3
$\begingroup$

SO HOW WOULD A DYSON SWARM'S ORBIT LOOK LIKE?

we are all familiar with the concept of a dyson swarm, enter image description here

a series of orbital stations' reflective satellites that serve to collect the energy given off by a star.

so the main problem here is, in order to capture the most energy, it would be ideal to have satellites surrounding the star from ALL SIDES. but how would the orbits of these objects actually look like?

there is a question related to this that I saw:> Torus orbit for Dyson swarms

but it was specifically asking about the feasibility of the Jenkins configuration (torus shaped orbits around the star) which leaves the top and bottom of of the star's energy unharvested.

What would be the orbits of the satellites if I want to surround the entire star?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why do you think the swarm would capture the most energy if done so from all sides of the star? The satellite faces the star. The energy (ignoring things like solar flares) is the same no matter where the satellite is. If they were all grouped on one side, they'd capture the same amount of energy. I suspect that getting satellites to orbit a star somewhat like the way people think electrons orbit a nucleus would be quite a bit harder than it's worth. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Mar 3 at 19:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JBH i thought of this cuz, It is optimal to have as much satellite surface area exposed to the sun as possible. in which case, the best solution is building a solid shell, thus capturing 100% of the energy that leaves the star. but in a situation where a shell might not be feasible due to material strenght, it would be optimal to pack the satelites as close as possible - right up the the safety limit between the distance of orbiting satellites, and also surround the star as much as possible to allow for more satellites $\endgroup$
    – koi
    Commented Mar 3 at 19:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A solid shell is no longer a Dyson swarm. It's a Dyson sphere. There's a lot of engineering that would go into a solution like this (see my comment to your next question) and "optimal" is a balance between opposing problems to solve. In a sense, you might be over-engineering the solution by assuming you need as much coverage as possible. In reality, you need as much coverage as you need based on the efficiency of your collectors and the civilization's dependency on energy. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Mar 3 at 19:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JBH but even in that case, i think the question still stands, its a dyson swarm, not a dyson half donut or a dyson ring. if its a swarm, the orbits will be going into each other, how would the orbits look in that case. thats the question but thank you for the observation, sometimes we are too obsessed with wanting to do something, instead of thinking that if it is even needed. $\endgroup$
    – koi
    Commented Mar 3 at 20:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You're trying to ascribe an orbital behavior based on a word. That's not how science works, but it can be how your world works. If you want an evenly distributed swarm, that's your prerogative. The distibution is achieved via thrusters. If you want science and freefall orbitals, there are limitations. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Commented Mar 3 at 21:05

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .