What if we could move the entire Earth like a spaceship?

[Pangloss]

BTW, just did some rough calculations.

 

The amount of energy needed to get the Earth up to escape velocity for the solar system would be about 4.3*10^32 joules (that is, to add to our current orbital velocity, which assumes we're trying to go somewhere on our current orbital plane, which we aren't), which is approximately 900 billion times the total energy consumption of everyone on Earth in 2008.

 

Of course, that's just escaping the solar system. That's not to get moving fast enough to actually ever get there.

 

Or, you know, stop.

 

Did you watch Space: 1999 as a child? I always wondered if a detonation of a nuclear waste facility was enough energy to actually get the moon going like that. Of course that show had little scientific merit regardless, but the fine looking women and scary rubber-suit monsters more than made up for it.

 

I got to thinking in reading this thread that if getting to a distant destination is the goal, and you have the resources to move a planet, you might want to consider moving the entire solar system instead. It pretty much eliminates the problem of solar dependence. From a purely literary standpoint you gotta love the idea of "taking home with you on the road".

 

This also reminds me of Larry Niven's Puppeteers, with their "Fleet of Worlds". He's been co-authoring new books in that setting. That's the one where their world got so hot from the trillions of inhabitants that it couldn't be left in orbit lest it overheat (hmm).

 

(I think the Ringworld could also be moved by firing up that solar laser, couldn't it? Something gleaned from one of the later books, if memory serves.)

 

But I can't think of any examples of "the adventures of the traveling human race", per se. I can see some good dramatic angles there -- you could run some interesting twists on the old "first contact" scenarios (e.g. aliens land in Central Park, but we actually came to them).

Edited December 25, 2009 by Pangloss

[pywakit]

Wouldn't using geothermal energy result in cooling down our planet's interior, especially when its heat is used to such a massive extent?

 

Also, if we could move Earth, then it'd possibly be simpler to (instead) move the rogue planet just enough so that it doesn't collide with the sun

 

Good questions, but no. To both.

 

Radioactive decay, and tidal/stress forces on the core would keep the heat going for billions of years.

 

The Rogue is 3 times Jupiter's diameter. It is the by-product of colliding stars. A small 'dollop' of core material was expelled from the collision. It is all nickel and iron. Quite beautiful by the way. Crushed into a flawless sphere, it is essentially a perfect convex mirror, reflecting back the stars. Watching it travel through space ... from a safe distance ... it would appear nearly invisible, except for the edge of it's horizon where reflected stars are stretched and distorted before they 'fall off'. It would appear as a 'ring' of distorted light.

 

There is no way to stop this thing. It's mass is near that of the sun. Anythng we sent it's way .... even if we pushed the moon at it ... it would simply absorb it and not budge a billionth of a meter from it's course.

 

To the other guy ... moving the solar system would require magic. This just requires existing technology and a lot of hard work ...

 

Oh, and another thing. This is not blowing up some bomb on antarctica. This is a slow and steady application of force. You would not feel a thing when the pyramids began thrusting. And the oceans would not slosh over their banks.

 

But this doesn't mean a lot of bad things are not going to happen to our hapless inhabitants of earth. A lot of people will die ... sadly ... but better a lot, than all. Yes?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Pangloss wrote:

 

But I can't think of any examples of "the adventures of the traveling human race", per se. I can see some good dramatic angles there -- you could run some interesting twists on the old "first contact" scenarios (e.g. aliens land in Central Park, but we actually came to them).

______________

 

Sad ( pathetic ... lol ) really. I had a great opportunity. Had the pilot all storyboarded out. But writing the screenplay was just too complex for me. I am not a good writer.

[Zolar V]

You know what is semi interesting, there is a general consensus that if there was to ever be a deepspace spacecraft, aka one traveling between solarsystems and beyond, that it would be spherical in nature and have a slow steady application of thrust.

 

but however the spherical idea is fundimentally flawed due to intersteller stuff left over from star and solarsystem formation and the damage done by collisions with the particles. If such a collision were to occur wouldnt we just end up as asteriods/comets/meteores to other worlds? Interesting thought that some of the comets/asteroids/meteors that we have seen could be the byproduct of such collisions.

 

There is a much deeper discussion in my thread in speculations called "Deepspace spacecraft" or something of that ilk.

[toastywombel]

Electrolysis powered by geothermal production of electricity.

 

Acceptable?

 

How long would the dynamo effect that causes geothermal heat last after we leave the solar system?

[mooeypoo]

Also, space isn't really empty - there's lots of stuff in it. If we do take the entire Earth for the ride, we need some sort of plan on how to maneuver out of the way of objects that - if hit us - will totally kill off whatever's left alive, even underground.

Thinner atmosphere will produce less protection, too... and we will have to go through the astroid ring at some point..

[pywakit]

You know what is semi interesting, there is a general consensus that if there was to ever be a deepspace spacecraft, aka one traveling between solarsystems and beyond, that it would be spherical in nature and have a slow steady application of thrust.

 

but however the spherical idea is fundimentally flawed due to intersteller stuff left over from star and solarsystem formation and the damage done by collisions with the particles. If such a collision were to occur wouldnt we just end up as asteriods/comets/meteores to other worlds? Interesting thought that some of the comets/asteroids/meteors that we have seen could be the byproduct of such collisions.

 

There is a much deeper discussion in my thread in speculations called "Deepspace spacecraft" or something of that ilk.

 

 

We have something going in our favor. Controlled flight. Not instantly controlled, but then we would have many eyes in orbit looking for just such problems, giving us lots of time to make minor adjustments to avoid the bigger objects. We can CHANGE direction. We will still have our magnetic field protecting us. We will still have an atmosphere. It will be much denser than what we have now.

 

How are you going to protect your spacefarers from highly energized particles? I think you are going to have to build a ship with very very thick walls. And even then you will all have to get used to seeing flashes inside your eyeballs constantly. Something that is a real concern for any astronauts heading for Mars. Those babies will rip right through 6 feet of lead. That's why 'envisioned' interstellar space vehicles usually incorporate a cocoon of heavy water.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How long would the dynamo effect that causes geothermal heat last after we leave the solar system?

 

Well, I don't know exactly. Certainly in excess of a billion years. We still have our 'spin', and we would want to maintain that to keep our magnetic field going. Radioactive decay will go on for many billions of years, of course.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, space isn't really empty - there's lots of stuff in it. If we do take the entire Earth for the ride, we need some sort of plan on how to maneuver out of the way of objects that - if hit us - will totally kill off whatever's left alive, even underground.

Thinner atmosphere will produce less protection, too... and we will have to go through the astroid ring at some point..

 

See above. And we would NOT be going through the asteroid belt. That exists on the plane of the ecliptic. We are heading due north of that plane, to avoid them, and Jupiter, and Saturn, etc. The real problem will be getting past the Oort Cloud. But again, all objects in orbit around our sun have collected along the plane. Not so much the Oort Cloud, but still, much thinner top, or bottom, than along the plane. We will have a nervous journey until we are outside that radius, and we will take some hits. But compare the damage we would sustain with an entire PLANET protecting us versus an interstellar space ship. You will be subject to the laws of inertia. Think you can handle all the necessary vector changes? Or will you have sufficient fuel necessary to make those changes?

 

Think of this too. We can have literally thousands of sharpshooting satellites in orbit around us ... powered by both nuclear, and microwave transmissions from earth. We could nudge MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of objects out of our path. Could an interstellar ship do that?

 

And how long would you like to remain cooped up on this ship? 4.3 light years to Alpha. Unless you get some serious velocity, you are going to be on this journey for a thousand years.

 

50,000 kilometers per hour equals 13.8 kilometers per second. Our shuttles do about half that at 23,000 kilometers per hour. Your nuclear powered Ion Drive will steadily accelerate you over a few years to a few THOUSAND kilometers per second. 3000 kps equals 10,800,000 miles per hour. I don't think you are going to want to change vectors. Lol. And I guarantee you will wish you had that nice thin blanket of atmosphere, that magnetic field, and several miles of rock between you and the surface when you have that inevitable collision with the grapefruit sized chunk of ice, or iron.

 

How am I doing? )

 

We'd never run out of food. We'd never run out of air. We'd never run out of fuel. So our planet takes a few hits. So what? Once we get settled in our new orbit around Alpha, and get warmed back up ... in a few thousand years you won't know the difference! Lol.

Edited December 26, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

It's not about 'comparing the damage', though, pywakit - if a single object big enough hits the surface of the Earth it can do *massive* damage even to underground cities.

 

True, the damage from an exploding sun is bigger, but they will both result in death to humanity, underground or not. There should be either a plan to maneuver the Earth away from passing objects or to protect it from hits.

 

The shuttle example isn't too good of an example for a few reasons: First off, it's relatively small and maneuverable. They are able to move (and indeed *ARE* moving) when objects get too close. The ISS did that a few months ago to avoid some space junk.

Second, the shuttles move in the space between the Earth and the moon. These are expanses that are *RELATIVELY* clear from space crap because of the orbits of the moon around the Earth and its gravity. Same, more or less, goes to the solar system -- the orbits of the big planets cleared out the majority of real junk that could potentially hurt us (or shuttles) but those are still being factored in the calculations when new shuttles or probes are sent to the outer planets.

 

Also, it's VERY hard to detect incoming objects because they are rarely visible until it's too late - specially with the lack of a star to supply light to reflect. We have this problem today (depending on angle, we are likely to miss objects until it's VERY late) so I don't quite see how we will be able to spot objects soon enough when we're moving through space with no star light to show us these objects. By the time we spot them, we are in trouble. We will need to either move away or make sure they aren't hitting the surface.

 

This is a problem that will just be worse outside the solar system. Either we need to maneuver or find something to protect the Earth from being hit.

[pywakit]

Anyway, you may have forgotten the original premise in all this excitement. Our sun is going to take a direct, unavoidable hit. We can't stop this thing because it's real! And magic ISN'T! Lol. Rogue planets exist. Our sun could be in the path of one right this minute. 2-300 years down the road. We have no idea if something is on it's way toward us. Didn't Orpheus whack us 4 billion years ago? Isn't this why we have the Moon?

 

So when the sun blows ... Earth gets blown to smitheroons with it. So let's build an interstellar ship. Ok. How many people we going to fit on this ship? 7 billion? I don't think that will be feasible. 1 million? Wow! Big ship, considering all the stuff we'd have to take with us to survive. So how are we going to choose who gets to go? Lottery? No. I think all us lessor folk would have to 'bite the bullet'. For the 'Good of Humanity'. They'd pick the best of humanity to start our new life at another star. And I suspect the WORST of humanity would make damn sure that the ship never left orbit.

 

By the way .... what are you going to do when you get to Alpha, and you find there is no planet suited for human habitat? Terraform it? Doesn't seem very likely. Unless you want to hang out for another 10,000 years on the ship waiting for the planet to become fit for habitation.

 

So maybe you should just head on to the next closest star. It's only about 6 light years farther out.

 

So why do you want to leave a perfectly good planet behind?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It's not about 'comparing the damage', though, pywakit - if a single object big enough hits the surface of the Earth it can do *massive* damage even to underground cities.

 

True, the damage from an exploding sun is bigger, but they will both result in death to humanity, underground or not. There should be either a plan to maneuver the Earth away from passing objects or to protect it from hits.

 

The shuttle example isn't too good of an example for a few reasons: First off, it's relatively small and maneuverable. They are able to move (and indeed *ARE* moving) when objects get too close. The ISS did that a few months ago to avoid some space junk.

Second, the shuttles move in the space between the Earth and the moon. These are expanses that are *RELATIVELY* clear from space crap because of the orbits of the moon around the Earth and its gravity. Same, more or less, goes to the solar system -- the orbits of the big planets cleared out the majority of real junk that could potentially hurt us (or shuttles) but those are still being factored in the calculations when new shuttles or probes are sent to the outer planets.

 

Also, it's VERY hard to detect incoming objects because they are rarely visible until it's too late - specially with the lack of a star to supply light to reflect. We have this problem today (depending on angle, we are likely to miss objects until it's VERY late) so I don't quite see how we will be able to spot objects soon enough when we're moving through space with no star light to show us these objects. By the time we spot them, we are in trouble. We will need to either move away or make sure they aren't hitting the surface.

 

This is a problem that will just be worse outside the solar system. Either we need to maneuver or find something to protect the Earth from being hit.

 

Hmmm. Ever heard of radar? No light needed. Yes, I realize this is a bit hard to grasp. I'm sure you have never thought of Earth as an actual spaceship. But you of all people should know. IT'S A SPACE SHIP NOW! Stuff hits us constantly. Our magnetic field, and atmosphere do a fantastic job of protecting us.

 

Where do you think we will build these undergound cities? Certainly NOT on the northern hemisphere. The sun exploding will VAPORIZE Earth. That will undoubtably kill us off ... lol. I won't lie to you. Earth is going to take some serious hits on the way. Millions ... perhaps BILLIONS will die from massive cave-ins. But our species will not lose it's technical knowledge. We are at a unique moment on our development. We ACTUALLY have the technical ability to do just what I am suggesting.

 

Now what do you prefer? Total annihilation? Or a rough journey? I'll take the rough journey hands down.

 

Anyay, using radar, and high powered lasers, we can nudge those bad boys out of our way. That will be much easier than trying to change vectors every 2 days. The objects that are big enough to turn Earth completely inside out , we will nudge ourselves out of harms way.

 

Also, space thins out rather nicely outside the Oort Cloud. There will be little to cause us concern until we approach Alpha.

 

I hope I am not annoying you. You seem rather nice. Merry Christmas.

Edited December 26, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[mooeypoo]

that doesn't solve the problem, though. And don't get me wrong, btw, I'd *DEFINITELY* watch such series. It sounds like an AWESOME idea for a tv show, and, quite honestly, I would watch it even if the science was not extremely accurate. That's what stories and TV shows are for -- fantasy.

 

But since we're talking science, it should be mentioned that there *are* realistic problems with actually doing this... If you *want* to solve them artistically, you can try and find a way to maneuver the earth while in transit.

 

I mean.. the entire planet is moving .. what's one more stretch, no?

[pywakit]

that doesn't solve the problem, though. And don't get me wrong, btw, I'd *DEFINITELY* watch such series. It sounds like an AWESOME idea for a tv show, and, quite honestly, I would watch it even if the science was not extremely accurate. That's what stories and TV shows are for -- fantasy.

 

But since we're talking science, it should be mentioned that there *are* realistic problems with actually doing this... If you *want* to solve them artistically, you can try and find a way to maneuver the earth while in transit.

 

I mean.. the entire planet is moving .. what's one more stretch, no?

 

Lol. First, it's not a 'stretch'. It is within our technological ability. Everything I have suggested can be done ... now. Second, I don't think you are visualizing this fully. Those pyramids are CONTROLLED. We can actually ( if not slowly ) STEER Earth. Third. We will turn our planet around and approach Alpha BACKWARDS using our mighty thrusters to slow us to the exact vector necessary to get 'caught' by the star. It will work just fine.

 

And thank you very much. If you would please get a campaign going and bombard Goepp Circle Productions with 'fan mail', maybe they will get off their asses and help me finish the screen play. Lol. Just kidding.

 

But I have to say I am very disapponted in myself. I came up with this great idea, and fell on my butt. You have no idea how hard it is to get an original story in front of people like this. ( Thank you for contacting us, but we can NOT even look at your submission due to copyright laws ... Thank you for considering our production company and good luck with your story .... whatever it is .... because we didn't look. ) Lol. Frakes told me ( through his assistant Daisy ) that if they liked the script as much as the treatment, he would go to bat for me with Paramount. They also thought it would make a great series, and asked me for 2 years of future episodes ( thumbnails ). I have that and a lot more. But they were not willing to spend a half million to hire a good screenwriter. *sigh*

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

PS: The planet is already moving. We are just going to move it somewhere else!

 

)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ok Mooey. I start out my story as a 'real life' - real science adventure. I have a retired NASA engineer for a neighbor, and he loved the story, too. Couldn't find serious fault, but didn't really want to go to Alpha ... Lol.

 

Later in the story ... a few decades in the future, ( and by the way, this story is like "Law and Order". We could have several different series going simultaneously, following different characters ) as we head out of the solar system we make a rather amazing discovery.

 

50 miles down, as we continue to increase our underground living space, we come across an artifact imbedded in the Earth's crust. A very special building, actually. As it turns out, we were not the original inhabitants of this planet. This building was a calling card from the race who used to live on Earth.

 

The kicker? Earth wasn't native to our sun, either. They moved it. When their sun was dying. They lived under this 'new' sun for a few hundred thousand years ... and ended up abandoning Earth for reasons unknown .... long before Earth was struck by Orpheus ...

 

But they left a treasure trove of technology for whoever found it. And this will change everything we know about ourselves ... the universe .... and where we end up going.

 

Like it? No?

Edited December 26, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[Zolar V]

Hm, it seems you might have some misconseptions about radar. its is quite nearly impossible to use it for what you say due to both velocities of the object and the planet and its transmission power loss over distance. For instance a 1kw Radar signal might reach flight level 10.. or 10,000ft and bounce back to the station. by the time it gets there it is around .001w total power and you have to factor in the time and doppler effect.

 

i do have a question tho, why would the sun annialhate? if you have our sun (a relativly light density star with a high gravitational field-and realy hot) and had a collision with a planet that is relativly heavy in comparison but the same size, the gravitational field is greater than the suns but is also cold-traveling at extreem velocity. would your sun and planet smash each other but then due to the gravitational fields and the impact would it not smash, lets say the sun and a piece of the sun stays and the planet while the rest of the sun folows the planet and altering its trajectory. depending on the velocity would it not follow an eliptical trajectory and slowly rebuild the sun in the center of the solar system? i have seen a similar thing happen to 2 galaxies, where the star slowly crashed into another star and eventually merged.

[insane_alien]

Hm, it seems you might have some misconseptions about radar. its is quite nearly impossible to use it for what you say due to both velocities of the object and the planet and its transmission power loss over distance. For instance a 1kw Radar signal might reach flight level 10.. or 10,000ft and bounce back to the station. by the time it gets there it is around .001w total power and you have to factor in the time and doppler effect.

 

lol, like we're going to use a single groundbased 1kW radar system fo detecting potential impactors over the enitre earth. i imagine there would be a multitude of high power radar systems. and we wouldn't be relying purely on radar either.

[Sisyphus]

Did you watch Space: 1999 as a child? I always wondered if a detonation of a nuclear waste facility was enough energy to actually get the moon going like that. Of course that show had little scientific merit regardless, but the fine looking women and scary rubber-suit monsters more than made up for it.

 

Heh, no, I'm not familiar with that.

 

I got to thinking in reading this thread that if getting to a distant destination is the goal, and you have the resources to move a planet, you might want to consider moving the entire solar system instead. It pretty much eliminates the problem of solar dependence. From a purely literary standpoint you gotta love the idea of "taking home with you on the road".

 

This also reminds me of Larry Niven's Puppeteers, with their "Fleet of Worlds". He's been co-authoring new books in that setting. That's the one where their world got so hot from the trillions of inhabitants that it couldn't be left in orbit lest it overheat (hmm).

 

(I think the Ringworld could also be moved by firing up that solar laser, couldn't it? Something gleaned from one of the later books, if memory serves.)

 

Yeah, I immediately thought of Puppeteers, too. Niven had the main planet kept warm just from waste heat of their civilization, and mini "fusion balls" orbiting the farming worlds as artificial suns, IIRC. I also don't seem to remember it being explained exactly how they got everything moving in the first place, though at least he recognized the magnitude of the feat to make Louis Wu suitably awed by it.

 

I've only read the first two Ringworld books, but as of the second one actually moving the whole thing was mentioned as a theoretical possibility. Though an extremely impractical one - it would cause havoc with the sun, have to have very small acceleration to avoid leaving the ring behind, and be damn hard to steer.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Electrolysis powered by geothermal production of electricity.

 

Acceptable?

 

No, not acceptable. It's just a matter of magnitude. I'll repeat my calculation above, that the minimum energy needed is 900,000,000,000 times our current yearly capacity. 60 times the age of the universe worth of energy consumption at our current rate, to frame it another way. And "realistically," it would probably be a lot more than that. There just isn't anywhere near enough energy available, not in the entire Earth.

 

That's the main problem, but there are others. Have you figured out how much thrust you need per acceleration, taking into account the Earth's own gravity pulling exhaust back? And have you figured out how much acceleration is possible without, for example, earthquakes big enough to kill everybody?

Edited December 26, 2009 by Sisyphus
Consecutive posts merged.

[pywakit]

Hm, it seems you might have some misconseptions about radar. its is quite nearly impossible to use it for what you say due to both velocities of the object and the planet and its transmission power loss over distance. For instance a 1kw Radar signal might reach flight level 10.. or 10,000ft and bounce back to the station. by the time it gets there it is around .001w total power and you have to factor in the time and doppler effect.

 

i do have a question tho, why would the sun annialhate? if you have our sun (a relativly light density star with a high gravitational field-and realy hot) and had a collision with a planet that is relativly heavy in comparison but the same size, the gravitational field is greater than the suns but is also cold-traveling at extreem velocity. would your sun and planet smash each other but then due to the gravitational fields and the impact would it not smash, lets say the sun and a piece of the sun stays and the planet while the rest of the sun folows the planet and altering its trajectory. depending on the velocity would it not follow an eliptical trajectory and slowly rebuild the sun in the center of the solar system? i have seen a similar thing happen to 2 galaxies, where the star slowly crashed into another star and eventually merged.

 

Perhaps I do have misconceptions about radar. Ok. What would you suggest as a good alternative? Or is there no way to detect potential EI's ( Earth impacters )? Next question. Can't computers do the 'heavy lifting' when it comes to plotting trajectories?

 

Did I forget to mention the velocity of Williams Rogue? Let's call it 220 Km/sec. I think there is going to be some serious kinetic energy released. Yes ... things would settle down after a few million ( or billion ) years. But I suspect that the entire solar sysyem will take a rather large hit from this impact. This object is going to knock the sun off it's galactic path. Maybe the outer planets will survive this, but I doubt it. Earth most certainly would be initially reduced to a loose pile of rubble ( at best ). Sure, things would settle down here, too. But I don't think even bacteria deep in the Earth would survive this one.

 

And most certainly our orbits would all be affected by a sun with almost double it's original mass and accompanying gravity. This would not be a pretty thing to watch. Well, it would be if we were at a safe distance. Lol.

 

Not to give plot lines away ( as if I haven't already ), but even with all our efforts .... and our planet being beyond Pluto's orbit when this happens ... we are still going to suffer some serious damage. The story wouldn't be much fun if bad things didn't happen ... ( both macro, and micro scales )

[Moontanman]

You have said this a lot, care to elaborate on this?

 

This just requires existing technology and a lot of hard work ...

 

I know of no existing technology that is capable of moving the planet or even coming close to moving the planet. Your idea about geo thermal is flawed as was pointed out by Sisyphus but having the energy required doesn't mean you have the ability to direct it the way you want.

 

Please let us know what current technology can be used to move the earth, hard work or not.

[pywakit]

Sisyphus wrote:

 

No, not acceptable. It's just a matter of magnitude. I'll repeat my calculation above, that the minimum energy needed is 900,000,000,000 times our current yearly capacity. 60 times the age of the universe worth of energy consumption at our current rate, to frame it another way. And "realistically," it would probably be a lot more than that. There just isn't anywhere near enough energy available, not in the entire Earth.

 

That's the main problem, but there are others. Have you figured out how much thrust you need per acceleration, taking into account the Earth's own gravity pulling exhaust back? And have you figured out how much acceleration is possible without, for example, earthquakes big enough to kill everybody?

______________

 

Wow. You seem to be kind of angry about this. Sorry to upset you. It's not my fault our sun is going to blow up! Lol.

 

Ok. One thing at a time. I have no doubt your calculations are correct, but correct for what? Launching Earth like a rocket? Ion Drive ( Cassini? ) produces a nearly negligable thrust, but it is continuous. Are you suggesting that Earth's velocity can not be increased? We can apply that much 'force' against our planet, and NOTHING will happen?

 

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Isn't this a basic tenet of physics?

 

Hmmm. Exhaust. Well, hydrogen atoms will leave our pyramids at pretty extreme velocities. I am kind of hoping we will get a lot of them back. Don't really want to blow off our whole atmosphere. We are not fusing them into helium, thankfully.

 

Thrust per acceleration. Nope. Can you figure that out for me? As far as earthquakes go .... certainly we will cause them. Big ones. In fact, we just might lose an underground city or two. But maybe you didn't read the part about millions of sensors planted around ( and in ) the earth. Monitored in real time by computers, the pyramids would constantly be adjusting thrust to prevent causing total collapse of our crust.

 

And I am going to take a guess and say that our engineers will be doing their best to create suitable new 'building codes' for the underground cities. Don't we know how to make structures that can withstand serious earthquakes?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You have said this a lot, care to elaborate on this?

 

 

 

I know of no existing technology that is capable of moving the planet or even coming close to moving the planet. Your idea about geo thermal is flawed as was pointed out by Sisyphus but having the energy required doesn't mean you have the ability to direct it the way you want.

 

Please let us know what current technology can be used to move the earth, hard work or not.

 

Hmmm. You seem a little upset, too. Do we already have these machines? No. Could we build them? I think so. Do we already have laser technology? Do we know what hydrogen atoms will do when excited? Do we know how to deal with extreme heat? Do we have super-computers? Do we have motion sensors?

 

I never suggested this would not be a challenge ... but how does any of it violate laws of physics, motion, and gravity? Are you suggesting that we are not bright enough to calculate the best path for our exit from the solar system? Or tough enough to build these pyramids on the antarctic continent?

 

Would it be better if we just sat here and waited to die? At least working on this project would give humanity hope ...

 

And really, astrophysicists have theorized about changing our orbit by shuffling asteroids around and using their meager gravity to accomplish it. I don't think it's 'impossible' at all to increase our orbital speed. But it will take longer than 8 minutes to do it.

 

But I guess you think it's a terrible idea. I am sorry for offending you.

 

Shoot. I was kind of proud to be the first guy in the history of Man to write a story about moving our planet to another star. *sigh* So much for having an original thought. My bad.

Edited December 26, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.

[Moontanman]

I'm not upset pywakit, I just asked for more than grandiose claims and subtle insinuations. i doubt very much we have the technology to move the earth via the methods you suggested much less with the power sources you suggested. And yes I know the Earth could be moved in tiny increments with asteroids but thats not part of what were talking about now is it?.

[pywakit]

I'm not upset pywakit, I just asked for more than grandiose claims and subtle insinuations. i doubt very much we have the technology to move the earth via the methods you suggested much less with the power sources you suggested. And yes I know the Earth could be moved in tiny increments with asteroids but thats not part of what were talking about now is it?.

 

Ouch! I think our thrust engines ( 3000 ) would exert more constant force on our planet than a tiny asteroid. And if I am not mistaken, this forum is 'speculations'. I have not interjected anything magical, metaphysical, or supernatural into this endeavor.

 

Don't like geothermal? Ok. Let's go nuclear then. Each pyramid gets it's own powerplant. Can you think of a fuel that would be better ( or less polluting ) than hydrogen? Are you suggesting that lasers can't excite hydrogen atoms?

 

By the way, my story was copywritten with the Library of Congress in 1999, and registered with WGA-W in the same year ( #761682 ), which predates Larry Niven by a few years. I did a lot of searching to find a similar story and found none. I suppose it's possible that someone did prior to me, though. I don't want to come across as appearing grandiose.

Edited December 26, 2009 by pywakit

[Klaynos]

I've a quick question, what is the mass of "The Rogue"?

[pywakit]

I've a quick question, what is the mass of "The Rogue"?

 

I have never tried to calculate it. I couldn't if I wanted to. I describe it as a castoff from 2 colliding stars. 3x Jupiter's diameter, and comprised entirely of iron and nickel ... the nickel being the outer layer. It is lighter, isn't it? Gravity has crushed it to a near perfect sphere. It's atmosphere ( if it has any ) would be about a billionth of a meter in thickness.

 

My sincere apologies for not having the skills to calculate its mass.

 

Anyway, this object does not contain the correct chemicals to radiate anything but infrared. It does not have the mass to collapse further. My offhand guess is it actually exceeds the sun's mass. Maybe several times the sun's mass.

 

My goal was to make it beautiful, mysterious, and deadly. And it had to be massive enough to take out our sun and give us no other reasonable alternative but to try moving Earth ...

 

Incidentally, it was discovered ( of course ) entirely by accident. Rather traumatizing for the young astronomer at Mt. Palomar ....

 

So do you hate this too? Lol.

 

More to the point ... does this ( any of it ) violate physics?

 

Well, maybe Mooey still likes the idea.

Edited December 26, 2009 by pywakit

[mooeypoo]

I do, I just don't think it's completely realistic.

 

That never stopped me from enjoying awesome sci-fi shows before, though. As far as I'm concerned, as long as there's enough true science to make the technobabble plausible/understandable, I am willing to stretch the boundaries of my beliefs for shows. after all, that's why they're science-fiction and not science.

 

I like the idea as a show, I think it can be a great "epic adventure" with some nice twists about technology and how humanity deals with a massive catastrophe.

 

Star Trek, for instance, is not realistic. It has some elements in it that are based on plausible technology, enough to keep people's view of the universe as realistic, relatively.

 

In a science, forum, though, we check the boundaries of actual science. I don't quite see how the idea is realistic. I don't need it to be realistic to enjoy it in a show, though.

 

btw, if you look it up online, you will find that people argue the scientific validity of existing shows like Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, etc etc. The fact nerds like us try to see the parallels to reality doesn't mean the shows aren't GOOD.

 

And the fact you -- as a writer/producer of a show like that cares enough about science to actually try and make the idea as realistic as possible is absolutely noteworthy and commendable.

 

I hope there's more out there like you. Much better than having all those new agey crap or the new trend about how the world explodes in 2012.

[pywakit]

Mooey wrote:

 

I just don't think it's completely realistic

 

Please define 'completely realistic'. Do you mean 'physically impossible'? Or just a serious challenge? Do I violate any laws? Am I forgetting something basic? Hydrogen is a bad propellent? Can't extract the hydrogen? Can't pipe oxygen underground? Can't increase Earth's orbital velocity? Can't slowly pick our way out of the solar system?

 

Lol. Anyway, thank you ... I think. I didn't intend to make a federal case out of this. I only mentioned it because of Genecks 'tag line'. But you kind of invited me to elaborate, so I did. And apparently caused a bit of a stir.

 

So as long as I am here, and this IS a science forum, why don't you all apply your actual knowlege to this project and tell me why it is 'impossible'.

 

Or do a few of you think you already have? I'm guessing this has never occurred to any of you before. ( And why would such a stupid idea ever occur to us? ) But you never know what may be heading our way someday, and it might be a good idea to decide if things got desperate enough, we could actually have this as a last-ditch option ....

 

These questions are not so important but ... Rogue planet could never take out the sun? Or us? Rogue itself 'impossible'? Seriously ... take it apart. And let's see if I can properly defend it. If my story ever gets off the ground, I want it to follow science to the 'T' if possible.

 

I am not convinced on the amount of energy someone thinks is required. I think he was thinking in terms of turning Earth toward Alpha's expected position and 'blasting off'! I really think all it takes is a slight increase in velocity. I also think that we would essentially spiral north of the plane of the ecliptic ... still in orbit around the sun, but each successive orbit would take us farther, and farther away. Am I wrong?

 

Could we not 'gently' tilt Earth with our hydrolasers? Slowly steer our our palnet?

 

Strictly from a cinematic viewpoint, by the way, Earth would be an incredible site from space. And on the surface of the southern hemisphere. A total snowball, the intense blue lasers would light up the ice of the southern hemisphere .... The northern hemisphere would be in shadow, of course ... only faintly lit through photons refracting through our dense atmosphere. Picture it from the Moon ...

 

And working around the lasers would be like being on an inhospitable alien world. Harsh, but beautiful. How impressive would 3000 mile-high pyramids look? No doubt the vibrations would be pretty serious, but of course, the hydrolasers could be shut down for maintenance.

 

The lasers would be a brilliant green 500 foot diameter beam reaching into space ... then turning cobalt blue as the hydrogen is injected. Makes for a spectacular visual, don't you think?

 

Anyway, if you are already tired of this 'mental exercise', it's cool. Thank you all again for your interest, though. At least, I might have given you something new to think about!

Edited December 27, 2009 by pywakit

[vordhosbn]

I am not sure that the energy from all the hydrogen on Earth will suffice to move the Earth and keep it warm enough to Alpha Centauri (for reasonable amount of time). Distances in space are really huge.

[mooeypoo]

Please define 'completely realistic'. Do you mean 'physically impossible'? Or just a serious challenge? Do I violate any laws? Am I forgetting something basic? Hydrogen is a bad propellent? Can't extract the hydrogen? Can't pipe oxygen underground? Can't increase Earth's orbital velocity? Can't slowly pick our way out of the solar system?

Well, first off, the amount of energy and effort it would take to move the entire world, it sounds to me it would be easier to just build a fleet of more maneuverable, better controlled, smaller ships to carry everyone to safety.

 

The word starts from the moment the star is detected, right? I don't think building what you suggest will take any less time, and the fleet of ships is just a lot more practical, for the reasons that were raised in the thread, the least of which is utilizing fuel properly.

 

Second, I am not sure I see how this works without obliterating life on Earth. Our planet doesn't react too well to "movements" -- to forces from the outside. The movement is one thing, but accelerating the Earth out of orbit (plus ability to maneuver, which means applied force again, etc) will, seems to me, shake the mantle and core in a way that will result in HEAVY geological damage. Underground or no, we won't be too happy, to say the least.

 

So, I don't know. I am not sure if it is totally impossible, you don't seem to violate any laws of physics (or at least you seem to have answers to how not to), but I don't see how we would ever actually do such a thing.

 

The drawbacks of taking the ENTIRE planet (the planet is HUGE! controlling it, maneuvering it, making sure we have observations all around it at real-time to avoid collisions, etc... wooh!) seem to me to outweigh the benefits (what, saving our "home"? but it won't look/feel and be our home, really afte what it'll go through).

 

And you can get a better result by building a fleet of ships that are much more maneuverable and predictable, and have no chance of weird unpredictable geologic catastrophes wiping out large portion of the population at a time.

 

Lol. Anyway, thank you ... I think. I didn't intend to make a federal case out of this. I only mentioned it because of that 'tag line'. But you kind of invited me to elaborate, so I did. And apparently caused a bit of a stir.

I don't think you should take this stir as a bad thing. If anything, you should take it as a sign that people think the idea is interesting. Seriously, you should see the discussions we've had about startrek technology, and that's a show that was clearly successful.

 

Fantasy isn't meant to be 100% realistic, so we give it leeway for imagination. It's a good thing.

 

So as long as I am here, and this IS a science forum, why don't you all apply your actual knowlege to this project and tell me why it is 'impossible'.

Again, I'm not too sure it's impossible so much as impractical. Read up for some of the reasons.. You might be able to move the planet, but it will be easier, take less time and prove more useful to build a fleet of ships, instead. So.. why bother?

 

Anyhoo, don't discourage. I think it's a good idea for a show and the fact you care so much about the science behind it gives it even more credibility, even if it won't have perfect realistic science. We all need to step out of the bounds of reality a bit and fantasize

 

~moo

[pywakit]

Well, first off, the amount of energy and effort it would take to move the entire world, it sounds to me it would be easier to just build a fleet of more maneuverable, better controlled, smaller ships to carry everyone to safety.

 

The word starts from the moment the star is detected, right? I don't think building what you suggest will take any less time, and the fleet of ships is just a lot more practical, for the reasons that were raised in the thread, the least of which is utilizing fuel properly.

 

Second, I am not sure I see how this works without obliterating life on Earth. Our planet doesn't react too well to "movements" -- to forces from the outside. The movement is one thing, but accelerating the Earth out of orbit (plus ability to maneuver, which means applied force again, etc) will, seems to me, shake the mantle and core in a way that will result in HEAVY geological damage. Underground or no, we won't be too happy, to say the least.

 

So, I don't know. I am not sure if it is totally impossible, you don't seem to violate any laws of physics (or at least you seem to have answers to how not to), but I don't see how we would ever actually do such a thing.

 

The drawbacks of taking the ENTIRE planet (the planet is HUGE! controlling it, maneuvering it, making sure we have observations all around it at real-time to avoid collisions, etc... wooh!) seem to me to outweigh the benefits (what, saving our "home"? but it won't look/feel and be our home, really afte what it'll go through).

 

And you can get a better result by building a fleet of ships that are much more maneuverable and predictable, and have no chance of weird unpredictable geologic catastrophes wiping out large portion of the population at a time.

 

 

I don't think you should take this stir as a bad thing. If anything, you should take it as a sign that people think the idea is interesting. Seriously, you should see the discussions we've had about startrek technology, and that's a show that was clearly successful.

 

Fantasy isn't meant to be 100% realistic, so we give it leeway for imagination. It's a good thing.

 

 

Again, I'm not too sure it's impossible so much as impractical. Read up for some of the reasons.. You might be able to move the planet, but it will be easier, take less time and prove more useful to build a fleet of ships, instead. So.. why bother?

 

Anyhoo, don't discourage. I think it's a good idea for a show and the fact you care so much about the science behind it gives it even more credibility, even if it won't have perfect realistic science. We all need to step out of the bounds of reality a bit and fantasize

 

~moo

 

You are a very patient scientist. I like you already. But your response to our predicament is ( forgive me please ) not very rational. Please explain ( or calculate ) how many ships we would have to build to transport SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE! OMG!

 

I'll try ... Let's see. How many could realistically fit on each ship? Shall we say ... 10,000? That means you have to build SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND SHIPS. Ooooops. WE need more ships. Unless we are not bring any animals with us. Triple it. Wait. We need to bring reserve supplies. Food. Water. You know we can not recycle 100% of these things. Close ... but we will lose some every year.

 

How big must these ships be to carry 10,000 people safely? A mile or 2 in diameter? They will have to be huge rotating cylinders, since we must have artificial grav.

 

How will we transport all the materials to space for these ships? Will we build them in space, or will we go to the Moon and build them there? I think I'd rather work in Antarctica.

 

How are we going to transport all the aged, and infirm to these ships? Or do we just say ... "tough luck"? How about transporting all the animals? What about all the sea-life?

 

To do it your way, we will have to build AT LEAST THREE MILLION ships at MINIMUM! Out in space! Yikes!!!

 

What are the energy costs trying to lift that much mass OFF our planet? And you still have not dealt with the 'killer' radiation problem. Energised particles will rip through those ships as if they aren't there. I'm thinking some serious cancer levels, and mutations. For every biological creature.

 

And again ... what if we get to Alpha ... nearly dead from lack of water ... horribly mutated from radiation ... and low on every resource .... and there's NO good planet to land on? What do we do then? I'm thinking ... die.

 

Really, if you think the whole process through, buildng ships just is not 'realistic'. Not for a million 'lucky' lottery winners, or all 7 billion.

 

Yes. You are absolutely right on one thing. Earth would not be very recognizable .... for a long, long time. But we will have learned by necessity to be much better stewards of our planet. We will have an extremely energy efficient society world wide. We will have learned to work together like never before. And we will still have all the resources of an entire planet.

 

Yes. Lot's of people won't make it. But most will. Most species will survive, because we will be able to provide technological ways to help them.

 

I understand this idea must seem crazy. But trying to move our entire population in ships is way crazier.

 

I think this is more than a good show. I think it is the very possible future of Mankind.

 

But ... of course ... if it's IMPOSSIBLE, then no point in trying.

 

Have I made a good case here?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Mooey wrote:

 

Second, I am not sure I see how this works without obliterating life on Earth. Our planet doesn't react too well to "movements" -- to forces from the outside. The movement is one thing, but accelerating the Earth out of orbit (plus ability to maneuver, which means applied force again, etc) will, seems to me, shake the mantle and core in a way that will result in HEAVY geological damage. Underground or no, we won't be too happy, to say the least.

 

Hmmm. I guess you don't live on the salt water. Our planet is subject to quite severe tidal forces 24/7. You just don't pay attention, because it is 'normal'. We are not 'suddenly' accelerating. You would never feel a thing. No different than switching on your ion drive. Our planet would be subject to LESS tidal forces the farther we got from the Moon, and the rest of our solar system. We will never have to make any 'sudden' changes in direction. We couldn't if we wanted to. But we won't NEED to. We will have a million 'eyes' mapping out the best path on an on-going basis. Our changes will be well planned and very very slow. Remember, the worst effect on the mantle will be the thrusters. But they don't just have an on/off switch. They can apply thrust from zero to max, and anywhere in between. DEPENDANT on stresses on the crust, which will be monitored constantly.

 

We will build fantastic futurized cities underground. Almost all the comforts of home. Never have a shortage of ANYTHING. Just no real sky to look at. Each 'city' could have a light source that tracks across the ceiling, approximating the sun's movements. You would be very surprised how quickly we would get used to this. We could have a 'virtual' Moon, and stars too. We can build all this stuff right now if we wanted to. Ever look at a diamond screen at a football game?

 

No more monsoons killing people. No more hurricanes. No more starving people dropping like flies. Excellent health care and controlled immunizations. Sports. Academics. Tv. Movies. Internet. Hot rod mag-lev cars. Lol. But probably less flying, and no more ocean cruises. Sort of. We could still cruise the oceans in submarines.

 

I live on the water ( Puget Sound ) in a house I designed and built in 1995. I would miss it terribly. But I would not have the slightest qualms about embarking on this fantastic journey! Maybe I could rate a little ( underground ) lakeside cottage ... Lol.

 

I know. I'm out of my mind, right?

 

It's ok. I understand.

Edited December 27, 2009 by pywakit
Consecutive posts merged.