Can the Empire build a Dyson Sphere ?

[Howedar]

E=MC^2 disagrees pretty strongly, and that's just the reactor.

Erm, call me stupid, but we can't really gauge the mass of the reactor since it is not a simple mass->energy conversion.

This was actually a typo for Artificial gravity, one of the huge problems with a Sphere.

Gotcha.

What jump? We know planetary shields are networks, just more units. No extrapolation needed, just more shield units. This is to protect against asteroids and comets, BTW. Against fleet movements is a big problem.

Conceeded.

I have to ask what you mean by immense gravity.

If you built half of the sphere, then the other half, you'd have this nasty tendancy to have the Dyson Hemisphere eat the sun. Thus, you need to build it in a symmetric manner.

You may mean intense pressure from the rotation, and that's a valid question, and comes down to material science. Coordinating it will be hard, yes. But this is an Empire which uses power sources many times denser than Black Holes. I'm not going to say it's impossible.

And neither am I. What I am saying is that we have not seen the capability demonstrated.

[RedImperator]

A full blown Dyson Shell like the one in "Relics" may or may not be within the Empire's capabilities--as has been pointed out, you can't just scale up from the DS2 and assume they can do it. However, a Dyson Cloud consisting of habitbal orbitals and solar collectors would be a trivial matter for the Empire. It's actually curious why we DON'T see such structures in Star Wars--constructing such a cloud could be done in increments so as not to tax the galactic economy (unlike a full shell, which is unstable until complete), it would provide living space for hundreds of trillions of beings, you could custom-tailor the biosphere and climate, and living in one would have to be preferable to settling a dust bowl like Tattooine.

[Drach]

Data: The interior surface area of a sphere this size is the equivalent of 250 million class M planets.

Thats why you'd build one, plus you get the entire energy output of the star for as long as the structure is intact. After its built, there's no need to supply it with reactor materials, as the power is free

[Typhonis 1]

Hmm could that be whats around Kuat ? a Dyson cloud??

[SPOOFE]

I believe that the Empire could construct a proper Dyson sphere, if a significant chunk of its industrial and developmental capacity were devoted to the project. In my opinion, it could not construct the Dyson Sphere and see a net gain to its industry after its completion. The space for population is unnecessary (they can already dump 500 trillion people onto one planet, comfortably, apparently), and the energy gained from the "full output of a sun" would be insignificant compared to the energy they'd need to put into the project.

[Col. Crackpot]

I believe that the Empire could construct a proper Dyson sphere, if a significant chunk of its industrial and developmental capacity were devoted to the project. In my opinion, it could not construct the Dyson Sphere and see a net gain to its industry after its completion. The space for population is unnecessary (they can already dump 500 trillion people onto one planet, comfortably, apparently), and the energy gained from the "full output of a sun" would be insignificant compared to the energy they'd need to put into the project.

Yes it would be a very wastefull endeavour, but then again, so was the death star. I do think that once completed a dyson sphere would be the ultimate defensive position. you could build and keep thousands of ISD sized ships inside. You could have armour thousands of kilometers thick. nearly unlimited power for weapons and shields. And you keep trillions upon trillions of people not only alive, but thriving. for all of the waste i would still likt to see the face of the would be invader upon discovering a fortified enemy within a dyson sphere.

[Lord of the Farce]

Yes it would be a very wastefull endeavour, but then again, so was the death star. I do think that once completed a dyson sphere would be the ultimate defensive position. you could build and keep thousands of ISD sized ships inside. You could have armour thousands of kilometers thick. nearly unlimited power for weapons and shields. And you keep trillions upon trillions of people not only alive, but thriving. for all of the waste i would still likt to see the face of the would be invader upon discovering a fortified enemy within a dyson sphere.

Defensively, a Dyson Sphere wouldn't exactly be the best idea. For one thing, think about how many weapon emplacements you'll have to dot over the entire thing to get weapons coverage anywhere near a match to a single Star Destroyer. Then think of how you'll power all those weapon and how you'll divert the energy around if necessary. Also, think of what kind of stress so much mass will put onto the sphere (and how cracking just one part open will do.

IMHO, it would be much wiser to use the material on a much more flexible fleet. *shrug*

[Darth Wong]

A Dyson Sphere is an utterly pointless endeavour, for many reasons.

1. The Empire has far superior power generation technologies and does not need to waste its resources constructing what is essentially a giant solar collector.
2. A highly mobile offensive/defensive force is tactically and strategically superior to a gigantic fixed fortification, so the notion of using it as a defensive installation is laughable, not to mention unbelievably wasteful.
3. All of this "250 million Class M planet" stuff is nonsense. If it rotates for gravity, there will be only a thin band of habitable area on the inside of the sphere, because the centripetal acceleration will push everything toward the equator. If it requires constant use of artificial gravity technologies, it's a disaster waiting to happen.
4. If we imagine, say, a 100 million km Dyson sphere with a 2km thick shell, it would require 100 million times as much raw material as DS2, assuming similar bulk density. While it is possible that the Empire can call upon such large resources (DS2 was constructed in secret, after all), it is by no means guaranteed, and it is an incredible waste of resources anyway.

I doubt they could build one unless their whole civilization threw itself into the effort, and there is no conceivable reason for them to do that.

[SirNitram]

E=MC^2 disagrees pretty strongly, and that's just the reactor.

Erm, call me stupid, but we can't really gauge the mass of the reactor since it is not a simple mass->energy conversion.

Your right. The real number will be higher, probably much higher. My base numbers were somewhat off(The DS can fire more than once a day! Drop that fallacy!), but the point stands. But, I won't hold onto this point too hard: The Empire can probably summon solar masses of material, remember how much stuff they have.

This was actually a typo for Artificial gravity, one of the huge problems with a Sphere.

Gotcha.

What jump? We know planetary shields are networks, just more units. No extrapolation needed, just more shield units. This is to protect against asteroids and comets, BTW. Against fleet movements is a big problem.

Conceeded.

I have to ask what you mean by immense gravity.

If you built half of the sphere, then the other half, you'd have this nasty tendancy to have the Dyson Hemisphere eat the sun. Thus, you need to build it in a symmetric manner.

The gravity of the Sphere itself? One of the biggest problems with Dyson Sphere's is they don't have enough gravity to hold everyone on the surface. Even if this wasn't so, the Empire can null out high gravities, particularly from their reactors(Even using the fire-once-a-day power, as bunk as it is, the reactor core is denser than a neutron star).

You may mean intense pressure from the rotation, and that's a valid question, and comes down to material science. Coordinating it will be hard, yes. But this is an Empire which uses power sources many times denser than Black Holes. I'm not going to say it's impossible.

And neither am I. What I am saying is that we have not seen the capability demonstrated.

I'm just going by what capacities are relevent and analyzing. Personally, I say the biggest problem is if they can build it in time, without invoking World Devastators.

[Col. Crackpot]

Yes it would be a very wastefull endeavour, but then again, so was the death star. I do think that once completed a dyson sphere would be the ultimate defensive position. you could build and keep thousands of ISD sized ships inside. You could have armour thousands of kilometers thick. nearly unlimited power for weapons and shields. And you keep trillions upon trillions of people not only alive, but thriving. for all of the waste i would still likt to see the face of the would be invader upon discovering a fortified enemy within a dyson sphere.

Defensively, a Dyson Sphere wouldn't exactly be the best idea. For one thing, think about how many weapon emplacements you'll have to dot over the entire thing to get weapons coverage anywhere near a match to a single Star Destroyer. Then think of how you'll power all those weapon and how you'll divert the energy around if necessary. Also, think of what kind of stress so much mass will put onto the sphere (and how cracking just one part open will do.

IMHO, it would be much wiser to use the material on a much more flexible fleet. *shrug*

"Fixed fortifications are a testiment to the stupidity of man."
-Gen. George S. Patton, US Army

oh i agree, it is very cost prohibitiveas well, especially in a pure capitalistic state like the Galactic Empire. I just think it would be a very powerful symbol of power, and if it was built, as wasteful as it is, it would end up serving a valuable purpose, however not valuable enough to justify it's existence.

[SirNitram]

"Fixed fortifications are a testiment to the stupidity of man."
-Gen. George S. Patton, US Army

oh i agree, it is very cost prohibitiveas well, especially in a pure capitalistic state like the Galactic Empire. I just think it would be a very powerful symbol of power, and if it was built, as wasteful as it is, it would end up serving a valuable purpose, however not valuable enough to justify it's existence.

You mean like in this quote?

Gravity-altering devices include repulsorlifts that allow unpowered
antigravity flotation, tractor-0beam projectors for remote applicaiton of
force, and acceleration compensators that prevent pulverization of starship
occupants during maneuvers. The gravitoactive constituents of these devices
are subnuclear knots of space-time made in enourmous, unmanned power
refineries encompassing black holes."

[Col. Crackpot]

what does that have to do with anything Nitram?

[SirNitram]

what does that have to do with anything Nitram?

You do realize that to encompass a Black Hole, you would need a Dyson Structure of some kind, right?

[Darth Wong]

what does that have to do with anything Nitram?

You do realize that to encompass a Black Hole, you would need a Dyson Structure of some kind, right?

True. However, the radius could be much smaller than a traditional Dyson Sphere, because of the density of the black hole.

[SirNitram]

what does that have to do with anything Nitram?

You do realize that to encompass a Black Hole, you would need a Dyson Structure of some kind, right?

True. However, the radius could be much smaller than a traditional Dyson Sphere, because of the density of the black hole.

This is so. However, it does prove the Empire has some use for the concept, even if it is producing commercial materials.

That's the problem with Dyson constructs. Most require you to be so advanced that there's usually a better option.

[Alyeska]

All of this "250 million Class M planet" stuff is nonsense. If it rotates for gravity, there will be only a thin band of habitable area on the inside of the sphere, because the centripetal acceleration will push everything toward the equator. If it requires constant use of artificial gravity technologies, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Who says its going to rotate? That causes way to many problems. The simplest thing is to use artifical gravity to keep people firmly planted.

[Sea Skimmer]

A full blown Dyson Shell like the one in "Relics" may or may not be within the Empire's capabilities--as has been pointed out, you can't just scale up from the DS2 and assume they can do it. However, a Dyson Cloud consisting of habitbal orbitals and solar collectors would be a trivial matter for the Empire. It's actually curious why we DON'T see such structures in Star Wars--constructing such a cloud could be done in increments so as not to tax the galactic economy (unlike a full shell, which is unstable until complete), it would provide living space for hundreds of trillions of beings, you could custom-tailor the biosphere and climate, and living in one would have to be preferable to settling a dust bowl like Tattooine.

What would be the point? They don't need the power, and city planets seem to meet there living space needs without the need for artificial gravity and atmospheres containment. The Empire and Republic could build a lot of massive things if they wanted. Hell so could Earth, a bridge across the straights of Gibraltar for example. But there’s just no need.


Sure it might provide better homes for people on say Tattooine. But those people are out there either because they want to stay away from law and order or cant afford anything else. No ones going to build living space for 500 trillion without expecting some form of return.

[Darth Wong]

All of this "250 million Class M planet" stuff is nonsense. If it rotates for gravity, there will be only a thin band of habitable area on the inside of the sphere, because the centripetal acceleration will push everything toward the equator. If it requires constant use of artificial gravity technologies, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Who says its going to rotate? That causes way to many problems. The simplest thing is to use artifical gravity to keep people firmly planted.

Thus making their survival depend entirely upon the minute-by-minute, second-by-second flawless operation of an active system, and reducing civilian safety levels to that of a typical Federation starship, with no idea how the power requirement of this gigantic artificial-gravity system compares to the power output of the star, even though it might end up being a net-loss situation? Great idea

[Lord of the Farce]

All of this "250 million Class M planet" stuff is nonsense. If it rotates for gravity, there will be only a thin band of habitable area on the inside of the sphere, because the centripetal acceleration will push everything toward the equator. If it requires constant use of artificial gravity technologies, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Who says its going to rotate? That causes way to many problems. The simplest thing is to use artifical gravity to keep people firmly planted.

How many artificial gravity units do you think will be needed to evenly distribute all the AG evenly around the inner surface of the sphere? Now what happens when these start to break down? Or there's problems with the power distribution grids? Relying on AG is a lot more trouble in the long term than rotation for gravity.

[Alyeska]

All of this "250 million Class M planet" stuff is nonsense. If it rotates for gravity, there will be only a thin band of habitable area on the inside of the sphere, because the centripetal acceleration will push everything toward the equator. If it requires constant use of artificial gravity technologies, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Who says its going to rotate? That causes way to many problems. The simplest thing is to use artifical gravity to keep people firmly planted.

How many artificial gravity units do you think will be needed to evenly distribute all the AG evenly around the inner surface of the sphere? Now what happens when these start to break down? Or there's problems with the power distribution grids? Relying on AG is a lot more trouble in the long term than rotation for gravity.

After reading the EU it seems AG is much more popular then rotation created gravity. I have yet to hear of large scale problems with them.

Another possibility is to use a small layer of Neutronium below the surface to stimulate gravity.

[ClaysGhost]

After reading the EU it seems AG is much more popular then rotation created gravity. I have yet to hear of large scale problems with them.

Another possibility is to use a small layer of Neutronium below the surface to stimulate gravity.

I don't think that is a possibility. Something inside a closed shell of matter will experience no net gravitational force from that shell, a result first predicted by Newton. Adding neutronium will not stick anyone to the floor, but it will increase the stresses the sphere has to cope with.

It's an interesting question as to whether AG would work inside the sphere, for the same reason. I suspect it wouldn't.

[Ubiquitous]

I believe that there were a death star 3 + 4 planned/built according to things I have heard people say. What was the construction period for these stations, and were they built [if indeed they exist] in secret or in public?

Either way, I doubt the Empire could divert the required manpower into building such a device without a specific, civilisation altering event on the horizion that would make a DS a justifiable build. Indeed, the only reason I can see for them building a DS is if, for whatever reason, the entire SW galactic population had to be moved out of the SW galaxy, and even this may require several DS's and the ability to make the DS move at hyperspace speeds ... tricky in 25 years one could imagine!

[Darth Wong]

After reading the EU it seems AG is much more popular then rotation created gravity. I have yet to hear of large scale problems with them.

You also have yet to see an artificial-grav facility constructed with the objective of providing habitation to trillions of people for an indefinite period of time.

Another possibility is to use a small layer of Neutronium below the surface to stimulate gravity.

Now you're talking about a sphere which is vastly more massive than the star from which it draws all of its power, thus making it even more pointless.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think that is a possibility. Something inside a closed shell of matter will experience no net gravitational force from that shell, a result first predicted by Newton. Adding neutronium will not stick anyone to the floor, but it will increase the stresses the sphere has to cope with.

Are you sure about that? I suppose one would have to integrate the forces from the various surface elements around your location around the whole shell to see if this works out even at close proximity to the surface.

[Howedar]

All of this "250 million Class M planet" stuff is nonsense. If it rotates for gravity, there will be only a thin band of habitable area on the inside of the sphere, because the centripetal acceleration will push everything toward the equator. If it requires constant use of artificial gravity technologies, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Who says its going to rotate? That causes way to many problems. The simplest thing is to use artifical gravity to keep people firmly planted.

Thus making their survival depend entirely upon the minute-by-minute, second-by-second flawless operation of an active system, and reducing civilian safety levels to that of a typical Federation starship, with no idea how the power requirement of this gigantic artificial-gravity system compares to the power output of the star, even though it might end up being a net-loss situation? Great idea

Clearly the SW galaxy considers repulsor technology dependable enough to use in such manners.