Issue 1 with the OPs post: assuming that a dyson sphere revolves around its sun like Niven's Ringworld. It can't, consider the difference in angular velocity between someone at the equator and someone near either pole (and also the direction of centripetal force applied to them.) In order to create an inhabitable inner surface within a dyson sphere you would need to artificially generate gravity which is perfectly within the norm for Star Trek.
Issue 2, assuming that the need for technical accuracy is the primary concern for an artist working in a popular medium. They need to be able to convey at a glance where you are which may require a few creative liberties to be sure a dyson sphere can't be mistaken for a flat terrestrial landscape.
As for why a Dyson sphere when you have FTL, consider that managing a population numbering several hundred trillion individuals over several hundred thousand light years will for any civilization be far more difficult than managing a population of the same size located within a single stellar system..
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Trek has always been pretty bad about scaling, and STO is a hideous offender even by that poor standard. That said, there are some issues with the sphere that I agree with and this seems a good opportunity to nerd out.
Fun fact: there is a real theory floating out there for a Dyson Sphere. The thought experiment of Dyson's was not a monolithic object for habitation, but rather a swarm of satellites for energy collection. Such construction would be vastly cheaper, easier to design, and actually possible to produce.
Result: we're starting off on a bad foot with a Relics style Sphere.
Different stars will put out different amounts of different kinds of radiation, thus any given sphere would be scaled uniquely to such a star. At first blush you'd think that something more energetic than a dwarf star would be a logical choice for a sphere, but consider that a weaker star means a smaller sphere means a cheaper cost. I don't have the numbers to run an analysis, but the area between the sphere's inner and outer hull is proportional to radius cubed, while energy dropoff is proportional to radius squared. So a star that requires a larger sphere will be less efficient in materials used.
Result: Building small spheres around weak stars is not a bad idea.
As to what the inside of the sphere would look like, you first have to ask all the usual questions about atmosphere. After that, it's always high noon. By definition, the star is always straight up. The curvature would be impossible to detect without sensitive (but not necessarily complicated) instruments, and the horizon would be lost to atmospheric refraction if the gasses are anything close to Earth's. Once you get above the gasses, into the void between the sphere and the star, then you're in for a show.
Admiral Ryvaken, USS Arthra (NCC-947749), Aventine class.
As the seventy-fourth Rule of Acquisition clearly states, knowledge equals profit. And I am a very rich Ferengi.
Last but not least is gravity... If the Sphere is spinning to create Gravity then the only inhabitable zones would be at the equator and everything would naturally be dragged to that location. So in order for what we see to happen the sphere must either A) Be thick enough to create planet-like gravity all around or Be artificially creating planet-like gravity along its entire surface. Not saying that B is totally impossible with their tech but it would be a big power drain. Option A is nearly insane due to the fact that you would need the material from so many planets the size of Earth to build even a thin Sphere as big as this one that imagining making one thick enough to also produce suitable gravity is just mind numbing. There would be a lot of missing planets throughout the entire Delta Quadrant.
You are making some assumptions about the Dyson Sphere and it's technologies which don't take into consideration the context of the story universe. Artificial gravity is ubiquitous (I can't believe spelled that word right the first time) in the Star Trek universe. Even when a startship in the 23rd/24th centuries are all but destroyed or no ship power at all, life support and gravity are still running. And this is just Federation technology. (Yeah I know the reasons why with special effect budgets and all. But it's what we got for canon material).
The Sphere doesn't have to be rotating it all. It's using artificial gravity throughout the entire surface of the Sphere. And massive power requirement? They've got a central power source which send out power energy per section than a billion warp cores. It's central sun. The sphere can use every watt of power that star sends out. Maybe not 100% eficiency, but I'm guessing many 9's of efficiency.
And there is a lot of mass in solar systems then is readily apparent For the Sol system, there is the inner and out planets and the asteroid belt. But there are also significant in the Oort cloud out beyond the orbit of Pluto. And they have energy to matter replication technology and a very large power source. As they progressed building there sphere, they could better utilize the star over time. But aside from there, by many calculations there is enough material in out Solar system to build a Dyson sphere.
It would be funny if the Doomsday device Planet Killers were created as demolitions units for the creation of these spheres and not weapons at all as Kirk supposed.
I mean, the game already challenges Picard's assumptions about the Iconians being misunderstood. Maybe Kirk was projecting when he compared the Doomsday Device to a weapon. Maybe it's just a wrecking ball for construction.
I know this has been brought up before but it gets even WORSE when you go to command and listen to what they say about the Sphere...
They say it has a 200 Million KM diameter. REALLY?
That would be to say that it has a diameter of: 124,274,238.447 Miles.
That means that each part of the sphere should be orbiting the sun at roughly: 62,137,119.2235 Miles
Terra orbits our sun at: 92,960,000 Miles and is in the optimal zone for comfortable living.
Venus orbits our sun at: 67,240,000 Miles and is considered to be too close to be habitable even if it were terraformed.
So first and foremost you have the walls of this sphere being close enough to that yellow dwarf that it would really COOK them. Now I guess you can try to make the argument that they use some kind of cooling technology (not that the star seems dimmed in any way) or that the collection of the star's energy by the Sphere helps to prevent its walls from heating up too much. I would consider that a bit questionable but I MIGHT be willing to suspend my disbelief about that.
Next problem is the one so frequently brought up that apparently the Devs cannot comprehend what being in a sphere with an orbit around the Star nearly as far out as Venus would look like. They want to use the Rule of Cool to give us Halo like visuals but the Halo Worlds were only around the size of a planet nowhere NEAR the size of this Sphere.
That means a Halo Ring would be around: 24,901.55 miles in Diameter. That is compared to the Sphere which is 124,274,238.447 miles or more in Diameter according to the scientist. In other words a Halo Ring would only be: 0.02003% the size of this Sphere.
Why is that important? Because on a Sphere this size you would NEVER notice the curvature of the Sphere from the inside. The land would curve SO gradually that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to detect. Furthermore, you would also NOT see the sides of the sphere going up around you with any clarity with your naked eyes. They would be so far away as to make it impossible. Keep in mind that Luna (our moon) is only 238,900 miles away from us but the walls of this Sphere are going to be further away at orders of magnitude.
Also you would NEVER be able to see the other side of the sphere as anything more than an ambient glow as it will be roughly 124,274,238.447 Miles away from you. That means it would take a bit more than 11 minutes for the light reflecting off the other side to even GET TO YOUR EYES. That is pretty distant to expect a naked eye to see. Sure ship's sensors may be able to detect these things but not eyes.
Last but not least is gravity... If the Sphere is spinning to create Gravity then the only inhabitable zones would be at the equator and everything would naturally be dragged to that location. So in order for what we see to happen the sphere must either A) Be thick enough to create planet-like gravity all around or Be artificially creating planet-like gravity along its entire surface. Not saying that B is totally impossible with their tech but it would be a big power drain. Option A is nearly insane due to the fact that you would need the material from so many planets the size of Earth to build even a thin Sphere as big as this one that imagining making one thick enough to also produce suitable gravity is just mind numbing. There would be a lot of missing planets throughout the entire Delta Quadrant.
TL/DR: You cannot see the curvature of the Sphere or Details of the land mass on the sides or furthest distances of the Sphere with the naked eye. The surface of the Sphere would not have gravity except for the equator. The surface of the Sphere would be burning up. The Delta Quadrant must be missing a lot of planets to have made this thing.
Well I watched the serie off the jenolan dyson sphere and I don't know who watched it the fled the dyson sphere because the star was going supernova, sorry for STO but there wouldn't be a planet nor there would be a star inside nor could there be omega particles out there, this is non trek version non related to the series what so ever... :eek:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
Second, if the 'Big Bang Theory' was definitively proven, the scientific community would no longer call it a 'theory'. Other words, science has been known for being philosophical, theoretical, right, and wrong.
Until we physically go out to take measurements, our human understanding of space is still based upon theory.
Second, if the 'Big Bang Theory' was definitively proven, the scientific community would no longer call it a 'theory'. Other words, science has been known for being philosophical, theoretical, right, and wrong.
Until we physically go out to take measurements, our human understanding of space is still based upon theory.
I never did like that argument. Yes, it's a work of fiction. Yes, that means the designers have license to do whatever they want. But that doesn't mean that the players have a responsibility to like it. And while I've seen any number of people arguing that it doesn't matter how realistic a bit of scifi is, I've never seen anyone argue that something is TOO realistic.
Admiral Ryvaken, USS Arthra (NCC-947749), Aventine class.
As the seventy-fourth Rule of Acquisition clearly states, knowledge equals profit. And I am a very rich Ferengi.
Well I watched the serie off the jenolan dyson sphere and I don't know who watched it the fled the dyson sphere because the star was going supernova, sorry for STO but there wouldn't be a planet nor there would be a star inside nor could there be omega particles out there, this is non trek version non related to the series what so ever... :eek:
This is, once again, NOT the Jenolan sphere. This is a completely different sphere, on the far side of the galaxy from the Jenolan sphere. And a Dyson shell would not cause its star to go nova; in fact, that may have been why the sphere-builders chose a red dwarf, because it's going to be stable for billions of years longer than a more energetic K- or G-class star.
No nova, no destruction, nothing to do with anything you posted. Try again.
Actually a REAL "Dyson" Sphere is a solar wind inflated spherical bag with windows around the equator.
No, that's a bu'uthandi, as seen in the webcomic Schlock Mercenary. ("Bu'uthandi" is a contraction of a Fsherl'ganni phrase that means literally, "This thing was [censored] expensive to build.")
Bottom line, it's called science fiction, fiction being the key word there. We could also waste our time pointing out the inaccuracies and impossibilities of the shows as we're doing here. Just have fun.
You know, I'm tempted to throw in a "Jesus made it." Just to get everyone to focus their angst on me.
Anyone who thinks they have any actual idea about how something like this would work has to be waaaaay smarter then the rest of us. As a species we haven't even been able to colonize our own moon successfully yet!
Just try to enjoy the game folks. You know, this post sounded much more thought provoking and helpful in my head. Oh well.
I know this has been brought up before but it gets even WORSE when you go to command and listen to what they say about the Sphere...
They say it has a 200 Million KM diameter. REALLY?
That would be to say that it has a diameter of: 124,274,238.447 Miles.
That means that each part of the sphere should be orbiting the sun at roughly: 62,137,119.2235 Miles
Terra orbits our sun at: 92,960,000 Miles and is in the optimal zone for comfortable living.
Venus orbits our sun at: 67,240,000 Miles and is considered to be too close to be habitable even if it were terraformed.
So first and foremost you have the walls of this sphere being close enough to that yellow dwarf that it would really COOK them. Now I guess you can try to make the argument that they use some kind of cooling technology (not that the star seems dimmed in any way) or that the collection of the star's energy by the Sphere helps to prevent its walls from heating up too much. I would consider that a bit questionable but I MIGHT be willing to suspend my disbelief about that.
Next problem is the one so frequently brought up that apparently the Devs cannot comprehend what being in a sphere with an orbit around the Star nearly as far out as Venus would look like. They want to use the Rule of Cool to give us Halo like visuals but the Halo Worlds were only around the size of a planet nowhere NEAR the size of this Sphere.
That means a Halo Ring would be around: 24,901.55 miles in Diameter. That is compared to the Sphere which is 124,274,238.447 miles or more in Diameter according to the scientist. In other words a Halo Ring would only be: 0.02003% the size of this Sphere.
Why is that important? Because on a Sphere this size you would NEVER notice the curvature of the Sphere from the inside. The land would curve SO gradually that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to detect. Furthermore, you would also NOT see the sides of the sphere going up around you with any clarity with your naked eyes. They would be so far away as to make it impossible. Keep in mind that Luna (our moon) is only 238,900 miles away from us but the walls of this Sphere are going to be further away at orders of magnitude.
Also you would NEVER be able to see the other side of the sphere as anything more than an ambient glow as it will be roughly 124,274,238.447 Miles away from you. That means it would take a bit more than 11 minutes for the light reflecting off the other side to even GET TO YOUR EYES. That is pretty distant to expect a naked eye to see. Sure ship's sensors may be able to detect these things but not eyes.
Last but not least is gravity... If the Sphere is spinning to create Gravity then the only inhabitable zones would be at the equator and everything would naturally be dragged to that location. So in order for what we see to happen the sphere must either A) Be thick enough to create planet-like gravity all around or Be artificially creating planet-like gravity along its entire surface. Not saying that B is totally impossible with their tech but it would be a big power drain. Option A is nearly insane due to the fact that you would need the material from so many planets the size of Earth to build even a thin Sphere as big as this one that imagining making one thick enough to also produce suitable gravity is just mind numbing. There would be a lot of missing planets throughout the entire Delta Quadrant.
TL/DR: You cannot see the curvature of the Sphere or Details of the land mass on the sides or furthest distances of the Sphere with the naked eye. The surface of the Sphere would not have gravity except for the equator. The surface of the Sphere would be burning up. The Delta Quadrant must be missing a lot of planets to have made this thing.
The stellar mass of the star at the center of the Season 8 Sphere fiction wouldn't have to be altogether that much less than Sol for the environment to support human life given how at aphelion Venus is in the CHZ (the space around a star where a planet is habitable).
You could even see the curvature given enough altitude and/or proper atmospheric conditions. Detail on the other hand would be a matter of scale and distance.
Land masses, separated by oceans, could either appear to be some blur of color or, if large enough, a huge ocean reflecting starlight and a huge land mass near it. You would be able to see the far side of the sphere, and the amount of time needed for that light to reach your eyes has nothing to do with whether or not you could make any detail out.
As for gravity, if you can build a "Dyson Sphere", which no group in Star Trek is known to have the technology for, don't you think it's possible that you could build it using energy-matter converters and give it artificial gravity so that it wouldn't need to spin?
TL/DR: It's not perfect, but the design of this season 8 sphere isn't as outlandish as you're trying to make it out to be.
As a species we haven't even been able to colonize our own moon successfully yet!
That's an issue of economics, not technology. A moon colony is too expensive for any projected returns.
Admiral Ryvaken, USS Arthra (NCC-947749), Aventine class.
As the seventy-fourth Rule of Acquisition clearly states, knowledge equals profit. And I am a very rich Ferengi.
Hello, game, fiction.......
First there is no law that says the star is SOL equivalent, the habitable "Goldilocks Zone" works out to the distances you state for our Solar system but that could vary for a sun with different mass and intensity, this sun may even be artificial, a gigantic fusion powered lightbulb artificially maintained in the center of this construct.
Second since no-one has ever seen the inside of a Dysan sphere we have no real idea what it would look like, we can see our own moon clearly when it appears in the sky on a clear sunny day, miles of landscape when looking about from a mountaintop, the sphere is not filled with air, the atmosphere is only a thin layer clinging to the inside, light diffusion would be minimal, so the odds are that a great deal of the spheres interior would be visible.
What Halo rings have to do with this I don't know but they are not AUs in diameter they are not more than a few thousand miles in diameter and they don't encompass a star.
And lastly the dysan sphere is so big it doesn't need to turn to generate gravity, even if it's shell were only a few hundred miles thick it's mass is more than sufficient to generate it's own gravity.
This is science fiction where real world physics rarely fits and raging about the illogic of it all in the forums serves no purpose other than making you look foolish.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
It would be funny if the Doomsday device Planet Killers were created as demolitions units for the creation of these spheres and not weapons at all as Kirk supposed.
I mean, the game already challenges Picard's assumptions about the Iconians being misunderstood. Maybe Kirk was projecting when he compared the Doomsday Device to a weapon. Maybe it's just a wrecking ball for construction.
It would be funny if the Doomsday device Planet Killers were created as demolitions units for the creation of these spheres and not weapons at all as Kirk supposed.
I mean, the game already challenges Picard's assumptions about the Iconians being misunderstood. Maybe Kirk was projecting when he compared the Doomsday Device to a weapon. Maybe it's just a wrecking ball for construction.
This is now my headcanon - the "Doomsday Devices" were originally just supposed to demolish uninhabitable planets in nearby systems to provide construction materials for the Shell, but they went out of control...
You know what I like when I'm unwinding with a game at the end of the day? A good, pedantic session of hard astrometric science. :rolleyes:
Why stop there? Let's make relative distances in sector space more "realistic." No more seeing anything but an empty starfield with the naked eye 99%. Only be aware of other players through sensor contacts.
We should definitely have to calculate a firing solution before we shoot at anything in space. That sounds fun. :rolleyes:
And it is WAY too simplistic to maneuver a ship with WASD and a mouse. We should have at least 8 individual maneuvering thruster banks bound to 8 individual keys and manipulate pitch, roll, and yaw seperately. Course, distance, and speed must be calculated and plotted before you go anywhere.
Next, let's talk about objects like ships colliding in space...
To be honest, with all of the massive ships flying around, I would honestly not mind only seeing faraway markers of players in a huge, starry sector space in most cases... Not 100% realistic scales, but certainly a bit closer. It would be... more realistic, more relaxing, and generally less annoying. And there should really be consequences for smacking into someone's shields (navigational or otherwise). AND you should actually have to fly your small craft close to where you left your starship (which would still display as a static model) to return to your mothership. And weapons fire should probably take a bit more strategy than it does now (Obviously not actually calculating out firing solutions for every salvo of cannon pulses, but you get the point), but that's a discussion for a different topic.
Answer for the star and brightness... Answer for gravity...
As for the curvature, that is definitely wrong, it would be nice if it was more realistic, but the majority prefers cooler backgrounds, so, what can I say? As for the other side of the sphere, we can see Jupiter and Mars in the sky, plus this thing is gigantic.
It would be funny if the Doomsday device Planet Killers were created as demolitions units for the creation of these spheres and not weapons at all as Kirk supposed.
I mean, the game already challenges Picard's assumptions about the Iconians being misunderstood. Maybe Kirk was projecting when he compared the Doomsday Device to a weapon. Maybe it's just a wrecking ball for construction.
Cue images of Miley Cyrus riding a Planet Killer.
Or maybe it was one of the weapons that defeated the Iconians? It seems like the sort of thing you'd want to use if you were trying to DESTROY a Dyson Sphere.
Interestingly, Iconian Computer Viruses would be relatively effective at stopping them...
You know what I like when I'm unwinding with a game at the end of the day? A good, pedantic session of hard astrometric science. :rolleyes:
Why stop there? Let's make relative distances in sector space more "realistic." No more seeing anything but an empty starfield with the naked eye 99%. Only be aware of other players through sensor contacts.
We should definitely have to calculate a firing solution before we shoot at anything in space. That sounds fun. :rolleyes:
And it is WAY too simplistic to maneuver a ship with WASD and a mouse. We should have at least 8 individual maneuvering thruster banks bound to 8 individual keys and manipulate pitch, roll, and yaw seperately. Course, distance, and speed must be calculated and plotted before you go anywhere.
Next, let's talk about objects like ships colliding in space...
you wouldn't be seeing a starfield at all, just blackness from more circumstantial evidence.
problem is the game is 2.5 dimensions. none of that l7, full barrel roll, half barrel roll maneuvers.
if a ship collided in space we would have pvp fights where 3/4 of the entire player fghts have been reduced to suicide runs or accidental nacelle breakages. and going one further a starship would have damage effects, meaning you see small people running around behind forcefield sections trying to keep the ship in one piece during the fight. and before a ship is destroyed and after a ship is destroyed t all wouldn't go up in one, there would be junk from those ships being pushed away by force.
Yeah, I'm actually surprised Taco was the first one to point this out. It should be pretty obvious - the habitable zones of some stars is closer than Mercury's orbit.
In theory of course.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Gee, and here I was thinking the planet beneath was just, yeah, an Earth-like planet, what with land- and water masses and all. :P
Also. not exactly a stellar idea (pun intended) to build habitable towers on a star that's allegedly millions of degrees hot!
So, as far as I'm concerned, that thing beneath us, for all purposes and intent, is just a planet. Canon, you say?! If the Voth taught us anything, it is that Doctrine is always subject to change!
It would be funny if the Doomsday device Planet Killers were created as demolitions units for the creation of these spheres and not weapons at all as Kirk supposed.
I mean, the game already challenges Picard's assumptions about the Iconians being misunderstood. Maybe Kirk was projecting when he compared the Doomsday Device to a weapon. Maybe it's just a wrecking ball for construction.
It's true, in a real Dyson Sphere, you wouldn't see any curvature, and the opposite wall of the sphere would just be a solid color.
I'm not so sure on that, and I think you guys did a reasonable job translating it, though the distance detail is greater than it probably would be.
In dispute of OPs point, Jupiter is 9AU from the Sun, and we can clearly see it in the night sky, so the idea that you wouldn't be able to see the opposite wall at under 2 AU is daft. I'm also going to dissagree with you however that you'd just see a solid color. While Jupiter does look like a white spec, much closer Mars looks red. I would expect that while we wouldn't be able to see as much detail as we can in game, I would also suspect that we would see at least large blobs of blue for the water and brown/green for the land, based on the massive scales we see those objects appearing in game.
As for curvature, to me the maps look like, near the bottom where the atmosphere is, that the scattering effect eventually has the sphere fade into the "fog", and then you see the wall above the atmosphere. It doesn't seem an unresonable interpertation to me, you'd see something afterall.
In dispute of OPs point, Jupiter is 9AU from the Sun, and we can clearly see it in the night sky, so the idea that you wouldn't be able to see the opposite wall at under 2 AU is daft.
Big, critical hole in your argument. It's never night inside the sphere. The star is always, by definition, directly above you. Venus is closer than 2 AU but we can't see it at high noon.
Admiral Ryvaken, USS Arthra (NCC-947749), Aventine class.
As the seventy-fourth Rule of Acquisition clearly states, knowledge equals profit. And I am a very rich Ferengi.
Comments
Issue 2, assuming that the need for technical accuracy is the primary concern for an artist working in a popular medium. They need to be able to convey at a glance where you are which may require a few creative liberties to be sure a dyson sphere can't be mistaken for a flat terrestrial landscape.
As for why a Dyson sphere when you have FTL, consider that managing a population numbering several hundred trillion individuals over several hundred thousand light years will for any civilization be far more difficult than managing a population of the same size located within a single stellar system..
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Fun fact: there is a real theory floating out there for a Dyson Sphere. The thought experiment of Dyson's was not a monolithic object for habitation, but rather a swarm of satellites for energy collection. Such construction would be vastly cheaper, easier to design, and actually possible to produce.
Result: we're starting off on a bad foot with a Relics style Sphere.
Different stars will put out different amounts of different kinds of radiation, thus any given sphere would be scaled uniquely to such a star. At first blush you'd think that something more energetic than a dwarf star would be a logical choice for a sphere, but consider that a weaker star means a smaller sphere means a cheaper cost. I don't have the numbers to run an analysis, but the area between the sphere's inner and outer hull is proportional to radius cubed, while energy dropoff is proportional to radius squared. So a star that requires a larger sphere will be less efficient in materials used.
Result: Building small spheres around weak stars is not a bad idea.
As to what the inside of the sphere would look like, you first have to ask all the usual questions about atmosphere. After that, it's always high noon. By definition, the star is always straight up. The curvature would be impossible to detect without sensitive (but not necessarily complicated) instruments, and the horizon would be lost to atmospheric refraction if the gasses are anything close to Earth's. Once you get above the gasses, into the void between the sphere and the star, then you're in for a show.
As the seventy-fourth Rule of Acquisition clearly states, knowledge equals profit. And I am a very rich Ferengi.
You are making some assumptions about the Dyson Sphere and it's technologies which don't take into consideration the context of the story universe. Artificial gravity is ubiquitous (I can't believe spelled that word right the first time) in the Star Trek universe. Even when a startship in the 23rd/24th centuries are all but destroyed or no ship power at all, life support and gravity are still running. And this is just Federation technology. (Yeah I know the reasons why with special effect budgets and all. But it's what we got for canon material).
The Sphere doesn't have to be rotating it all. It's using artificial gravity throughout the entire surface of the Sphere. And massive power requirement? They've got a central power source which send out power energy per section than a billion warp cores. It's central sun. The sphere can use every watt of power that star sends out. Maybe not 100% eficiency, but I'm guessing many 9's of efficiency.
And there is a lot of mass in solar systems then is readily apparent For the Sol system, there is the inner and out planets and the asteroid belt. But there are also significant in the Oort cloud out beyond the orbit of Pluto. And they have energy to matter replication technology and a very large power source. As they progressed building there sphere, they could better utilize the star over time. But aside from there, by many calculations there is enough material in out Solar system to build a Dyson sphere.
A Ringworld is constructed circling the equator.
That said, this STO rendition is faithful to the TNG one.
Oh dear. Now I have to draw that.
Well I watched the serie off the jenolan dyson sphere and I don't know who watched it the fled the dyson sphere because the star was going supernova, sorry for STO but there wouldn't be a planet nor there would be a star inside nor could there be omega particles out there, this is non trek version non related to the series what so ever... :eek:
"Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
Fiction = Imagination
"Star Trek" is not based upon pure science.
Its all about "what if..."
Second, if the 'Big Bang Theory' was definitively proven, the scientific community would no longer call it a 'theory'. Other words, science has been known for being philosophical, theoretical, right, and wrong.
Until we physically go out to take measurements, our human understanding of space is still based upon theory.
I never did like that argument. Yes, it's a work of fiction. Yes, that means the designers have license to do whatever they want. But that doesn't mean that the players have a responsibility to like it. And while I've seen any number of people arguing that it doesn't matter how realistic a bit of scifi is, I've never seen anyone argue that something is TOO realistic.
As the seventy-fourth Rule of Acquisition clearly states, knowledge equals profit. And I am a very rich Ferengi.
No nova, no destruction, nothing to do with anything you posted. Try again.
Centurion maximus92
12th Legion, Romulan Republic
12th Fleet
=\/= ================================ =\/=
Anyone who thinks they have any actual idea about how something like this would work has to be waaaaay smarter then the rest of us. As a species we haven't even been able to colonize our own moon successfully yet!
Just try to enjoy the game folks. You know, this post sounded much more thought provoking and helpful in my head. Oh well.
^^This guy^^
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10052253
Why are you not rejoicing?
The stellar mass of the star at the center of the Season 8 Sphere fiction wouldn't have to be altogether that much less than Sol for the environment to support human life given how at aphelion Venus is in the CHZ (the space around a star where a planet is habitable).
You could even see the curvature given enough altitude and/or proper atmospheric conditions. Detail on the other hand would be a matter of scale and distance.
Land masses, separated by oceans, could either appear to be some blur of color or, if large enough, a huge ocean reflecting starlight and a huge land mass near it. You would be able to see the far side of the sphere, and the amount of time needed for that light to reach your eyes has nothing to do with whether or not you could make any detail out.
As for gravity, if you can build a "Dyson Sphere", which no group in Star Trek is known to have the technology for, don't you think it's possible that you could build it using energy-matter converters and give it artificial gravity so that it wouldn't need to spin?
TL/DR: It's not perfect, but the design of this season 8 sphere isn't as outlandish as you're trying to make it out to be.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
That's an issue of economics, not technology. A moon colony is too expensive for any projected returns.
As the seventy-fourth Rule of Acquisition clearly states, knowledge equals profit. And I am a very rich Ferengi.
First there is no law that says the star is SOL equivalent, the habitable "Goldilocks Zone" works out to the distances you state for our Solar system but that could vary for a sun with different mass and intensity, this sun may even be artificial, a gigantic fusion powered lightbulb artificially maintained in the center of this construct.
Second since no-one has ever seen the inside of a Dysan sphere we have no real idea what it would look like, we can see our own moon clearly when it appears in the sky on a clear sunny day, miles of landscape when looking about from a mountaintop, the sphere is not filled with air, the atmosphere is only a thin layer clinging to the inside, light diffusion would be minimal, so the odds are that a great deal of the spheres interior would be visible.
What Halo rings have to do with this I don't know but they are not AUs in diameter they are not more than a few thousand miles in diameter and they don't encompass a star.
And lastly the dysan sphere is so big it doesn't need to turn to generate gravity, even if it's shell were only a few hundred miles thick it's mass is more than sufficient to generate it's own gravity.
This is science fiction where real world physics rarely fits and raging about the illogic of it all in the forums serves no purpose other than making you look foolish.
Eats planets, poops Dyson Spheres. I like it!
To be honest, with all of the massive ships flying around, I would honestly not mind only seeing faraway markers of players in a huge, starry sector space in most cases... Not 100% realistic scales, but certainly a bit closer. It would be... more realistic, more relaxing, and generally less annoying. And there should really be consequences for smacking into someone's shields (navigational or otherwise). AND you should actually have to fly your small craft close to where you left your starship (which would still display as a static model) to return to your mothership. And weapons fire should probably take a bit more strategy than it does now (Obviously not actually calculating out firing solutions for every salvo of cannon pulses, but you get the point), but that's a discussion for a different topic.
...Excuse my off-topicness.
Answer for gravity...
As for the curvature, that is definitely wrong, it would be nice if it was more realistic, but the majority prefers cooler backgrounds, so, what can I say? As for the other side of the sphere, we can see Jupiter and Mars in the sky, plus this thing is gigantic.
Interestingly, Iconian Computer Viruses would be relatively effective at stopping them...
My character Tsin'xing
you wouldn't be seeing a starfield at all, just blackness from more circumstantial evidence.
problem is the game is 2.5 dimensions. none of that l7, full barrel roll, half barrel roll maneuvers.
if a ship collided in space we would have pvp fights where 3/4 of the entire player fghts have been reduced to suicide runs or accidental nacelle breakages. and going one further a starship would have damage effects, meaning you see small people running around behind forcefield sections trying to keep the ship in one piece during the fight. and before a ship is destroyed and after a ship is destroyed t all wouldn't go up in one, there would be junk from those ships being pushed away by force.
In theory of course.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Also. not exactly a stellar idea (pun intended) to build habitable towers on a star that's allegedly millions of degrees hot!
So, as far as I'm concerned, that thing beneath us, for all purposes and intent, is just a planet. Canon, you say?! If the Voth taught us anything, it is that Doctrine is always subject to change!
That's... Rather a cool idea.
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
I'm not so sure on that, and I think you guys did a reasonable job translating it, though the distance detail is greater than it probably would be.
In dispute of OPs point, Jupiter is 9AU from the Sun, and we can clearly see it in the night sky, so the idea that you wouldn't be able to see the opposite wall at under 2 AU is daft. I'm also going to dissagree with you however that you'd just see a solid color. While Jupiter does look like a white spec, much closer Mars looks red. I would expect that while we wouldn't be able to see as much detail as we can in game, I would also suspect that we would see at least large blobs of blue for the water and brown/green for the land, based on the massive scales we see those objects appearing in game.
As for curvature, to me the maps look like, near the bottom where the atmosphere is, that the scattering effect eventually has the sphere fade into the "fog", and then you see the wall above the atmosphere. It doesn't seem an unresonable interpertation to me, you'd see something afterall.
Big, critical hole in your argument. It's never night inside the sphere. The star is always, by definition, directly above you. Venus is closer than 2 AU but we can't see it at high noon.
As the seventy-fourth Rule of Acquisition clearly states, knowledge equals profit. And I am a very rich Ferengi.
Fleet Admiral Rylana - Fed Tac - U.S.S Wild Card - Tactical Miracle Worker Cruiser
Lifetime Subscriber since 2012 == 17,200 Accolades = RIP PvP and Vice Squad
Chief of Starfleet Intelligence Service == Praise Cheesus