6
$\begingroup$

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
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @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

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
5
$\begingroup$

It's quite simple to set up a system with satellites in all possible positions around a star without them colliding. Inspired by the real-world 'Semicircular/hemispheric rule' system we use to manage air traffic, eastbound traffic flies at 'odd' flight levels (21 or 23 thousand feet) westbound travel at 'even' flight levels (20 or 22 thousand feet)etc.

We can use this more generally for any inclination by making each satellite's orbital altitude 10,000,000 km + its orbital inclination.

Those with an equatorial orbit will orbit at 10,000,000km, those with a polar orbit will orbit at 10,000,180 km. (You could multiply the orbital inclination by 10, or whatever you need to achieve good separation, maybe do something clever with prime numbers to even things out a little!)

This gives you something like this: Orbital Example for one value of Ascending Node

You can do the same with more orbits with an adjusted ascending node (Basically moving the 'pole' of the shell), adjust the altitude according to some factor of the ascending node too (e.g. an orbit with an ascending node of 270 degrees, and an inclination of 90 degrees, would have an altitude of 10,090,270km. you get a nice shell made up of non-intersecting orbits.

Orbital Example for multiple values of Ascending Node

You could also do something similar with the orbital timing to reduce the amount of 'shadowing' of the outer satellites, but if we end up in a situation where the outer-most satellites are in shadow all the time, that just means that the other satellites are capturing all of the light from the sun (i.e. mission accomplished)

Also, as you asked about 'belts'. If you simply only include orbits with an inclination between some range, you'll naturally end up with something that looks like a belt.

Orbits that look a bit like a belt

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Belt with grid positions

I think you cannot achieve an even distribution of your satellites around the whole sun. The gravitational forces of the sun will push/pull them into the ecliptic plane over time, thus forming a belt or torus.

It is also inevitable, because if you start a ring around the sun and suppose you cannot hit the solar-stationary "point" exactly, this ring will rotate around the sun. At rising inclination towards the poles, you need ever more thrust to counteract sun's gravity and hold the relative position in the grid. The extreme would be at the poles. There you have no centrifugal force by an orbit, you have to maintain that position by thrust (or increasing distance).

As I understand the example you gave with the torus shaped "orbit": The torus just gives the area or margin in which orbits around the sun are "practically" achievable, given a certain desired distance around the sun. You can balance mass of the satellite, rotational speed and the distance to the star inside that torus. This saves thrusting energy (but does not make it obsolete) that would otherwise be necessary to hold up an orbit outside that torus.

-- Ok on second look, they really propose a torodial shape with grid positions around the surface... idk, that does not seem to be feasible at all. There is constant thrusting involved. I also see no benefit in this "double layered, rotating, dance around the sun".

Also aspects of heat management and maintenance are mentioned. Not to speak of how the energy of the satellites is being transferred to the planet or habitable ring or whatever.

Configuration

The ideal (simplest) swarm would be a grid of satellites only one single layer in thickness, forming a belt around the sun with no overlapping orbits and constant distance between them.

  • This way no satellite will cast a shadow on other satellites if they are in lower or higher orbits.

  • They would not crash into each other.

  • Also, every satellite will collect the same amount of energy (assuming only the distance to the star is the most influential variable, not the star's energy output or technical differences of the satellites).

  • Maintenance mission would not have to deal with fancy orbit configurations with varying speeds. There is only one orbit and the relative distances (speeds) in between the satellites are constant.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I was thinking about this some time ago and ended up with this: rings of satelites on orbits with different inclinations (angles) and different diametres, so they can surround the star without hitting each other. In this case forming a shell-like shape.

A stack of orbits

enter image description here

(I also just found even better version of the shell in Orion's arm that better covers the gaps)

Off course there are tons of other ways to layer the orbits. In all cases though you will get some satelites shadowed by the ones below for at least a portion of their orbit, at least I can't think of a way to avoid that unless you use statites.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .