The article is a much misinterpreted take on what NASA was talking
about. Forget piddly environmental global warming. The sun itself is
heating up and enlarging steadily. Although it will remain on the main
sequence for about another 5 billion years, the earth will only be
habitible for about another billion -- maybe less before the oceans
evaporate away. These guys were talking about placing a 160 Km asteroid
or comet in solar orbit at 1 A.U., leading the earth-moon system. This
would gradually shift the earth and moon outward with respect to the
sun. About once every 6000 years the asteroid would have to be swung
around Jupiter to replenish its energy in order to continue the
process. This procedure would make the earth habitible for perhaps an
extra 4 billion years for whatever species it may harbor at the time. I
see nothing wrong with long-range planning even if we aren't going to be
here to benefit.
James R. Cunningham wrote:
>
> The article is a much misinterpreted take on what NASA was talking
> about. Forget piddly environmental global warming. The sun itself is
> heating up and enlarging steadily. Although it will remain on the main
> sequence for about another 5 billion years, the earth will only be
> habitible for about another billion -- maybe less before the oceans
> evaporate away. These guys were talking about placing a 160 Km asteroid
> or comet in solar orbit at 1 A.U., leading the earth-moon system. This
> would gradually shift the earth and moon outward with respect to the
> sun. About once every 6000 years the asteroid would have to be swung
> around Jupiter to replenish its energy in order to continue the
> process. This procedure would make the earth habitible for perhaps an
> extra 4 billion years for whatever species it may harbor at the time. I
> see nothing wrong with long-range planning even if we aren't going to be
> here to benefit.
Well really, considering the current rate of
technological advancement and the renewed interest
in space travel I think we should be VERY capable of
interstellar travel within 100 or 200 years, so this
really is not a problem.
So in 20 years when the next genius discovers that
0.999 (repeating) is NOT equal to 1.0 and uses that
new math to develop the anitgravity/hyperlightspeed
drive we can have a good laugh about the dying Sun and
get ready to relocate.
More seriously, you say "the Earth will only be
habitable for the next billion years", really do you
think we WON'T have interstellar transport within
a billion years from now??
:o)
-Roman
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
its not nice to fool with mother nature...
murphy's law... if something does go wrong, we may not be here to allow a
few more years without respect to the extra billion years
> More seriously, you say "the Earth will only be
> habitable for the next billion years", really do you
> think we WON'T have interstellar transport within
> a billion years from now??
That's making assumptions based on what we don't know, and based on theories
at best, fiction at worst.
At any rate we don't know if humanity will exist tomorrow. The chances say
yes but to rule out the improbabilities, maybe tomorrow life as we know it
will be radically altered.
Jeff
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Extra 3 billion years (or more). Other than that I fully agree.
JimC
Jim wrote:
> its not nice to fool with mother nature...
> murphy's law... if something does go wrong, we may not be here to allow a
> few more years without respect to the extra billion years
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> More seriously, you say "the Earth will only be
> habitable for the next billion years", really do you
> think we WON'T have interstellar transport within
> a billion years from now??
Or a much better way of dealing with the "problem" in, say, a few hundred
years? At the rate we're expanding our knowledge, anything we do now
would look pretty stupid in 2501 or 3001, either of which is a negligible
difference in terms of a billion-year time scale.
Dale
--
A train stops at a train station. A bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a workstation...
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Most species tend to last between 2 to 4 million years, though some stick around
for a lot longer and others go much sooner. Individual species of Homo seem to
range toward the short end of the scale.
If I were a bettor, I'd guess we're likely to be replaced sometime within the
next 3 million years or less. However, the argument holds whether we are here
or not. I'd still want our successors to survive when the time comes.
JimC
Jeff DeMaagd wrote:
> At any rate we don't know if humanity will exist tomorrow. The chances say
> yes but to rule out the improbabilities, maybe tomorrow life as we know it
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Our judgement and intelligence seem to be little changed in the last 1-2000
years. Why should we assume folks down the line will be much different?
JimC
Dale Botkin wrote:
> Or a much better way of dealing with the "problem" in, say, a few hundred
> years? At the rate we're expanding our knowledge, anything we do now
> would look pretty stupid in 2501 or 3001, either of which is a negligible
> difference in terms of a billion-year time scale.
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Of course I think we'll have interstellar transport much sooner than that.
However, I suspect it may never be practical to relocate all members of the
principal species, much less all members of all species (unless you move the
entire planet, a la 'Witches of Karres'). If the choice becomes moving
population by way of space ships, even large ones (hollowed out asteroids or
such), I speculate that the production rate of additional cargo capacity could
not be maintained equal to population growth. To assume otherwise would be
unpermissibly optimistic by my personal standards. As an aside, at a board
meeting of the Robert & Virginia Heinlein Foundation last Friday, a 20 year
old tape of a speech in Butler, MO by Robert Heinlein was played for the
board. In it he strongly encouraged that extrastellar transport be
established in the near future to assure the survival of at least some of
earths' species.
Jim
Roman Black wrote:
> More seriously, you say "the Earth will only be
> habitable for the next billion years", really do you
> think we WON'T have interstellar transport within
> a billion years from now??
> :o)
> -Roman
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
> Our judgement and intelligence seem to be little changed in the last 1-2000
> years. Why should we assume folks down the line will be much different?
>
> JimC
>
> Dale Botkin wrote:
>
> > Or a much better way of dealing with the "problem" in, say, a few hundred
> > years? At the rate we're expanding our knowledge, anything we do now
> > would look pretty stupid in 2501 or 3001, either of which is a negligible
> > difference in terms of a billion-year time scale.
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
I agree with that, but people are pretty much unchanged.
JimC
Dale Botkin wrote:
> Rather than arguing that point, I'll point out that our technological
> knowledge and expertise seems to be growing just fine.
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, James R. Cunningham wrote:
>
> > Our judgement and intelligence seem to be little changed in the last 1-2000
> > years. Why should we assume folks down the line will be much different?
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
Though I believe it is possible that the greenhouse effect could result in a
much more drastic change in temperature than currently projected & accepted
(such as some unconsidered significant gain in positive feedback as
thresholds are crossed) I'd expect any real opportunities put into effect
methods being discussed are far off - tending to be more in line with the
occurrence of the eventual drastic increase of solar flux reaching our
planet.
Rather than move the earth (with all the risks that entail) I'd look into
moving the species.
While I am skeptical of "interstellar travel" anytime soon, interplanetary
travel is already within our grasp...
So it would seem far reasonable to do it in steps:
First, make mars habitable using techniques similar to those discussed in
the article that started this thread: change comet orbits, but in this case
to impact mars so as to build oceans and increase mass (to enhance the
ability of the planet to better hold onto an atmosphere...).
In conjunction with this wee could seed mars with selected life forms to
help generate a more reasonable (for humans) atmosphere.
With the increase in solar flux the temperature of mars would also increase.
Perhaps the orbit of mars would be tweaked as discussed for earth - but
before significant habitation by humans.
After a couple of minutes careful consideration, I would move
Venus to about the orbit of Mars instead, and on top of that,
steer a nice wet comet or three into it to import some water
and cut down on the smog. Mars is too small, too cold, and
too far away to do much with. Venus, on the other hand, is
the right size, is currently a worthless piece of real
estate, and any mistake during the move doesnt break all the
eggs in the basket.
> Though I believe it is possible that the greenhouse effect could result in a
> much more drastic change in temperature than currently projected & accepted
> (such as some unconsidered significant gain in positive feedback as
> thresholds are crossed) I'd expect any real opportunities put into effect
> methods being discussed are far off - tending to be more in line with the
> occurrence of the eventual drastic increase of solar flux reaching our
> planet.
>
> Rather than move the earth (with all the risks that entail) I'd look into
> moving the species.
>
> While I am skeptical of "interstellar travel" anytime soon, interplanetary
> travel is already within our grasp...
>
> So it would seem far reasonable to do it in steps:
>
> First, make mars habitable using techniques similar to those discussed in
> the article that started this thread: change comet orbits, but in this case
> to impact mars so as to build oceans and increase mass (to enhance the
> ability of the planet to better hold onto an atmosphere...).
>
> In conjunction with this wee could seed mars with selected life forms to
> help generate a more reasonable (for humans) atmosphere.
>
> With the increase in solar flux the temperature of mars would also increase.
>
> Perhaps the orbit of mars would be tweaked as discussed for earth - but
> before significant habitation by humans.
>
> etc.
> Bruce.
>
I hope NASA engineers double check the differences between the english and
metric measures before they push the button. Anyways one evening I saw a
NASA scientist on some pop TV show describing how Mars
could be tera-formed for human habitation in only a few hundred thousand
years.
I should hope by then our species has done what it has with microchips with
genetic engineering - engineering us bigger and better brains and longer
lives, so better, brighter humans can even design better and brighter
humans. At least if you have enough money to afford the drugs/genes.
NASA has their priorities messed up. They should put all the funds from
manned space projects (the shuttle, space station, et.) into nuclear
propulsion research. We need a plasma-fission (or fusion) MHD turbojet.
I personaly suspect if bad management doesn't destroy or retard us into
stagnation, our destiny is evolution into a quantum computing cortex
fabricated on a superdense neutron star. Only a few miles across, yet more
dense than a million earths. What would such a mind consider?
Probably how to keep selfish, wicked, viscious, criminaly insane mammals
that can't help devouring their own family (species) from getting any more
advanced technology and terrorizing the advanced galactic civilizations.
There goes the neighborhood!
If I met an alien, I would be horribly ashamed at the stuff that happens
down here. They would no doubt tell us to stop deceiving ourselves and grow
up, we cause them the same loathing and disgust we experience when we a
bunch of city gangsters selling each other poison (exploiting weakness of
the deluded sick) and shooting each other over 'turf'. Truly pathetic.
On behalf of the dignity and honor of humanity, we really should stop trying
to contact aliens untill we get our acts straight and grow up.
Scott
****************************************************************
Freedom is pursuing your carrot, not running from a stick.
The mob only rules what its members are allowed to achieve.
Democrats are the anvil, Republicans the Hammer, and we -
the Piggy Bank
****************************************************************
-- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
The article is a much misinterpreted take on what NASA was talking
about. Forget piddly environmental global warming. The sun itself is
heating up and enlarging steadily. Although it will remain on the main
sequence for about another 5 billion years, the earth will only be
habitible for about another billion -- maybe less before the oceans
evaporate away. These guys were talking about placing a 160 Km asteroid
or comet in solar orbit at 1 A.U., leading the earth-moon system. This
would gradually shift the earth and moon outward with respect to the
sun. About once every 6000 years the asteroid would have to be swung
around Jupiter to replenish its energy in order to continue the
process. This procedure would make the earth habitible for perhaps an
extra 4 billion years for whatever species it may harbor at the time. I
see nothing wrong with long-range planning even if we aren't going to be
here to benefit.
As long as they get their aim right...
Maybe they should practice on mars first.
--
Dave's Engineering Page: http://www.dvanhorn.org
I would have a link to http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?KC6ETE-9 here
in my signature line, but due to the inability of sysadmins at TELOCITY to
differentiate a signature line from the text of an email, I am forbidden to
have it.
I should add, we probably shouldn't wast our time praying to our gods
either. The God of truth and justice will hardly hear us - being preoccupied
with the prayers of our victims, and the demons that will demand a price we
wouldn't choose to pay, if we were wise or cared for our children.
>If I met an alien, I would be horribly ashamed at the stuff that happens
>down here. They would no doubt tell us to stop deceiving ourselves and grow
>up, we cause them the same loathing and disgust we experience when we a
>bunch of city gangsters selling each other poison (exploiting weakness of
>the deluded sick) and shooting each other over 'turf'. Truly pathetic.
>
>On behalf of the dignity and honor of humanity, we really should stop
trying {Quote hidden}
>to contact aliens untill we get our acts straight and grow up.
>
>Scott
>
>****************************************************************
>Freedom is pursuing your carrot, not running from a stick.
>The mob only rules what its members are allowed to achieve.
>Democrats are the anvil, Republicans the Hammer, and we -
> the Piggy Bank
>****************************************************************
>
>--
>http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
>[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
>
>
> After a couple of minutes careful consideration, I would move
> Venus to about the orbit of Mars instead, and on top of that,
> steer a nice wet comet or three into it to import some water
> and cut down on the smog. Mars is too small, too cold, and
> too far away to do much with. Venus, on the other hand, is
> the right size, is currently a worthless piece of real
> estate, and any mistake during the move doesnt break all the
> eggs in the basket.
As long as you are careful enough with the basket as you move Venus across
Earth's orbit ! :-)
mitvma.mit.edu
