Building on the sphere

[Adam]

Just a suggestion - it would be awesome if you could build on the sphere once it has some solid surface. It'd be a nice big clean area to build a monster factory.

[Dirkels]

The sphere does not have a solid surface, it is a (relatively) flimsy mash of solar panels.

[vkobe]

you can still use in theory the frames and node like a foundation to install your foundations and later your assembler, smelter, collider, fractioner

[skott2424]

From a physics point of view this would be no different from simply building a platform anywhere in space and just using that. You would still need to account for the extra mass and increase whatever means are being used to keep orbit. From a gameplay perspective, while I think it's a fun idea, would significantly reduce the strategic decision making the player gets to ingage in. If you can just create land with functionally infinite power generation capabilities you eliminate the resource draw of many systems from logistics to simply the number of buildings you need to create.

[CaPY]

Isn't building in space planned in future updates?

[vkobe]

Originally posted by skott2424:

From a physics point of view this would be no different from simply building a platform anywhere in space and just using that. You would still need to account for the extra mass and increase whatever means are being used to keep orbit. From a gameplay perspective, while I think it's a fun idea, would significantly reduce the strategic decision making the player gets to ingage in. If you can just create land with functionally infinite power generation capabilities you eliminate the resource draw of many systems from logistics to simply the number of buildings you need to create.

only planet have natural resource you cant get natural resource from dyson sphere, except photon or energy

from physic point of view it will be dyson swarm and oneil cylinder

[CaPY]

Originally posted by vkobe:

Originally posted by skott2424:

From a physics point of view this would be no different from simply building a platform anywhere in space and just using that. You would still need to account for the extra mass and increase whatever means are being used to keep orbit. From a gameplay perspective, while I think it's a fun idea, would significantly reduce the strategic decision making the player gets to ingage in. If you can just create land with functionally infinite power generation capabilities you eliminate the resource draw of many systems from logistics to simply the number of buildings you need to create.

only planet have natural resource you cant get natural resource from dyson sphere, except photon or energy

from physic point of view it will be dyson swarm and oneil cylinder

You can get materials from dyson sphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzuHxL5FD5U

[vkobe]

Originally posted by CPY:

Originally posted by vkobe:

only planet have natural resource you cant get natural resource from dyson sphere, except photon or energy

from physic point of view it will be dyson swarm and oneil cylinder

You can get materials from dyson sphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzuHxL5FD5U

i talk about the game, not about star lifting

in the game the only resource you get from the star is energy and photon

now i remind you starlifting=hydrogen and maybe helium, if you try to get something else you will be dissapointed

if you talk about nucleosynthesis and molecule assembling you dont really need star lifting

[CaPY]

Originally posted by vkobe:

Originally posted by CPY:

You can get materials from dyson sphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzuHxL5FD5U

i talk about the game, not about star lifting

in the game the only resource you get from the star is energy and photon

now i remind you starlifting=hydrogen and maybe helium, if you try to get something else you will be dissapointed

if you talk about nucleosynthesis and molecule assembling you dont really need star lifting

If you couldn't get other materials than H and He we wouldn't know metalicity of star just by looking at it. All elements can be extracted.

[vkobe]

Originally posted by CPY:

Originally posted by vkobe:

i talk about the game, not about star lifting

in the game the only resource you get from the star is energy and photon

now i remind you starlifting=hydrogen and maybe helium, if you try to get something else you will be dissapointed

if you talk about nucleosynthesis and molecule assembling you dont really need star lifting

If you couldn't get other materials than H and He we wouldn't know metalicity of star just by looking at it. All elements can be extracted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

so mostly a poor 1.3%, i will try my luck with planet and asteroid

and for intestellar probably white dwarf and neutron star or supernova remnant

[giimer]

Originally posted by CPY:

Isn't building in space planned in future updates?

Space platforms were promised on kickstarter, before the Steam release. After the Steam release, they were only mentioned in February.

In March and beyond, the developers talked about performance and the blueprint system. Space platforms were no longer mentioned.

Perhaps the developers will make space platforms later.


"Stretch Goal III: $24,000 ─ Assembly Space Module
You asked for a Space Station and here it is! Starting from a small cube, create and customize your own floating base in the vastness of space, choosing between different modules that will provide you with different abilities. In Dyson Sphere Program you can only build facilities on the surface of a planet, so it can’t escape its gravity – but with the Space Module you can shoot their components to space and put them together up there!"

https://steamcommunity.com/games/1366540/announcements/detail/2931242887624544335

[koimeiji]

Originally posted by vkobe:

Originally posted by CPY:

If you couldn't get other materials than H and He we wouldn't know metalicity of star just by looking at it. All elements can be extracted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

so mostly a poor 1.3%, i will try my luck with planet and asteroid

and for intestellar probably white dwarf and neutron star or supernova remnant

"a mostly poor 1.3%"
i always find it funny just how often people confuse percentages and real numbers.


1.3% means nothing without any context. so, let's add some, eh?

S-type asteroids carry little water but look more attractive because they contain numerous metals, including nickel, cobalt, and more valuable metals, such as gold, platinum, and rhodium. A small 10-meter S-type asteroid contains about 650,000 kg (1,433,000 lb) of metal with 50 kg (110 lb) in the form of rare metals like platinum and gold.

via astronomysource [astronomysource.com], gotten from wikipedia

650 metric tons of metal is quite a lot for a little 10 meter asteroid!

so, how does that compare to our sun? well...
the sun is 1.989e+27 metric tons. that is... 1989000000000000000000000000 metric tons.

1.3% of that number is a very, very, very big number. 2.5857e+25 metric tons of metal, to be exact.

this is more metal than the total mass of all of the rocky bodies in our solar system, combined.



if you had the ability to make a star lifter, you would quite literally never run out of metal again.

because there's, quite literally, a metric ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

[vkobe]

Originally posted by koimeiji:

Originally posted by vkobe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

so mostly a poor 1.3%, i will try my luck with planet and asteroid

and for intestellar probably white dwarf and neutron star or supernova remnant

"a mostly poor 1.3%"
i always find it funny just how often people confuse percentages and real numbers.


1.3% means nothing without any context. so, let's add some, eh?

S-type asteroids carry little water but look more attractive because they contain numerous metals, including nickel, cobalt, and more valuable metals, such as gold, platinum, and rhodium. A small 10-meter S-type asteroid contains about 650,000 kg (1,433,000 lb) of metal with 50 kg (110 lb) in the form of rare metals like platinum and gold.

via astronomysource [astronomysource.com], gotten from wikipedia

650 metric tons of metal is quite a lot for a little 10 meter asteroid!

so, how does that compare to our sun? well...
the sun is 1.989e+27 metric tons. that is... 1989000000000000000000000000 metric tons.

1.3% of that number is a very, very, very big number. 2.5857e+25 metric tons of metal, to be exact.

this is more metal than the total mass of all of the rocky bodies in our solar system, combined.



if you had the ability to make a star lifter, you would quite literally never run out of metal again.

because there's, quite literally, a metric ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

because your 1.3 % is diluted in the sun and your hypothesis is you will be able to consume all the sun mass ?

you really think your starlifting will be able to extract jupiter or even earth or moon mass in sun matter in one year ?

planet and asteroid cocentrate their metalicity into one spot, while the sun dilute its metalicity in its hydrogen and helium tank, so better to pick up easy one kg of gold on the ground than dig 1000 tons of dirt or filtered 1 million tons of water to try to get one ton of gold

dude do you know what is metalicity ? seem not, metalicity is non hydrogen and helium atom, so oxygen, nitrogen, carbon are included in metalicity, seem you didnt read the wiki link i posted

so in your 1.3% you will mostly find volatile element than your iron, copper, gold or wathever heavier element than water

[CaPY]

So free hydrogen and helium is a bad thing now?

[vkobe]

Originally posted by CPY:

So free hydrogen and helium is a bad thing now?

it is not a bad thing, but i remind you than you need to know why you want to do that instead to use the easier option, but smaller scaling

personally i say if you cant extract at least 1000 km cubic of sun matter by year, star lifting is not worth, just go to easier target like jupiter and other gas giant, if your extraction of hydrogen is less than one km cubic of matter by year, go after comet, icy moon and planetoid

and remember why you do that ? because if you only need few millions of tons of hydrogen by year, starlifting is just a waste of resource for a so small consumption

[CaPY]

Star lifting is done primarily for metal extraction or buttload of hydrogen or helium.