to the establishment of bases on the Moon and Mars"?

In other words, even if you assume that the value of exploration, the value of associated and required scientific and engineering expertise, and the potential of some "insurance", justifies such efforts, any thing you can do to provide real cost savings, and real dollar value, has to be a good thing.

More simply, the more commercially viable you can make such efforts the more viable full stop they become.

[Morkonan]

...More simply, the more commercially viable you can make such efforts the more viable full stop they become.

Infrastructure costs...

Building a highway costs a ton of money. But, once it's in place, the profits can be enormous. Plus, it's a lot cheaper to transport goods and services than it was before the highway was there.

The argument has always been the "go slow" proponents, with slow, steady, exploration and the testing of techniques, new insights gained from experience, and the like versus the "screw all that, let's get it done" side.

There's merit in both arguments.

But, if the discussion is based on "expense", then that doesn't raise the bar, it changes the bar. The only thing we can reliably say we can gain from any effort outside of LEO, right now, is "knowledge." That's a worthy goal, to be sure, but that's not the primary concern of a costs-based argument. That sort of argument is "we'll do it when we can afford it." And, if that argument doesn't consider the long-term benefits, perhaps a generation or longer into the future, then there's not going to be a current time in which the costs "if we can afford" them are going to be justified by some. There will always be the argument of "we can put those funds to better use, right now, and receive some immediate gains."

I'd be fine if we all, worldwide, dropped everything other than basic needs, with a few comforts and mindful of human rights, in favor of pooling our collective efforts to get off this rock. But, that sort of cost-benefit long-term plan wouldn't meet with much agreement.

We have a little bit of an idea of what we'd need to deal with for a manned mission to Mars. BUT, there's a bunch we don't know and there are some practical considerations that I don't think are being addressed in "press releases." Radiation concerns, long-term weightlessness effects not helped by "exercise", building and operating structures and equipment in low-g hostile environments (Moon dust was scary stuff), viability of an environment to support human survival needs with what knowledge we have, right now.

Somehow, I don't think just taking a dump in some Martian soil and planting a couple of potatoes is actually going to work...

I'd love to see it happen, but I really don't think Musk is ready to fulfill his promise.

How do we make it happen? We do it. We're not going to develop the infrastructure to make such a mission easy without, first, actually going ahead with the goal of getting there. So, no matter how we slice it, it will never, ever, be easy or cost-efficient, the first time. Later, as we keep going and keep, hopefully, getting some form of benefit from it, the actual costs will go down.

Note: If we put the effort into an asteroid-mining program, we might make it comparatively more easy, after awhile, to go to Mars. But, by then, if we had that sort of capability already established, we should have already gone there to begin with.

[RegisterMe]

Infrastructure costs...

That's where my thinking is at the moment, specifically with regard to two things:-

1. Power - there's a lot of power available, essentially for free, once the right kit is in place. You can do a lot with "free" power. Particularly if it is in the right place / transportable / mutable in some way.

2. Gravity well - related in some ways to "power" above, once you get, sustainably, far enough up it, many things become easier and cheaper.

I suspect 1. is a better first step than a Moon base, which is a better second step than 2, which is a better third step than attempting to create a self-sustaining base on Mars. All of this would bootstrap exploitation of the asteroid belt (which is what I really mean by "up the gravity well") and exploration / exploitation of the further reaches of the solar system.

[silenced]

Think back about 200 years, or maybe 150-200 years.

Imagine those companies and states who built up the road networks and the train networks, that those would have thought as today's economy in years or even quarter years for revenue. These networks would not exist.

They thought in decades and centuries.


It's not about cost, it's about long term profit. Today's economy is too short in planning, that's why it's failing, slowly but surely.

[Usenko]

The biggest problem with building the infrastructure for space is that most of it isn't terribly useful for the bulk of humanity (who will necessarily be left on the planet even as the excited few get to begin the new colony).

This is why I think Elon Musk's recent video showing his BFR being used for transport on Earth has merit - this is a way to monetize the technology and make it useful for the rest of us. In so doing he makes it more likely that his rockets will be funded for other longer term projects, including Mars.

[Morkonan]

Note: Anyone is free to disregard my ramblings, here. Just thinking out loud with my morning coffee...

TLDR: The point is this - There are serious barriers to space exploitation right now. They can not be "profitably" overcome without sufficient development already in place. That development will likely only occur slowly without sufficient, practical, motivation. To encourage exploitation, for mankind's long-term benefit, we have to focus on practical, tangible, returns as well as, perhaps, thinking a bit about motivating progress through "greed."

Infrastructure costs...

That's where my thinking is at the moment, specifically with regard to two things:-

1. Power - there's a lot of power available, essentially for free, once the right kit is in place. You can do a lot with "free" power. Particularly if it is in the right place / transportable / mutable in some way.

First, you have to build something to take advantage of it. Currently, we use solar panels, which convert the Sun's photons to electricity, which is then stored in batteries. Then, you have to convert that stored energy for use as other forms of energy like thermal or mechanical. At each stage down the ladder, inefficiency takes its toll. Solar panels may need repairs, require energy to operate, themselves, etc.

IOW, yes, easy access to solar power will/would be great, but it requires solving its own problems and building things that can collect and use it. None of that energy is "free" in the literal sense.

I'm not sure what the conversion would be, but I suppose it wouldn't be difficult to work out if someone was industrious enough, but it's possible we'd get more "energy" from a nuclear reactor than with an equal amount of money spent on developing solar panels. (Just a guess/thought problem)

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stat ... about.html

So, "84 to 120 kilowatts" of power.

The reactor in a modern nuclear submarine provides 34 megawatts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawolf_class_submarine

But, then there's the cost of materials and to orbit to consider. Plus, the sub's reactor powers pumps, etc, and there's some loss, there, too. (The system would certainly be different than in a nuclear sub.) The nuclear reactor definitely has the power density, I would imagine, but there are other considerations, maintenance, wear-and-tear (Solar panels have some, but miniscule, more concerning is damage and such.)

The point: There's a bunch of stuffs to consider. I agree that being able to use solar power so easily would be great! But, how much of that idea would actually fuel all the investment required and, once established, how would it be used to further our reasons for actually being in space to begin with?

2. Gravity well - related in some ways to "power" above, once you get, sustainably, far enough up it, many things become easier and cheaper.

Moving from x to y becomes cheaper, relative to being deep in a gravity well, as a factor of distance/acceleration vs power required, but that's about it, isn't it?

I suspect 1. is a better first step than a Moon base, which is a better second step than 2, which is a better third step than attempting to create a self-sustaining base on Mars. All of this would bootstrap exploitation of the asteroid belt (which is what I really mean by "up the gravity well") and exploration / exploitation of the further reaches of the solar system.

I think we should, as you suggest, take such things in stages. We just have to determine which sort of stages get us from where we are now to where we want to go. And, we have to do it with the economic considerations we have at the moment - An astonishingly small amount of Earth's collective effort is aimed at providing support for advances that will help us all.

Greed is good... Well, it's motivating, at least. Appealing to "riches to be had" is a good motivator. If we can figure out how to get that "free energy" back to Earth, that would be an excellent start to motivating people towards putting more infrastructure into space. (Power transportability rules the energy economy - A water-wheel puts out a lot of power, but only in one location, while coal, gasoline and dynamite can be easily transported to where they're needed.)

You know what we really, really, need? We need someone to find evidence of "gold" on an asteroid.

Seriously, if we had that, there'd be dozens of major companies literally throwing money at developing industrial infrastructure in space. It doesn't have to be gold. In fact, it'd be better if it was something more expensive and desirable and something that has a widespread industrial use, like a multitude of rare-earth elements. I'm not sure what the likelihood those elements would be found in nearby asteroid fields, given their weight/etc.

Something to consider, this happened just a couple of weeks ago - Off-Earth Mining Forum held in Sydney.

A possible motivation for the announcement of Australia's new focus on a space program? Maybe... I'm sure the number and interests of attendees didn't hurt.

BUT, there are things other than mining asteroids to consider as far as "greed" is concerned. Biotech/pharmaceutical industries could benefit from having reactors in LEO. Efficiency of reactions for some very desirable components could be increased from current levels on Earth, let's say 40-50%, to upwards of 97%, IIRC. (Numbers mainly from antibio breeder reactors from some things I looked at years ago.) These materials could then be "dropped" to Earth for further processing, with total costs easily covered after a period that is less than the typical R&D recovery rate, today. (There are surely other costs, but the point is that there is a direct, industrial, advantage, simply due to microgravity.)

Metallurgy? That requires a bit more support and the raw materials cost to orbit is prohibitively expensive. Either a unique, advantageous, alloy only able to be created in microgravity would have to be desirable enough or the bulk of raw material be more easily available, from asteroids of the Moon, to justify a pay-off that inspires development.

Beaming energy to Earth via microwave? Sounds great, but considering the scale needed, it might not be a good idea right now. Do we really need more energy exciting things in the atmosphere right now? Probably not.

No executive summary, no conclusions, but: ESA - Environmental Impacts of Microwave Beams PDF So, not really that great when we're pretty concerned about environmental effects right now. Not something we could really consider doing, in that form, in a large enough way to make it industrially viable, I don't think.

Sorry for the blather, I'm just typing-out-loud.

But, at least right now, the conclusions I come up with are largely... negative. In other words, when I'm looking for advantages that could motivate exploitation of space, most require preexisting infrastructure or massive development costs that are, typically, a generation or so out from being regained. (In the short term.) If we "struck gold", then maybe that would be relieved quite a bit.

Can you think of any property of space, microgravity, radiation, resources, etc, that could be easily exploited compared to analogues on Earth and is widely desirable?

Think back about 200 years, or maybe 150-200 years.

Imagine those companies and states who built up the road networks and the train networks, that those would have thought as today's economy in years or even quarter years for revenue. These networks would not exist...

Think about things like investment in "discovery" missions in the early days of sail. Companies and wealthy individuals financially backed explorers to go seek out new lands to plant flags on. Literally.

OK, and this is just thinking out loud, but.. What if we, in order to encourage rapid space exploration development to benefit all of mankind, modified the UN Outer Space Treaty?

What if, instead of declaring that all such activity be undertaken for the "benefit and interests of all countries and" blah blah... What if we changed that so that countries, commercial and private concerns, and individuals had a "stake" in such exploitation?

I'm not saying that anyone could declare they "own" some celestial body. That's so far outside of our realm right now it's not worth considering. But, what would be the case if, for instance, it was declared that if you can exploit a celestial body, if you could maintain a manned base on/around it, then you "owned" some part of it?

Would Isabella have helped to finance Columbus, opening up a route to the Americas as a result, if the powers-that-be at the time had all agreed that none of them could exploit newly discovered lands for their own purposes, but had to act "for all mankind?"

(Just thinking about how to motivate rapid development in space in some way to support us getting off this darn rock. At least before we reach the point where that motivations is simple "survival." )

The biggest problem with building the infrastructure for space is that most of it isn't terribly useful for the bulk of humanity (who will necessarily be left on the planet even as the excited few get to begin the new colony). ..

^---- This.

Tobacco, sugar, spices, cotton, salt, gold... Bringing these and other things "to the masses" and finding new, easily exploitable, sources for them has been the motivation for the majority of exploration mankind has conducted up to this point. Personal greed, too, was a strong motivator of major powers.

If, for instance, you answered at knock at your door to be greeted by a man delivering a package containing a brand-new, top-of-the-line, free, computer, free entertainment system, free super-awesome hat, and your very own "Tribble" (neutered, of course), all due to our exploitation of space resources, wouldn't you be really happy about enthusiastically supporting such programs by donating a comparatively tiny amount of your economic support?

Getting tangible evidence of positive results "to the masses" would be a powerful motivator. And, determining whether or not that tangible evidence is obtainable, in the first place, is a major concern for those trying to figure out how to exploit space.

[RegisterMe]

Well, to me anyway, the "trick" to using power is laser technology. XL SP stations (ahhem) in orbit around the sun beaming power elsewhere in the system via lasers, whether to power craft (light sails etc) or to be converted / stored on arrival for local use.

This is obviously trivialising an awful lot of technical complexity, but none of it is really out of reach of our capabilities today.

[Morkonan]

Well, to me anyway, the "trick" to using power is laser technology. XL SP stations (ahhem) in orbit around the sun beaming power elsewhere in the system via lasers, whether to power craft (light sails etc) or to be converted / stored on arrival for local use.

This is obviously trivialising an awful lot of technical complexity, but none of it is really out of reach of our capabilities today.

Possible. But, it's still just photons and there's some efficiency issues. I won't extrapolate like in the above, but we may need more technological development to be able to use some sort of laser tech to transmit power efficiently and safely.

I remember reading a short story a long time ago about a laser-like power-transmitting station. It may have been an Asimov "robot" story. It was genius, in any case, so it was probably his. "Focus" was the order of the day. Imagine losing "focus" or control and painting a swath of destruction across half a continent?

Lessee...

Space-Elevator: Can't be done, no materials currently known capable of it.

Space-Tether: Similar to above.

"Other" forms of cheaply getting to LEO and beyond? If we can get materials into space, cheaply, than it could benefit from incidental or casual exploitation, eventually, sort of like a spillover-effect. ie:"If you're already there, anyway, you may as well go do xx."

AH! On your XL SP reference, what about developing "E-Cells?"

!!

Now, that sort of technology would help to overcome the power-transmission problems. Portability is key, at least as far as we understand it right now, to effective large-scale use of energy. (Another being efficiency, with yet others, still.)

A magical "battery" could be the revolution that kicked off a huge amount of progress across a broad spectrum of concerns, including space exploration and exploitation.

[mrbadger]

Not going to address any other points made in this thread, because I'm just dropping by right now.

But, my take is this. If resource X you usually rely on isn't available, but resource Y that might barely do at a pinch is available, you go with resource Y and cope, or die out.

Then you set about looking for something better, or make Y work better.

Of such things is evolution made.

It's unlikely, and unreasonable to assume that our society will simply transfer as it is now into space.

Edit: read some of the thread.

Space of full of energy, it's brimming over with the stuff. Your biggest issue would be shedding it, not collecting it.

Or at least, collecting it in a useful way.

A Dyson swarm to collect energy can be started with technology that exists right now, it isn't some far off future technology, we just haven't started one yet.

We are more than capable of it. The problem is, the project would benefit far more than just the people initiating it, are we capable of handling that?

Some people don't seem to like investing in things that they aren't the only people profiting from.

[Morkonan]

...But, my take is this. If resource X you usually rely on isn't available, but resource Y that might barely do at a pinch is available, you go with resource Y and cope, or die out.

Then you set about looking for something better, or make Y work better.

But, you have to use resource x to get to resource y, even if it's evolutionary DNA.

And, if you run out of resource x? No resource y.

...A Dyson swarm to collect energy can be started with technology that exists right now, it isn't some far off future technology, we just haven't started one yet.

We are more than capable of it. The problem is, the project would benefit far more than just the people initiating it, are we capable of handling that?

Well, there's problem, right? Part of my bloviated crap post addresses that very issue. At least as far as exploiting certain space resources like moons, asteroids, planets, etc.. (UN Outer Space Treaty)

In essence, what if we granted some exclusive exploitation rights or a pathway to that? Sort of like a Homestead Act, but with some protections in there that helped to prevent abuse?

I think that, past a certain scale, we're a bit unsure of how to proceed as far as the driving motivation for exploitation is concerned. So far, we've been relying on scientific progress and a "gee whiz coolness" factor to push exploration. But, while a few Earthly explorers may have been motivated by altruism, most of the progress made was motivated by greed or need. Today, there's a definite need, but most people don't see it the same way and may need "greed" as a motivation.

I understand that we may have the possibility of constructing a Dyson-inspired network, but constructing anything resembling that, beyond a sort of test model project, is beyond our current capability. (Depending on what sort of scale we're talking about.)

edit: Fixing a backward bracket. The link should work now. - Usenko

[mrbadger]

I understand that we may have the possibility of constructing a Dyson-inspired network, but constructing anything resembling that, beyond a sort of test model project, is beyond our current capability. (Depending on what sort of scale we're talking about.)

The scale is, you build one energy collecting unit, then use the spare energy from that to help build the second, and you keep going.

Look up Dyson Swarms, they're pretty neat, and not solid objects.

They are, as the name suggests, a swarm of objects. There can be as few as a hundred, or billions. To get lots they'd have to be self replicating, or something like that. But they'd be able to be made out of really thin energy collecting material, with some station keeping engines, and some computing power.

You could set up a few factory ships to build them from asteroids and set them to place themselves in position. There is more than enough raw material in asteroids to build a decent swarm, but we'd only need a small one to get started, after which the cost of adding to it would plummet.

There is a good argument to be made that the fact that we haven't spotted these around nearby stars indicates there are no advanced races near us, because it's such as easy and clean way of getting energy it would be worth doing, and there would be no reason to stop once you'd started.

[Morkonan]

The scale is, you build one energy collecting unit, then use the spare energy from that to help build the second, and you keep going.

Look up Dyson Swarms, they're pretty neat, and not solid objects.

They are, as the name suggests, a swarm of objects. There can be as few as a hundred, or billions. To get lots they'd have to be self replicating, or something like that. But they'd be able to be made out of really thin energy collecting material, with some station keeping engines, and some computing power.

You could set up a few factory ships to build them from asteroids and set them to place themselves in position. There is more than enough raw material in asteroids to build a decent swarm, but we'd only need a small one to get started, after which the cost of adding to it would plummet.

There is a good argument to be made that the fact that we haven't spotted these around nearby stars indicates there are no advanced races near us, because it's such as easy and clean way of getting energy it would be worth doing, and there would be no reason to stop once you'd started.

I understand Dyson Swarms. We could do something "like it", perhaps a sort of test-bed version, but we don't have the ability to move the mass necessary to create anything worthy of truly being called a Dyson Swarm, not even close.

We can, however, conceptualize it. But, I think that's about it. With enough effort, we might be able to put a mini-gaggle, not a swarm, into orbit, if we were extraordinarily industrious.

[Rice]

Note: Anyone is free to disregard my ramblings, here. Just thinking out loud with my morning coffee...

Gosh thats a Hell of a Mug, would you mind to share the measurments for it. while write down such a long text, seems there is room for improvements on my end ! Maybe i just drink it too fast.

[Usenko]

I understand Dyson Swarms. We could do something "like it", perhaps a sort of test-bed version, but we don't have the ability to move the mass necessary to create anything worthy of truly being called a Dyson Swarm, not even close.

We can, however, conceptualize it. But, I think that's about it. With enough effort, we might be able to put a mini-gaggle, not a swarm, into orbit, if we were extraordinarily industrious.

To make a true Dyson Swarm would require automated manufacturing from materials mined in orbit (i.e. avoiding the whole gravity well problem). Even then it would be beyond our capacity.

[mrbadger]

why would it have to be a Dyson Swarm from the start?

Any swarm would start, as I said, with a single energy collecting unit, then you build a second, then a third, and so on. We could do that today. In fact we already do, we power some of our satellites with solar energy. It would be just a refinement of that, without all the power being used by a satellite, and a bigger collecting surface.

You wouldn't begin building a swarm until you had enough energy to start the mining required, but you wouldn't need a true swarm to power an off world colony of even large size, the sun pumps out a lot of energy.

[Morkonan]

Gosh thats a Hell of a Mug, would you mind to share the measurments for it. while write down such a long text, seems there is room for improvements on my end ! Maybe i just drink it too fast.

It's what I do. It's like breathing, except with fingers...

To make a true Dyson Swarm would require automated manufacturing from materials mined in orbit (i.e. avoiding the whole gravity well problem). Even then it would be beyond our capacity.

Agreed. At least, agreed inasmuch as we don't have the current capability to do that. It's a possible thing, but not close to being probable, yet.

why would it have to be a Dyson Swarm from the start?

Any swarm would start, as I said, with a single energy collecting unit, then you build a second, then a third, and so on. We could do that today. In fact we already do, we power some of our satellites with solar energy. It would be just a refinement of that, without all the power being used by a satellite, and a bigger collecting surface.

You wouldn't begin building a swarm until you had enough energy to start the mining required, but you wouldn't need a true swarm to power an off world colony of even large size, the sun pumps out a lot of energy.

Well, why don't we try to figure it out, then? (Such problems can be fun exercises.)

For a near-solar system, these might be candidates for resources: Mercury-crossing asteroids. That is, of course, only if they have usable materials and well-known orbits.

Or, we could use resources on Mercury for this. It may be more efficient, even with the increased gravitational costs - We could then make a central manufacturing center feasible. (Crater construction, to minimize temp swings?)

But, a "swarm-like" configuration doesn't have to be so close. It could be farther out, but if we go the route of automating production, it'll have to have resources available and the more difficult they are to obtain, the less efficient everything is going to be. There's power transmission consideration, as well. How to get the power to where we want it and what tech is needed to avoid focus problems.

And, there's the whole "why" of it all, too. What would it do for us? If we put the same effort into nuclear power or developing fusion power, would it make the whole idea obsolete until we actually grew to a scale where such collection efforts would be needed?

There's a path available towards doing this, but it's a path we may not be capable of walking down, yet. It's why there's a Kardeschev Scale to begin with - Theorizing about advanced civilizations because we don't have the perspective to present such things as fact, yet.

I guess the first question in terms of "doability" would be power transmission. There's no point in trying to figure out how it could be built if we can't benefit from it.

[mrbadger]

a power collecting surface need only be millimeters thick I believe, a few centimeters at most, and probably they could be constructed out of silicon, one of the most abundance resources in the solar system.

Carbon nano-tubes might be better, but that would likely be stage two construction, since that would be extremely energy intensive.

Then it only has to be big, as in like a solar sail, but maybe not to start with, but we can already make one of those pretty darned huge, and very, very thin.

So we're talking lots of large, but light energy collecting units co-operating and beaming energy to somewhere. energy beaming is again something we can do.
So is a full scale Dyson Swarm possible now? No, is it possible to start one now? yes.

Not all that well perhaps, (the first generation would likely end its life being fed into recyclers to build later versions), and not cheaply, but we can do it. So once that technology is in demand, it improves, Moores law kicks in, it gets cheaper, better, and more useful.