Lack of Dyson Swarms in Federation core systems?

[Deks]

Ok... so, many people here will be familiar with a Dyson Sphere (a solid spherical structure encompassing a star roughly 1 AU away from it - same distance as Earth is away from our star).

Now, the concept of the Dyson Sphere was proposed back in the 1960-ies.
However, space based solar collectors were researched in the 1970-ies and technically proposed as viable technical concepts in the 1980-ies... but were/are not considered 'cost effective' from an economic point of view (however, we had the resources and the technology to make them).

Similarly, NASA also designed large orbital habitats in 1970-ies with the technology and resources of that era (most notably the Bernal sphere, O'Neil cylinder, etc. - and even projected that they could be constructed at the time for $30 billion - or about $220 billion today - much less than the annual military budget of the USA).

We know that in Trek, Humans developed fusion reactor technology well before NX-01 (actually, it was likely they had it before or by 2063 - First Contact time - though this is a bit fuzzy... arguably, you'd think you would need a very powerful energy source at your disposal to help you create an FTL engine - though the Phoenix had to use a matter/anti-matter reaction to achieve Warp as I don't think fusion would cut it - as such, its possible Cochrane's ship used a very small/primitive form of m/am reactor with minuscule quantities of dilithium to stabilize the reaction - otherwise, I don't think generating Warp fields would be possible, as throughout canon, it was established that you need Warp power available - generally got via m-am reactions).

So, this might indicate that Humanity didn't see the need for something as big as a Dyson Sphere because they could generate fusion power at will.

However, we also know that in TNG, the ENT-D encounters a Dyson Sphere and LaForge says that building one is impossible for them.
This statements seems ludicrous to me... or at the very least, not quite accurate.
Since we can technically build a Dyson Swarm by disassembling Mercury alone and using automated construction bots for the job (and many other automation technologies that were possible for decades), in Trek (especially in the 24th century), the Federation would have been able to simply replicate Dyson Swarms into existence by using the energy of a star.

We know it was established that replicators convert energy into matter (not matter into matter), and can be powered by a variety of energy sources... you simply need adequate amount of energy (and usually, M/AM reactions provide this energy).

So, Starfleet could have at the very least started construction of a Dyson Swarm after FC with the Vulcans using (highly advanced automation technologies - or at the very least, they would be FAR more advanced by then).
In the 24th century, industrial grade replicators (powered entirely by the star) could be used to create a sufficiently large solar collector by replicating it in pieces and assemble it via say tractor beams automatically... and that solar collector would then replicate another, and another... basically, construction would proceed exponentially (depending on how fast each industrial replicator needs in terms of energy).
Presumably, those solar collection materials in Trek would be vastly superior to ours (especially with over 300 years of exponential progress ).

A Dyson Swarm would do pretty much the same thing as a Sphere would, and it would be a lot easier to construct.
Point being, a dyson swarm could likely be coupled with subspace technology as seen in Trek and portray excessively powerful capabilities.

So, given that technically speaking we can already begin construction of a first space based solar collector (which would arguably take 10 years to make on Earth - and span 10 km in size - but probably would take far less time if we used full scale automation in the initial construction, and from that point onward, a fleet of construction bots would be making the other solar collectors in space from say Mercury), the Trek Humans could have easily began construction of Dyson Swarm in SOL before NX-01 launch.

In that TNG episode 'Relics', Geordi was amazed at the Sphere... but then again, we have seen Starfleet creating artificial biospheres in space in massive orbital stations.
A Dyson Sphere with an artificial environment (and using thrusters and subspace fields to stabilize position - all managed by a computer algorithm and well within SF capabilities) would effectively mean scaling up the project (from Federation point of view).
Granted, they can't create Neutronium, but would you really need it? Why not use a combination of advanced alloys they developed to at least create massive solar collectors?
Each solar collector would span 10 km, so technically, with their technology, creating a collector with an artificial biosphere and photovoltaic capable materials [which are doable today] would be easy... as each collector would be a city in itself and still collect massive amount of energy.

Over time, you simply create more collectors that would eventually connect with each other to form a solid Dyson Sphere.

My thinking is, either LaForge was grossly uninformed on the topic (which is possible as he doesn't know everything)... or the writers simply never thought about this possibility (which is even more likely, because let's be frank, they completely ignored exponential development of science and tecnology that happens in the real world and wanted to keep Trek 'not too advanced' - which is really dumb).

Technically, if it would have taken us about 4 to 7 decades to make a Dyson Swarm, it would likely take the Trek Humans in 2150-ies much less time as they would have access to radically more advanced automation technologies (plus, they developed impulse engines and plethora of other science that would aid them in construction of superstructures on this scale).

EDIT: Is it possible that the Federation constructed Dyson Swarms throughout its core member systems, but they were just never shown or mentioned in the series (like massive amounts of orbital defensive systems, huge number of shipyards, etc.) due to budgetary constraints and lack of writers imagination at the time?
Think Yorktown starbase... definitely doable using the Federation technical and resource abilities in the prime and altered timelines of the 23rd century (heck the movies that built on TOS revamped the series by updating it with better/more detailed ships and stations like the humongous mushroom starbase in orbit of Earth).

 

[Timo]

I think the Trek side of this boils down to three things:

1) a Dyson swarm is an inferior source of power in Trek
2) building a Dyson sphere as depicted is beyond the materials tech of the Federation
3) nobody needs a Dyson sphere anyway, either in Trek or ITRW

We could cover Earth with solar cells today if we felt we needed the energy. We have much better alternatives, though: they pollute more, they cost more, and they are less reliable and more difficult to obtain and maintain, but they are still vastly more convenient than solar cells.

The reasons are much the same. Big infrastructure is awkward and potentially vulnerable (either in practice, thanks to a certain degree of centralizing and homogeneity, or then psychologically). Investing in it also tends to stop people from looking for alternatives and improvements, which still are very important to the technologically immature and competition-minded UFP.

A Trek civilization investing in a Dyson swarm would be vulnerable to nimbler societies that optimize their portable power solutions and maintain their mobility (especially in the military sense). A certain degree of maturity and superiority would be required before one could safely resort to gigastructure solutions - and in Trek, maturity outdates mere Dyson swarms with all sorts of magical solutions.

A Dyson sphere, though, is a project for the mature in Trek. Earth doesn't yet know how to build Doomsday Machine style structures; she could cheat with structural integrity fields, but those would defeat the seeming sole benefit of having a Dyson sphere, that of passive-massive longevity.

The longevity and near-supernatural might would come from the overengineered structure and not, as the real world would have it, from the great and free natural power of the star. In Trek, stars are extremely vulnerable, subject to dangerous change from the slightest meddling: the equivalent of today's vehicular attacks on pedestrians could sterilize planets, vaporize swarms, and boil the interiors of spheres, as attackers would commandeer common interstellar vessels and use their standard technologies for flare-bombing, "Image in the Sand" style.

Somebody did build a Dyson sphere in Trek. And considering how difficult it was for the usual players to find, perhaps there are millions of those out there, built for the very purpose of hiding. Yet no known Trek player has the need to hide, making the means question academic for the time being.

Certainly it didn't appear as if the sphere existed for power collection needs - we saw no power being collected, and indeed the opposite must have been taking place at an astronomical scale, so that the interior would remain habitably cool despite the problematic constant output of the star. LaForge and the brightest engineering minds of today would be equally stumped at explaining the structure; the brightest fantasy writers would probably be called for instead, to guess at the motivations of the builders. Certainly just piling up dirt around a star wasn't going to achieve the mysterious aims of the builders, or the witnessed results.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Leathco]

I would guess that energy needs are met with the combination of fusion and warp reactors. Why destroy entire planets for excess energy when the energy needs are already being met?

 

[Butters]

Given the number of habitable worlds, and the ability to terraform them, it would be odd for people want to live on swarms of artificial constructs.

 

[Deks]

But if a Dyson Swarm was made in the 24th century, replicators can easily make them from the stars energy (around 386 yotawatts is given out by our own star), and it would be a relatively simple matter to start making it using automation.

The purpose of a Dyson Sphere is to harvest the energy of an entire star... a Dyson Swarm can do pretty much the same... but it would be a simpler construction to execute for example which could be built upon.
Also, it would likely provide invaluable insight into energy collection, conversion, utilization, etc. that would vastly increase scientific capabilities of the Federation.
We know the Federation uses the Argus Array for deep space scientific observations via subspace technology.
A Dyson Swarm could easily serve in a similar manner because it would entail millions of these stations in orbit around a star, networked together to amplify scanners resolution, distance, etc. at the same time collecting solar power, and serving as cities in space.

A Dyson Swarm wouldn't necessarily be for the 'immature species' Timo... if the end goal is to build a Dyson Sphere, why not start with a Swarm that would make it relatively easy to close everything up at a later stage and turn it all into a solid sphere?
A massive solar collector 10km radius, could easily have a fully self-sufficient biosphere on the inner point with a city-like structure.
The technology in the 24th century itself is easily scalable, so it would be possible to fully integrate industrial grade replicators, sensors, life-support, gravity plating, etc. all in one unit without it being bulky at all, and all made of combination of materials that have solar cells capability and efficiency easily in the 99.9% range.

Also, terraforming a planet (while great in itself) has some drawbacks...
In the 22nd century (during the NX-01 era), it would have been a relatively simple decision to sacrifice Mercury and use it for raw material to make a few fully automated bots that would then proceed to do replicate more of themselves and construct the Dyson Swarm.
Even with that technology, the work would proceed exceedingly fast... also, it wouldn't really impeded Starfleet's notion of building ships to still send people out to explore. Even if you have a Dyson Swarm finished before the creation of the Federation and scanned everything in a radius of multiple thousands of lightyears, you'd still want to send people there to do the work themselves, etc.

Btw Timo... as far as I know, renewable energy is actually more potent than dirty and cheap energy sources... there's Geothermal for example (13 000 Zettajoules of power sitting right underneath us)... or you can use dormant volcanoes if you want to avoid all that digging (but realistically, digging to a depth of 10-20km using a combination of sythetic diamond drills and lasers [doable for years now - actually, synthetic diamond drills were doable since mid 20th century] is not a big issue).
For a society in Trek that doesn't rely on money (in the 22nd century), if they wanted to harvest the power of a star, they would likely be using a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and wave for example (basically harnessing the power of the planet) to have access to needed energy so they can start harvesting something as large and powerful as a star, and as for materials... superior synthetic materials and process of technical efficiency.

I don't buy for a second that Federation material science is not up to the task of building a Dyson Sphere... is it possible that Geordi was simply referring to Neutronium mainly? In which case yes... but who says you need Neutronium do make a Dyson Sphere?

 

[Timo]

But if a Dyson Swarm was made in the 24th century, replicators can easily make them from the stars energy (around 386 yotawatts is given out by our own star), and it would be a relatively simple matter to start making it using automation.

Then again, if you can build a Dyson swarm that way, why would you need to? You already have the ability to build whatever you wish, by default! Having the swarm would not add substantially to that.

Also, it would likely provide invaluable insight into energy collection, conversion, utilization, etc. that would vastly increase scientific capabilities of the Federation.

It's a bit difficult to believe the Feds wouldn't already be long past that. They know how solar cells or steam generators work. They know what a star puts out. Building a gigastructure to prove the concepts doesn't seem necessary.

We know the Federation uses the Argus Array for deep space scientific observations via subspace technology.
A Dyson Swarm could easily serve in a similar manner because it would entail millions of these stations in orbit around a star, networked together to amplify scanners resolution, distance, etc. at the same time collecting solar power, and serving as cities in space.

But since we see what size the Argus Array is, we can deduce that "bigger" or "more" don't actually increase the resolution or other capabilities of the system.

And cities in space do fine without stars in the vicinity, as the Borg can attest to. I mean, it would be a wonderful idea to build fission plants right in the middle of cities today, for the extremely advantageous waste heat short range utilization. But those fission bombs are considered more trouble than worth; Trek people would no doubt feel the same about stars and other fusion bombs.

A Dyson Swarm wouldn't necessarily be for the 'immature species' Timo... if the end goal is to build a Dyson Sphere, why not start with a Swarm that would make it relatively easy to close everything up at a later stage and turn it all into a solid sphere?

Well, if the purpose of the sphere is to hide, then pulling the camo net over the star sloooooowly would probably either utterly defeat the purpose, or at least needlessly increase the time of vulnerability.

As for closing up, the sphere we see obviously uses advanced gravitics, to allow those landscapes and clouds to stick to the interior. Would it be a good idea to first put stuff into solar orbit and then try and stop it on its tracks to make it part of the sphere? Orbits are a rather outdated concept in Trek anyway: a starship on a "standard" one seems to be hovering over a beam-down site (in plot terms) or making tight turns (as far as the visuals go), and OTOH has no problem hovering over a pole.

In the 22nd century (during the NX-01 era), it would have been a relatively simple decision to sacrifice Mercury and use it for raw material to make a few fully automated bots that would then proceed to do replicate more of themselves and construct the Dyson Swarm.

Hmm. Compared to building and sending out starships to import more compact energy sources, this would appear to be a trillionfold increase in scale at least. Quite doable with self-replication, I guess, but who would want to unleash "trillionfold" onto anything, least of all through self-replication?

Even with that technology, the work would proceed exceedingly fast... also, it wouldn't really impeded Starfleet's notion of building ships to still send people out to explore.

Except in the sense that those ships would be telling Earth that nobody else has been crazy enough to do gigastructures, and perhaps for a reason.

Heck, the Borg are a self-replicating gigastructure. Or petastructure, or whatever. Basically everybody in Trek considers such things a threat.

Btw Timo... as far as I know, renewable energy is actually more potent than dirty and cheap energy sources...

Didn't I say as much? But there's a reason Germany didn't convert half of Sahara into a solar farm after all, against very real original intent. What this reason chooses to call itself varies from year to year and region to region, but it generally only needs to pack assault rifles in order to make big infra utterly unviable.

I wonder what Earth is using in the various Trek eras. But I know it isn't using solar farms that would be big enough to spot with the naked eye, which is more or less where I'd draw the gigastructure line. And it isn't relying on something the bad guys could threaten without first achieving utter space superiority in and around Sol (heck, even the ability to ransack a starbase mere 100 AU out with seeming impunity did not suffice for this!).

I don't buy for a second that Federation material science is not up to the task of building a Dyson Sphere... is it possible that Geordi was simply referring to Neutronium mainly? In which case yes... but who says you need Neutronium do make a Dyson Sphere?

How else do you keep the thing from collapsing into the star? Well, with gravitic magic, of course, but would the builders of that particular sphere have been relying on that for the very existence of their construct, rather than merely for the existence of the landscapes on the inner surface?

The thing here is, LaForge is confronted by THIS particular Dyson sphere, the properties of which astound him. If it's a neutronium fortress, then that's probably what he feels the UFP cannot duplicate. If it's just a shell of dirt a starship could easily punch through (they do punch through mountains, as we know, and through each other, through starbase doors, etc.), then he might not be so amazed. But he doesn't quite suggest punching through when the issue arises.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mark_Nguyen]

I agree that the general Trekkian notion is, that if you COULD build something like this, you wouldn't NEED to in the first place. People occasionally ask why Starfleet doesn't simply push a button and replicate an entire starship. IMO, it's the same cause and reason.

As an engineering exercise I'm sure that the Federation's utopian minds could be kept busy for decades just figuring out how to build such a thing, but in practice, it seems perfectly rational to believe that there's no need for the collection of thermal energy from a nuclear fusion source, not when you have antimatter reactors compact and safe enough to be placed in minivan-sized shuttlecraft. Trek's tech has already evolved beyond the need of something that huge, and there are already enough uninhabited planets out there yet to colonize and explore that they don't need to sit around building new ones.

Now, switching contexts slightly, we have other Dyson-esque constructs in fiction. the some of the various Halo installations from the game franchise, for example, are big enough to qualify, but they have a need to be that big in order to function as interstellar mass-extinction weapons for whatever reason. If there's a real technological need for something that size, then the technology would follow. Otherwise you're just doing it for shizzles, and there's no reward in that other than having said you've done it.

Mark

 

[The Librarian]

The Culture called, they want to know why you would disassemble perfectly good planets to make oversized megastructures when much smaller ones would get the job done more efficiently.

 

[Tenacity]

Similarly, NASA also designed large orbital habitats in 1970-ies with the technology and resources of that era (most notably the Bernal sphere, O'Neil cylinder, etc.

NASA didn't design them, Gerold O'Neill and his university students did.

and LaForge says that building one is impossible for them.

This statements seems ludicrous to me... or at the very least, not quite accurate.

There are probably a great many things that are beyond the Federation abilities. Replicating a cup of tea isn't the same as replicating the materials for a sphere.

So, given that technically speaking we can already begin construction of a first space based solar collector

No. This is far beyond what we can do, top of the list of reasons is we lack the launch capacity.

a fleet of construction bots

Which we don't have and don't know how to create.

but then again, we have seen Starfleet creating artificial biospheres in space in massive orbital stations.

The "mushroom" in Earth orbit is microscopic compare to a sphere.

 

[Samuel]

I thought it was always implied that a Dyson sphere would be constructed by an extremely old civilization but one still of course "corporeal".

In Star Trek most of the "ancient" civilizations seemed to have moved to noncorporeal bodies like the Organians.

 

[Ronald Held]

IMO, the older civilizations died out and the younger ones lack the need to collect all that energy.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

IMO, living / functioning Stars should be protected like "Endangered Species" given how easy it is to destroy a Star through Space Terrorist attacks in various incarnations of Star Trek.

The only time you would want to create a Dyson Sphere is over a dead Star.

So White Dwarf Stars / Neutron Star / Pulsars are on the list.

And you can then easily create a Smaller Dyson Sphere (~Earth Sized) vs needing to create a Solar System sized structure around a large star.

 

[Timo]

...Perhaps you protect an endangered star by building a shell around it?

The shell would be likely to do something to the star even if (and especially if) utterly inert. The one we saw had liquid water seas on the inside from the looks of it, so some weird thermal management was going on; perhaps this would also keep the star from being affected by its own captured output, for conservationist purposes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But if a Dyson Swarm was made in the 24th century, replicators can easily make them from the stars energy

No, because Replicators don't convert energy directly into matter, they rearrange matter you've already got. This is the whole reason why starships are powered by antimatter instead of Mr. Fusion garbage chutes.

The purpose of a Dyson Sphere is to harvest the energy of an entire star... a Dyson Swarm can do pretty much the same... but it would be a simpler construction to execute for example which could be built upon.

Just because something is relatively simple to do doesn't mean it is necessary or beneficent. Really, almost anything you could accomplish with a dyson swarm would be more easily accomplished by learning how to convert matter into antimatter for direct energy conversion on a smaller scale. The Federation has this capability, so a Dyson Swarm would be a waste of material.

Basically, it's like a Space Elevator or a surface-to-orbit mass driver system. It's an interesting idea, but at their level of technology there are way easier ways to accomplish these things.

Also, many have pointed out that the other key advantage of a dyson swarm is more than offset by the insane abundance of habitable worlds in the galaxy. It just isn't worth the time and expense to build something like that when you could more easily build some perfectly normal buildings on a ready-made planet somewhere. If you need energy collection but somehow can't afford an antimatter converter, nuclear power is a cheaper and more efficient alternative, or you could just throw up some solar panels on a convenient mountain and live off of that.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

...Perhaps you protect an endangered star by building a shell around it?

The shell would be likely to do something to the star even if (and especially if) utterly inert. The one we saw had liquid water seas on the inside from the looks of it, so some weird thermal management was going on; perhaps this would also keep the star from being affected by its own captured output, for conservationist purposes.

Timo Saloniemi

Or you can build a large array of Geo Stationary Cloaked Orbital Defense Platforms that shoot down anything that isn't approved and gets too close to the star.

 

[Ronald Held]

Maybe due to easy antimatter production, there is little need for spheres/swarms?

 

[Deks]

No, because Replicators don't convert energy directly into matter, they rearrange matter you've already got. This is the whole reason why starships are powered by antimatter instead of Mr. Fusion garbage chutes.

Pardon me but the whole canon series from TNG to Voyager say otherwise (they state that replicators convert energy into matter).
And while replicators DO posses the ability to re-arrange matter you already have, they always recycle replicated matter back into energy which is stored in the ship for later use.
That's why replicators are so energy intensive and why Voyager had issues powering them when they were thrown in the DQ (power failures as a result of initial pull the DQ which heavily damaged the ship).
Heck, Voyager needed omicron particles to enrich their anti-matter reserves just so Janeway could replicate coffee.
M/AM reactions produce massive amounts of energy.
And while yes, E=mc2, the thing is that as any technology advances, you can improve on the efficiency, and power generation.
Trek Federation of the 24th century uses a plethora of superior synthetic materials and focuses on technical efficiency... you can't seriously tell me they wouldn't be able to improve replicator efficiency with direct conversion of energy into matter.

Just because something is relatively simple to do doesn't mean it is necessary or beneficent. Really, almost anything you could accomplish with a dyson swarm would be more easily accomplished by learning how to convert matter into antimatter for direct energy conversion on a smaller scale. The Federation has this capability, so a Dyson Swarm would be a waste of material.

In your opinion. The ability to harvest an entire star via a fully functioning swarm would have the same result as a Sphere, but would be easier/faster to build and probably give the Federation ability to replicate massive superstructures directly from energy in one go.
A single space based solar collector (that would be part of the swarm) is imagined as being 10km large... this size is easily done by Starfleet of any era (with or without replicators). Massive arrays of transporters, computer cores and other subspace technologies could be part of the slightly thicker 'base' of the solar collector spread across 10km and networked together.
Also, the Federation doesn't necessarily stop at M/AM and fusion. We've seen they can use renewables like Wind, etc. on planetary colonies etc.
A star would provide you with infinitely more (and continuous) power in a given star system.

Basically, it's like a Space Elevator or a surface-to-orbit mass driver system. It's an interesting idea, but at their level of technology there are way easier ways to accomplish these things.

So why not make it a scientific experiment in that case?
The Federation is not beyond making superstructures in space multiple kilometers in size. Starbase 1? Yorktown Starbase?

Also, many have pointed out that the other key advantage of a dyson swarm is more than offset by the insane abundance of habitable worlds in the galaxy. It just isn't worth the time and expense to build something like that when you could more easily build some perfectly normal buildings on a ready-made planet somewhere. If you need energy collection but somehow can't afford an antimatter converter, nuclear power is a cheaper and more efficient alternative, or you could just throw up some solar panels on a convenient mountain and live off of that.

But that's not exactly the point.
How many star systems and colonies the Federation in the 24th century has?
Plenty.
Many of them require starships or proper defenses for regular protection. If they constructed even a partial swarm around a given star, they could easily project massive shield virtually around a solar system that could for all intense and purposes be impenetrable.
Plus, the swarm could easily be equipped with subspace sensors which would probably act as a highly advanced early warning system.

Besides, it's not like they would need to dedicate massive resources to do this. Simply make a few self-replicating bots that would harvest appropriate amount of material without touching specific planets etc. and leave everything else to automation.

 

[Deks]

NASA didn't design them, Gerold O'Neill and his university students did.

I stand corrected, but Nasa did have a summer standing program which enabled this demonstration in 1975.

There are probably a great many things that are beyond the Federation abilities. Replicating a cup of tea isn't the same as replicating the materials for a sphere.

Except, we're not talking about making a whole sphere... we're talking about self-replicating dyson swarm which could be relatively easily constructed by Starfleet even in the 22nd century without replicators by using automation.

No. This is far beyond what we can do, top of the list of reasons is we lack the launch capacity.

I suggest you watch the following:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2012/03/how-to-build-dyson-sphere-in-five.html

The materials in question we can already make by using a combination of graphene, carbon nanotubes and synthetic diamonds.
Technologically and resource-wise it is more than feasible.

As for launch capacity...
Well, the first solar collector would be built on Earth, and would take (According to the video) about 10 years to complete... but I don't think it takes into consideration if full-scale automation was included in the process.
Besides, the said collector can be fabricated in parts which can be launched simultaneously from numerous places on Earth using existing technology and then assembled in space.
It's not like we hadn't done something similar with the ISS.

Or heck, we launch satellites in orbit.
Make them have 3d printer capabilities that can connect with each other and turn into construction facilities in space.

Which we don't have and don't know how to create.

Not quite.
Self-replicating robotics or technology in general for example is nothing new and we had it for a long time now... the said bots would simply be an extension of this... think of it like a satellite with robotic arms and a 3d printer in space capable of capturing matter (like space junk), disassembling it, and then reconstitute it into what we tell it to.
It's hardly a new concept either because such proposals were already made:
https://www.computerworld.com/artic...rs-may-someday-build-satellites-in-space.html
https://www.wired.com/story/the-plan-to-put-a-3-d-printer-with-robot-arms-into-orbit/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine
"
Dyson's replicating systems[edit]
The next major development of the concept of self-replicating machines was a series of thought experiments proposed by physicist Freeman Dyson in his 1970 Vanuxem Lecture.[19][20] He proposed three large-scale applications of machine replicators. First was to send a self-replicating system to Saturn's moon Enceladus, which in addition to producing copies of itself would also be programmed to manufacture and launch solar sail-propelled cargo spacecraft. These spacecraft would carry blocks of Enceladean ice to Mars, where they would be used to terraform the planet. His second proposal was a solar-powered factory system designed for a terrestrial desert environment, and his third was an "industrial development kit" based on this replicator that could be sold to developing countries to provide them with as much industrial capacity as desired. When Dyson revised and reprinted his lecture in 1979 he added proposals for a modified version of Moore's seagoing artificial living plants that was designed to distill and store fresh water for human use[21] and the "Astrochicken."

The "mushroom" in Earth orbit is microscopic compare to a sphere.

The mushroom starbase in Earth's orbit may be microscopic compared to a dyson sphere, but it is still multiple km in size (the Yorktown starbase is even larger), which means that Starfleet is not foreign to building large habitats in space, and that building a 10km large solar collector capable of self-replication (which would eventually make the whole swarm) is well within their capabilities.

In the 22nd century, all SF needs to do is make several self-replicating bots with 3d printing technology (or whatever fabrication technology they use at the time) and leave the bots and their programming to construct a first solar collector, and then another, and another.
The project would effectively be self-constructing (fully automated), and would evolve exponentially.

For the 24th century its even easier since even a single starship or say a station can use industrial grade replicators to materialize in stage/parts a 10km sized modern solar collector with a wide array of self-replication capabilities, and instruct the computer to either transport the parts into place so they would interconnect, or just use tractor beams... and when it's done, the collector would then do similar work by replicating/making other solar collectors.

Why do people keep ignoring automation in reality, let alone Trek?
I know there's a severe LACK of it being portrayed in the Federation (which is the writers fault and realistically, the Federation was dumbed down way too much as a result), but COME ON... none of the orbital habitats like even Starbase 1 (let alone Yorktown), or even starships, could possibly be constructed quickly and efficiently without automation.
The Dyson swarm is a simple extension of pre-existing technologies on a larger scale.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Pardon me but the whole canon series from TNG to Voyager say otherwise (they state that replicators convert energy into matter).

Yes, just like Sybok said that Christopher Columbus "proved" that the Earth was round.

They're wrong. Or at least, highly inaccurate, much like everyone who has ever told you that crude oil "comes from dinosaurs" or that spacecraft need heat shields because of "friction." Or, in this case, all the people who say "matter and energy are the same." These are things people say that are ALMOST correct, but not really.

The truth is, mass and energy are equivalent for an object at rest. If a reaction occurs and the products are less massive than the original reactants, then the reaction has released energy into its environment; if a reaction occurs and the products are more massive than the original reactants, then the reaction absorbed energy from its environment. In most if not all cases, that energy is transferred in the form of particles which go flying away from the reaction at some high velocity equivalent to to their mass and energy state.

There is no such thing as "pure energy."

And while replicators DO posses the ability to re-arrange matter you already have, they always recycle replicated matter back into energy which is stored in the ship for later use.

No, because the only device on the ship that has the ability to convert mass into energy is the warp core. Clearly the replicators do recycle leftover garbage into something that is then stored, but they do not and cannot store it as "energy."

The one universal constant in all of Star Trek history is that their ships are powered by highly specialized and relatively dangerous power cores that annihilate matter and antimatter, which apparently can't be done without dilithium. A replicator slot capable of producing storable energy would render warp cores completely obsolete.

Simply put: replicators do not work that way.

In your opinion. The ability to harvest an entire star via a fully functioning swarm would have the same result as a Sphere

No, a sphere would be uninhabitable since everything on the inner surface would probably be pulled into the center of the star.

Also, the Federation doesn't necessarily stop at M/AM and fusion. We've seen they can use renewables like Wind, etc. on planetary colonies etc.
A star would provide you with infinitely more (and continuous) power in a given star system.

Sure, but they don't NEED infinitely more power in a given solar system. Practical applications of engineering are constrained to solve a given problem, not a hypothetical one. So if you're trying to create a power system that will provide, say, 20,000GW to your community, you start looking at what available options will produce around 20,000GW of electricity. Some of your options will produce more, some will produce less. Some will be easier to build, some will be harder. Which one you pick depends on how much you're willing to spend verses how much you actually need and where those factors meet in the middle is what you end up doing.

This is the other reason we can rest assured replicators do not perform total energy conversion: because any system that converts energy DIRECTLY into mass will always be more energy intensive than a system that merely rearranges it. In the former example, a replicator the size of a refrigerator would require a power generator with an instantaneous delivery of several million megawatts in order to produce a chicken sandwich and a cup of coffee. In the latter case, all you'd really need is a bucket of chemicals and the 24th century equivalent of a car battery. The latter option will always be cheaper, more portable, and less dangerous to its user.

Back to the question: what practical reason would a group of colonists have to harvest trillions of megawatts of electrical power? That's many orders of magnitude more power than they will ever actually need, so the time and resource expense of building the swarm is unnecessary. They could just as easily get by with a standard fusion reactor or, as you mentioned it, plop some windfarms and solar arrays on their rooftops. Even for large scale industrial applications, there isn't anything they could get from a dyson swarm that wouldn't be more easily obtained by other means.

It's an interesting idea, to be sure, but the ability to harvest antimatter simply makes it unnecessary. It would be like Starfleet trying to build a space elevator to connect to the shroomdock; why would you bother doing that when you have transporters, shuttlecraft, and complete control of artificial gravity anyway?

So why not make it a scientific experiment in that case?

The whole point of an experiment is to try and figure out what the results might be. In this case, there isn't much question about the results, it's a question of "Why do we need this, again?"

Granted, somebody in the Federation probably built something like this as a "proof of concept" design at least once. But it's not something that would ever really be USEFUL to them.

 

[Deks]

Yes, just like Sybok said that Christopher Columbus "proved" that the Earth was round.

They're wrong. Or at least, highly inaccurate, much like everyone who has ever told you that crude oil "comes from dinosaurs" or that spacecraft need heat shields because of "friction." Or, in this case, all the people who say "matter and energy are the same." These are things people say that are ALMOST correct, but not really.

You are superimposing your personal opinion (limitations) onto fictional technology of which the said fictional characters are supposed to have better understanding than you or me.
They said so on several occasions, showed it even... so why continue to posit its inaccurate?

Also, direct conversion of energy into matter is not impossible.
It occurs in nature... and we are about to do an experiment that converts light to matter:
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-scientists-year-quest.html

No, because the only device on the ship that has the ability to convert mass into energy is the warp core. Clearly the replicators do recycle leftover garbage into something that is then stored, but they do not and cannot store it as "energy."

I disagree, because it is established in canon that replicators and transporters convert energy into matter. Same with the holodecks.
If you want to disregard those fundamentals, then that's you.

The one universal constant in all of Star Trek history is that their ships are powered by highly specialized and relatively dangerous power cores that annihilate matter and antimatter, which apparently can't be done without dilithium. A replicator slot capable of producing storable energy would render warp cores completely obsolete.

Except that dilithium is only used as a method of controlling M/AM reactions to the level they want. In itself, Dilithium is not a power source. And it can be recrystallized.

No, a sphere would be uninhabitable since everything on the inner surface would probably be pulled into the center of the star.

Thrusters, impulse engines, artificial gravity, or life support systems anyone?
Even shuttles in the 22nd century have all of these.

Sure, but they don't NEED infinitely more power in a given solar system. Practical applications of engineering are constrained to solve a given problem, not a hypothetical one. So if you're trying to create a power system that will provide, say, 20,000GW to your community, you start looking at what available options will produce around 20,000GW of electricity. Some of your options will produce more, some will produce less. Some will be easier to build, some will be harder. Which one you pick depends on how much you're willing to spend verses how much you actually need and where those factors meet in the middle is what you end up doing.

But the idea here is to generate excess of power so its at your disposal if you need it.
Colonies found themselves in a pickle on more than one occasion.

This is the other reason we can rest assured replicators do not perform total energy conversion: because any system that converts energy DIRECTLY into mass will always be more energy intensive than a system that merely rearranges it. In the former example, a replicator the size of a refrigerator would require a power generator with an instantaneous delivery of several million megawatts in order to produce a chicken sandwich and a cup of coffee. In the latter case, all you'd really need is a bucket of chemicals and the 24th century equivalent of a car battery. The latter option will always be cheaper, more portable, and less dangerous to its user.

Your point?
These people use M/AM reactions to generate massive amounts of power and warp the fabric of space-time so they can travel at FTL (among other things).
Replicating smaller things inside ships directly from energy would be a piece of cake in comparison, but would STILL require large amounts of power.
How many times did the Enterprise-D found themselves in a situation where they said replicators require huge amounts of energy to function?
Several times... and the Ent-D had issues with powering the replicators when using high warp velocities due to Warp being so energy intensive).

Back to the question: what practical reason would a group of colonists have to harvest trillions of megawatts of electrical power? That's many orders of magnitude more power than they will ever actually need, so the time and resource expense of building the swarm is unnecessary. They could just as easily get by with a standard fusion reactor or, as you mentioned it, plop some windfarms and solar arrays on their rooftops. Even for large scale industrial applications, there isn't anything they could get from a dyson swarm that wouldn't be more easily obtained by other means.

It's not just solely about a colony... a Federation member world that has a fully developed and colonized star system would likely benefit from having continuous influx of energy from the star without having to rely on primary reactors unless in case of emergencies.

It's an interesting idea, to be sure, but the ability to harvest antimatter simply makes it unnecessary. It would be like Starfleet trying to build a space elevator to connect to the shroomdock; why would you bother doing that when you have transporters, shuttlecraft, and complete control of artificial gravity anyway?

Comparison is not exactly the same. Within the confines of Trek universe at least (and using their technology), various limitations of technology can be overcome by simply having enough energy to run it.
For example, you can use a Dyson Swarm to beam objects across the entire star system instantly as opposed to rely on interstellar travel.
Those massive solar collectors would have a full array of sensors, replicators, transporters, etc. all interconnected and spread across 10km (for each collector) ... that's a massive 'array' of highly interconnected technology that would have radically expanded range, resolution, speed.
It's been demonstrated in Trek that if you connect multiple technologies like this, you can radically expand on existing capabilities.

The whole point of an experiment is to try and figure out what the results might be. In this case, there isn't much question about the results, it's a question of "Why do we need this, again?"

Pursuit of feasibility behind building a massive mega-structure and assessing networking capabilities of existing technologies.
New scientific research easily requires massive amounts of power... imagine what the Federation could accomplish with a partial Dyson Swarm in operation.
They could have perhaps constructed their own version of a Transwarp hub.
When you have massive amounts of energy at your disposal, your thinking changes to incorporate thinking on a larger scale.

Granted, somebody in the Federation probably built something like this as a "proof of concept" design at least once. But it's not something that would ever really be USEFUL to them.

Why not?
It would have massive uses for establishing say deep space outposts/cities. (Each solar collector the size of 10 km and such interconnectivity) would have a proverbial city on the outer side that's turned towards the star... each structure capturing solar power all the time with backup M/AM and fusion generators if needed.

The ability to harvest a full star, gives you the ability to start harvesting the energy output of the galaxy... which in turn enables harvesting/manipulation of other galaxies until you can manipulate the fabric of the universe and eventually the multi-verse.

The Q already insinuated that Humanity is moving in this direction anyway, but said at the time it would take 'eons' (which is unlikely, as exponential returns would significantly reduce this time frame.
And as each new project may be initially slow to start... it will give better insights into building, manufacturing, energy usage that will improve overall efficiency and fundamentally accelerate things WAY beyond initial projections.