Dyson Sphere

[Shrykull]

Would the DS superlaser have any effect on it, it's pure neutronium.

[vivftp]

Would the DS superlaser have any effect on it, it's pure neutronium.

It was stated the outer shell was composed of "carbon neutronium".

[RedImperator]

It's plainly not stellar neutronium since it exhibits none of the known properties of that material. The Dyson sphere must be immensely strong to withstand the stresses it generates by its very existence, but the Death Star is horrendously overpowered and disrupting the Dyson Sphere in one location could cause a cascade failure that destroys the entire structure.

[Vympel]

It'd probably damage it something severe. I don't know what effect punching great big freaking holes in it would have on its structural integrity, it may well collapse?

[Vympel]

Wow. Virtually simultaneous post.

[vivftp]

It's plainly not stellar neutronium since it exhibits none of the known properties of that material. The Dyson sphere must be immensely strong to withstand the stresses it generates by its very existence, but the Death Star is horrendously overpowered and disrupting the Dyson Sphere in one location could cause a cascade failure that destroys the entire structure.

I've been meaning to ask - we know Trek neutronium isn't what we call neutronium in the real world. From TNG's Evolution what they were calling neutronium was the build-up of stellar matter from the red giant on the surface of a neutron star, it'd reach a critical stage and then be ejected out into space and immedately start to degrade.

So given that's what Trek Neutronium is, what can we really say about it? Can we guess what its properties might be?

[Shrykull]

It's plainly not stellar neutronium since it exhibits none of the known properties of that material. The Dyson sphere must be immensely strong to withstand the stresses it generates by its very existence, but the Death Star is horrendously overpowered and disrupting the Dyson Sphere in one location could cause a cascade failure that destroys the entire structure.

In the Dyson Sphere novel (non-canon) someone fired a neutron star at it by means of a wormhole

[SirNitram]

So given that's what Trek Neutronium is, what can we really say about it? Can we guess what its properties might be?

We know virtually none of it's properties, apart from the fact it can somehow bond with carbon, and inhibits subspace-based technologies.

[Ender]

It's plainly not stellar neutronium since it exhibits none of the known properties of that material. The Dyson sphere must be immensely strong to withstand the stresses it generates by its very existence, but the Death Star is horrendously overpowered and disrupting the Dyson Sphere in one location could cause a cascade failure that destroys the entire structure.

I've been meaning to ask - we know Trek neutronium isn't what we call neutronium in the real world. From TNG's Evolution what they were calling neutronium was the build-up of stellar matter from the red giant on the surface of a neutron star, it'd reach a critical stage and then be ejected out into space and immedately start to degrade.

So given that's what Trek Neutronium is, what can we really say about it? Can we guess what its properties might be?

The problem is that scientifically, ther isn't anything such a neutronium, anymore then there is dirt - you will find both terms used to describe the whole, but in reality the what they describe is a host of layers with different characteristics.

[Lord Poe]

We do know that Scotty's retirement shuttle, the Jenolan, left a nasy gouge on the surface when it crashed.



So I don't think the Death Star will have too much difficulty in destroying it.

[Ender]

Even if the DS blast itself did nothing (a dubious proposition), the impulse from said blast would be sufficient to disrupt it so that it would eventually fall into its star.

[vivftp]

Even if the DS blast itself did nothing (a dubious proposition), the impulse from said blast would be sufficient to disrupt it so that it would eventually fall into its star.

Question, wouldn't it be logical to think something like a Dyson Sphere would be capable of stabilizing itself to keep the star in the center?

I mean this thing is undoubtedly hit by random crap like asteroids, shouldn't those be pushing it off into the star (even if it's a very tiny amount)?

[SirNitram]

Even if the DS blast itself did nothing (a dubious proposition), the impulse from said blast would be sufficient to disrupt it so that it would eventually fall into its star.

Question, wouldn't it be logical to think something like a Dyson Sphere would be capable of stabilizing itself to keep the star in the center?

I mean this thing is undoubtedly hit by random crap like asteroids, shouldn't those be pushing it off into the star (even if it's a very tiny amount)?

Do you want to run the math for that, or do you want to just pretend a no-numbers approach is valid? The DS's superlaser imparts a fuckload more momentum than random asteroid collisions, especially when you consider that to build one in the first place, you've probably sucked up all the matter in the system.

[Patrick Degan]

Even if the DS blast itself did nothing (a dubious proposition), the impulse from said blast would be sufficient to disrupt it so that it would eventually fall into its star.

Question, wouldn't it be logical to think something like a Dyson Sphere would be capable of stabilizing itself to keep the star in the center?

I mean this thing is undoubtedly hit by random crap like asteroids, shouldn't those be pushing it off into the star (even if it's a very tiny amount)?

Presumably the effects of such impactors (presuming they weren't simply scooped up and used as material for the construction of the bloody thing in the first place along with every other planet in the system) would have been taken into account in the design of the Dyson Sphere. It is also reasonable to surmise that under normal circumstances the Dyson Sphere is balanced with respect to the gravitational and tidal forces of the primary to keep it stable with respect to the star. A Death Star blast, on the other hand, would deliver force which was not accounted for in the design calculations and could seriously disrupt its structure and orbital stability.

[vivftp]

Do you want to run the math for that, or do you want to just pretend a no-numbers approach is valid? The DS's superlaser imparts a fuckload more momentum than random asteroid collisions, especially when you consider that to build one in the first place, you've probably sucked up all the matter in the system.

Run the numbers for what? We have no clue how long the Sphere was there, how empty the region has been since it was made, or weather any extra-solar objects may have crossed its path. Nor do we know the mass of the sphere.

I'm simply asking if it doesn't make sense for such a structure to have some sort of built-in ability to stabilize itself considering a small shift could potentially send it into the star it's surrounding? It seems like a necessary thing to have.


Also note I didn't suggest that even if it did have this tech, that it would be able to stabilize itself in the face of the DS blast. I was asking the plausibility of it having this sort of tech in the first place.

It's up to whoever wants to argue the DS would push it off course into the star to run the numbers to back up their statements. Or would you like to pretend the no-numbers approach is valid?

[SirNitram]

Do you want to run the math for that, or do you want to just pretend a no-numbers approach is valid? The DS's superlaser imparts a fuckload more momentum than random asteroid collisions, especially when you consider that to build one in the first place, you've probably sucked up all the matter in the system.

Run the numbers for what? We have no clue how long the Sphere was there, how empty the region has been since it was made, or weather any extra-solar objects may have crossed its path. Nor do we know the mass of the sphere.

A normal sized asteroid vs. the momentum or KE of the DS blast, you idiotic cretin.

[vivftp]

A normal sized asteroid vs. the momentum or KE of the DS blast, you idiotic cretin.

Glad you ignored the rest of my post, especially the part where I noted no one has provide figures for the claim the DS blast would send it into the sun.

[CaptainChewbacca]

A normal sized asteroid vs. the momentum or KE of the DS blast, you idiotic cretin.

Glad you ignored the rest of my post, especially the part where I noted no one has provide figures for the claim the DS blast would send it into the sun.

It doesn't need to send it into the sun, swifty, it just needs to knock it off its stable balance enough to allow it to tear itself apart.

[vivftp]

It doesn't need to send it into the sun, swifty, it just needs to knock it off its stable balance enough to allow it to tear itself apart.

Oh I know that, I was mainly stating that since SN was so adament about me providing calcs for the asteroid vs. DS blast, when the claim has been made the DS blast would be enough to push it, without calcs posted.

It can push it, but how long would it take to actually move to any degree which would result in its destruction? That sort of stuff.

BTW, if I remember correctly from other threads on the issue, a good many people believe the SL would go straight through the Spheres wall and continue straight through. Would anyone agree with that? If so, wouldn't that affect any calcs?

[Darth Wong]

A Dyson Sphere is an incredibly metastable device due to the particular forces required in order to hold it together. It seems to me that any significant damage to its structure would probably result in its collapse, so the Death Star could simply carve chunks out of it until it fell apart.

It's like knocking out support pillars from a skyscraper. You don't need to destroy the whole skyscraper, but there's only so many support pillars you can take out before the building is fucked.

[Patrick Degan]

Do you want to run the math for that, or do you want to just pretend a no-numbers approach is valid? The DS's superlaser imparts a fuckload more momentum than random asteroid collisions, especially when you consider that to build one in the first place, you've probably sucked up all the matter in the system.

Run the numbers for what? We have no clue how long the Sphere was there, how empty the region has been since it was made, or weather any extra-solar objects may have crossed its path. Nor do we know the mass of the sphere.

The age of the Sphere is immaterial to this discussion.

We can make some reasonable estimates on mass: it would require more or less the combined material of every planet, moon, and asteroidal mass to provide the requisite amount of material for constructing the bloody thing in the first place. So an estimate based on the combined masses of those bodies can be derived as a baseline for the mass of the Sphere. This would also solve the puzzle of asteroid and cometary impactors, as most if not all of those would have been swept up to provide material for the project.

I'm simply asking if it doesn't make sense for such a structure to have some sort of built-in ability to stabilize itself considering a small shift could potentially send it into the star it's surrounding? It seems like a necessary thing to have.

Simple kinematics would do that job quite adequately. The Sphere would be balanced to maintain its respective position from the primary by exploiting gravitational and tidal forces. This would represent the optimum solution from an energy standpoint.

Also note I didn't suggest that even if it did have this tech, that it would be able to stabilize itself in the face of the DS blast. I was asking the plausibility of it having this sort of tech in the first place.

This automatically assumes that an approach other than kinematics would be required to maintain the Sphere's balance with respect to the star. It is simply exploiting the forces which are already extant in a typical planetary orbit.

It's up to whoever wants to argue the DS would push it off course into the star to run the numbers to back up their statements. Or would you like to pretend the no-numbers approach is valid?

On the contrary, those numbers can be easily extrapolated from existing solar system data. Into that equation would be plugged the energy delivered by a Death Star blast which is powerful enough to disrupt a planet's gravitational binding energy and represents a force several orders of magnitude beyond that of any impactor which might ever hit the surface of the Sphere, the force of which would be insignificant to disrupt the structure's balance with respect to the star.

[vivftp]

Ah, ok, thanks.

Question though, wouldn't the sheer size of this sphere indicate it used more material than your average solar system contained? Granted I have no numbers to support that, but just on the surface it doesn't seem to equal out.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The sphere shell wasn't much thicker than the enterprise. If there were a few brown dwarfs closeby, that should've been enough. Of course, with replicators you don't need raw materials, just energy.

[Darth Wong]

The sphere shell wasn't much thicker than the enterprise. If there were a few brown dwarfs closeby, that should've been enough. Of course, with replicators you don't need raw materials, just energy.

No, you need raw materials. That's the only plausible explanation for their ability to create complex objects like phasers and realistic cooked turkeys but not microstructurally and chemically simple objects such as jewels and gold bricks and latinum. The replicator appears to be a transporter that modifies the material on the way through, but there are limits on what kind of modifications it can perform.

[Patrick Degan]

Ah, ok, thanks.

Question though, wouldn't the sheer size of this sphere indicate it used more material than your average solar system contained? Granted I have no numbers to support that, but just on the surface it doesn't seem to equal out.

Not at all. A Dyson Sphere essentially reweaves the combined material of a planetary system into a shell surrounding a star. It also has to be remembered that this shell will, by definition, be hollow. So while the structure's radius might extend out to 1AU, the Sphere itself would be only a few kilometres thick if that.