> Hence why I said (e.g. our communications satellites), which in English means communications satellites are examples of useful things with solar panels attached "floating" in space...
What you actually said was:
> You don't need to build the entire thing, just some solar panels floating in space an attached to something useful (e.g. our communications satellites) fit the bill.
Where the implication is that we'd attach these solar panels to something useful and that an example of something useful is the communication satellite. Whereas you wanted to infer that communications satellites were the entire enchilada, a solar panel attached to something useful. Which is also a bit disingenuous as the panel is a part of the satellite, the power source, not an add-on. Which pretty much led to the confusion.
> A Dyson swarm is an orbiting collection of artificial satellites, orbiting the sun.
That's a reduction as to what it actually is. A big part of the Dyson architecture is to capture and use the energy provided by a star. Simply having a satellite orbiting the Sun would not fit the bill.
And a space based solar power satellite does not exist. Because it's more expensive to launch and implement than it would return. All current solar power on satellites provide enough power to power themselves. That's it. What you are asking for is something different.
NASA themselves says that a SBSP satellite is decades away at the earliest. And any proposition to be speculative at best.
And yes, necessity is technically the mother of invention but it can't change the laws of physics. It can't change the cost of what's necessary.
> You're deluded if you think you can get random people on HN to defend their statements to a level you'd be happy with.
This is just a dodge. You've done nothing but say "It's not unforeseeable" and "It's inevitable". You haven't actually provided a reason as to why you think that. I'd be happy with anything more than a handwave in the general direction of the actual issues facing building a Dyson swarm.
> Honestly I don't have the time, and even if I did I don't care.
You do care, you just don't really have any answers besides the blind faith of "technology". Which is no better than blind faith in anything. Believing technology will get better doesn't actually make it better.
What you actually said was:
> You don't need to build the entire thing, just some solar panels floating in space an attached to something useful (e.g. our communications satellites) fit the bill.
Where the implication is that we'd attach these solar panels to something useful and that an example of something useful is the communication satellite. Whereas you wanted to infer that communications satellites were the entire enchilada, a solar panel attached to something useful. Which is also a bit disingenuous as the panel is a part of the satellite, the power source, not an add-on. Which pretty much led to the confusion.
> A Dyson swarm is an orbiting collection of artificial satellites, orbiting the sun.
That's a reduction as to what it actually is. A big part of the Dyson architecture is to capture and use the energy provided by a star. Simply having a satellite orbiting the Sun would not fit the bill.
And a space based solar power satellite does not exist. Because it's more expensive to launch and implement than it would return. All current solar power on satellites provide enough power to power themselves. That's it. What you are asking for is something different.
NASA themselves says that a SBSP satellite is decades away at the earliest. And any proposition to be speculative at best.
And yes, necessity is technically the mother of invention but it can't change the laws of physics. It can't change the cost of what's necessary.
> You're deluded if you think you can get random people on HN to defend their statements to a level you'd be happy with.
This is just a dodge. You've done nothing but say "It's not unforeseeable" and "It's inevitable". You haven't actually provided a reason as to why you think that. I'd be happy with anything more than a handwave in the general direction of the actual issues facing building a Dyson swarm.
> Honestly I don't have the time, and even if I did I don't care.
You do care, you just don't really have any answers besides the blind faith of "technology". Which is no better than blind faith in anything. Believing technology will get better doesn't actually make it better.