Colonizing the Proxima Planet

Void · 2016-08-23 01:16:21

An artificial Plasenta, with nano-blood storage a thing to desire.

An organ to want. Many have already accepted the notion of artificial limbs, heart, and think that brain implants can bring us towards cyborghood. So, why not An artificial Plasenta, with nano-blood storage.

Ray Kurzweil (May want me to get off his idea). No, actually believes that nano-blood will allow a person with a non beating heart, to calmly go to the hospital for treatment because of the nano-blood. (Or I recall that).

I have mentioned him, because it will be harder for you to just rudely dismiss my post. Anyway, I do not specifically require nano-blood for the idea, but I think a new artificial organ which does this would be swell. It might function like a placenta, or maybe more of a blood reservoir.

Something to want in space, or underwater. The capacity to hold your breath for hours. (Maybe)

It is possible that this could be fitted in somewhere in the human body. For Homo Galactus, (Of the type I described in the previous post, perhaps a digestive system would be missing anyway, so lots of room until he/she gets a digestive system. (You wouldn't want baby pooping in the pouch would you?).

Be nice or I will hang around.

Last edited by Void (2016-08-23 01:16:52)

Void · 2016-08-24 13:11:25

So, we just got lucky.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sci … spartandhp
1.3 times the Mass, so, not too much more gravity? And better chances for a Magnetic field, Atmosphere and Volcanism, and perhaps water, I would think. But, you get a year older every 11 days.

Last edited by Void (2016-08-24 13:12:48)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-08-25 00:46:13

Here's the article I found:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/ … ri-planet/
1.3 times the mass of Earth means, that the planet probably has crustal plates, it has an active geology, with an orbital period of 11 days, it probably has a rotation rate of the same, thus is has a magnetic field, if it has the same density as the Earth, its diameter would be 1.09 times our own and its gravity would also be 1.09 times our own. A human could walk on this planet without too much discomfort. Even if solar flares have blasted away its atmosphere, it would still make an attractive terraforming target, as it is tidally locked, and probably has a massive ice cap on its dark side, which means lots of volatiles to terraform the planet with. I think chances are good it has an atmosphere of some sort, it ia 1.3 times our planet's mass, and it is a little further out from its star than it would have to be to get the equivalent radiation that Earth get from it Sun. It likely recycles its crust, so I would expect continents on its surface, and perhaps oceans too.

RobertDyck · 2016-08-25 01:41:11

I have described a theory in this book before: Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
If you believe this book, it means gravity from Earth's Moon causes tides. Not only tides in the ocean, but tides in the crust. Rotation of the Earth moves the bulge out of alignment, then the Moon's gravity pulls on that bulge causing the Earth's rotation to slow. This is moving the Earth into tide-lock with the Moon, but the Moon is too weak, it will never be tide locked. All that has been confirmed, it's not just a theory. This book goes further to speculate that the Earth's liquid outer core acts as a fluid bearing, so the inner core does not slow as much as the rest of the planet. This means the inner core is rotating faster. The inner core is not speeding up, the whole planet used to rotate that fast. It's just that tides work on the crust which is connected to the mantle, but the inner core is separated by the liquid outer core. This difference in rotation rate is key. The hot inner core causes convection of the liquid outer core. That convection would normally form counter-rotating cells. However, the difference in rotation rate between the mantle and the inner core makes the liquid outer core act as a fluid bearing. That organizes the convection cells to rotate in the same direction. That's what causes the dynamo. That dynamo creates the magnetic field. So this book argues a single large moon is required for a magnetic field. And the magnetic field is necessary for protection from solar wind, which would erode water from the planet.

I argue there are other ways this could happen. If Proxima b is not completely tide locked, the star can have the same effect as our Moon. Mercury is synchronized in a 3:2 relationship between it's orbit and rotation. But it isn't completely tide locked. Venus rotation rate is gradually changing due to tidal effects from the Sun's gravity. If this planet is not completely tide locked, then it would have a strong magnetic field. It's rotation would also prevent one side from getting too hot, the other from getting too cold. A strong magnetic field would allow it to retain water, and protection from radiation.

So now we need an image of the planet. The Keck telescope is actually a pair of telescopes in Hawaii, it can image a planet directly. A telescope in South America used a different technique to image planets around another star. Planets imaged so far have been large and far from their star. But Proxima is both close and very small. Could they image this planet? Will happen, it's only time. And would be nice if they could image the planet passing in front of it's star. Even if we don't get an image of the planet itself, the star's light would pass through the planet's atmosphere giving us a spectra that would tell us if it has an atmosphere, and what gasses are present.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-08-25 08:26:51

I would say, Proxima b would get its tides from Proxima and neighboring planets. You have to remember that at this scale, neighboring planets will probably be much closer than in our Solar System, their gravitational effects on Proxima will likely be quite significant, for one thing they will tug on Proxima b and pull it out of its other wise circular orbit, as Proxima b pulls away from its primary, he tides will decrease, Proxima b will get rounder, as it falls closer, Proxima b will be stretched into more of an egg shape, same with its oceans. Much the same thing happens with Io and Europa. We were pretty lucky, not only is this an Earth like planet, it also is a planet that someday, humans might inhabit. 1.09-G isn't too bad. Proxima is older than out Sun, which might mean this planet might be less dense if there were less metals formed in this earlier stage of the Universe. Being larger probably means it started wit a thicker atmosphere than Earth, and if its further away, then the greenhouse effect probably compensates for the increased distance. An interesting experiment is to find out if Earth plants will grow under simulated Proxima Sunlight, since we have a distance from the star and we know its brightness, we can begin experiments with Proxima b agriculture. What do you think the results would be?

JoshNH4H · 2016-08-25 14:53:38

Let's say we want to send a probe or ship to this planet within a relatively reasonable amount of time. Let's say we want it to travel at 10% the speed of light, for a travel time of about 45 years. Let's say we also want to slow down and stop when we get there.
10% of c is 3e7 m/s (30,000 km/s), so total mission delta-V is 60,000 km/s. Let's say we're okay with a mass ratio of 200. That means that the engine's exhaust velocity should be 5 times less than this, or 12,000 km/s (1,200,000 s). This is a kinetic energy of 7.2e13 J/kg. Call it 1e14 J/kg with inefficiencies. For comparison, chemical fuels max out around 1e7 J/kg and fission is about 8e13. Fusion (D-He3) is 3.5e14 J/kg. Fusion (4H->He) is about 6e14. Alternatively, this corresponds to a gas at a temperature of 12 billion degrees Kelvin.

We've been working on fusion for a long time and we haven't yet built a reactor that's demonstrated the ability to generate power for a utility. The power density of these engines would have to be enormous too. If the engines are 5% of the total mass of each stage and you want to accelerate to .1c over 10 years, the total acceleration will have to be 0.095 m/s^2. The engines will have a T/W of 1.9 N/kg, which at a Vex of 12,000 km/s corresponds to a power density of 11.4 MW/kg. For comparison, nuclear fission reactors for space use have typically been designed for power densities below 50 W/kg.

It's not impossible, but it is extraordinarily difficult. I think beamed propulsion of some kind or another is the way to go on this one.

Excelsior · 2016-08-25 16:26:31

Yeah, I think developing interstellar drives that make such journeys manageable well within a human life span is probably more realistic than reverse engineering the human reproductive track and development. If there is one thing that is incompatible is Boolean logic, it's a young human child. That sounds like a recipe to spread Reavers across the verse.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-08-26 01:36:41

JoshNH4H wrote:

Let's say we want to send a probe or ship to this planet within a relatively reasonable amount of time. Let's say we want it to travel at 10% the speed of light, for a travel time of about 45 years. Let's say we also want to slow down and stop when we get there.
10% of c is 3e7 m/s (30,000 km/s), so total mission delta-V is 60,000 km/s. Let's say we're okay with a mass ratio of 200. That means that the engine's exhaust velocity should be 5 times less than this, or 12,000 km/s (1,200,000 s). This is a kinetic energy of 7.2e13 J/kg. Call it 1e14 J/kg with inefficiencies. For comparison, chemical fuels max out around 1e7 J/kg and fission is about 8e13. Fusion (D-He3) is 3.5e14 J/kg. Fusion (4H->He) is about 6e14. Alternatively, this corresponds to a gas at a temperature of 12 billion degrees Kelvin.
We've been working on fusion for a long time and we haven't yet built a reactor that's demonstrated the ability to generate power for a utility. The power density of these engines would have to be enormous too. If the engines are 5% of the total mass of each stage and you want to accelerate to .1c over 10 years, the total acceleration will have to be 0.095 m/s^2. The engines will have a T/W of 1.9 N/kg, which at a Vex of 12,000 km/s corresponds to a power density of 11.4 MW/kg. For comparison, nuclear fission reactors for space use have typically been designed for power densities below 50 W/kg.
It's not impossible, but it is extraordinarily difficult. I think beamed propulsion of some kind or another is the way to go on this one.

To reach 10% of the speed of light at 1-G acceleration, I'll say that's 30,000,000 meters per second, and 1-G I'll put 10 meters per second squared, it would require 3,000,000 seconds of 1-G acceleration to reach 30,000,000 meters per second or about 10% of the speed of light. The acceleration distance would be about 3,000,000 seconds times the average velocity of 15,000 km/sec which equals 45,000,000,000 km which is equal to 300 AU, about ten times the orbital radius of Neptune from the Sun.

One way to get up to 10% of the speed of light is to build a mass driver that is 300 AU long, and accelerate a crew capsule within it for 3,000,000 seconds, which is 34.72 days. Lets allocate 1 ton or 1000 kg for every meter of track, the total mass of the accelerator would then be 1000 kg * 45,000,000,000,000 meters = 45,000,000,000,000,000 kg in scientific notation its 4.5*10^16 kg, Triton has a mass of 2.147*10^22 kg, that is 477,111 times as much mass as we need.

So lets say we build a mass driver at the orbit of Neptune, which is 30 AU from the Sun, and it points to Proxima Centauri which is -62 degrees and 40 minutes declination, and we use the material from Triton to build it with, using hydrogen from Neptune to fuel the fusion reactor to power it. At 10% of the speed of light it would take 42.5 years to reach Proxima Centauri, and it takes 34.72 days to accelerate each payload, in the span of 42.5 years we can accelerate 447 such payloads, in 4.25 years we can accelerate 45 such payloads, rounding off to the nearest whole number. If each payload is 1*10^15 kg, then over a period of 4.25 years we can accelerate a mass driver in 45 segments up to 10% of the speed of light, The mass driver which does this has a mass of 4.5*10^19 kg. The segments are separated by 89,994,240,000 km, The pieces would have to converge in 42.5 years, that means each piece would need to be accelerated 67 km/sec faster than the previous one. the velocity difference between the first and the last is 3020 km/sec. Towards the end of the journey, we assemble a mass driver and decelerate a capsule to match the velocity of Proxima b, this takes another 34.72 days, the residual velocity carries the capsule over to the planet, and it enter the atmosphere and a parachute is deployed for a landing.

JoshNH4H · 2016-08-26 08:17:36

Your kinematics are correct but building a 30 billion mile long mass driver by dismantling a moon is hardly a practical solution to anything.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-08-26 08:35:29

JoshNH4H wrote:

Your kinematics are correct but building a 30 billion mile long mass driver by dismantling a moon is hardly a practical solution to anything.

You can reduce the mass by increasing the acceleration to 100-G, the mass then becomes 4.5*10^14 kg, the length of it drops down to 3 AU, and instead of accelerating humans, you accelerate drones, the drones home in on a target and then explode at a certain distance away, turning into a plasma, this interacts with the target's magnetic shield transferring the momentum from the drone to the ship, and since the ship has 100 times the mass of each drone, it accelerates at 1-G, a shock absorber smooth's out the acceleration so the ship enjoys a steady 10 meters per second squared of acceleration. If the drones can withstand 1000-G then you can reduce the mass to 4.5*10^13 kg, (45 billion tons) and the length to 0.3 AU or 45,000,000 km.

JoshNH4H · 2016-08-28 21:03:52

I would be pretty on board with that. Something else I wonder about is using two solar concentrators (one array closer in than the orbit of Mercury and one out at the solar focus) to shine focused light on the back of the spacecraft as a lightsail.

RobertDyck · 2016-10-07 18:09:01

YouTube video: Artificial Wombs(Uterus):The End of Natural Motherhood?The Matrix Begins?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-06-09 07:26:39

What Would It Take To See Artificial Lights at Proxima Centauri B? - UT news
https://www.universetoday.com/151382/wh … entauri-b/

another thread
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7473

How Far From Earth Can Humans Travel Into Space?
https://www.iflscience.com/space/how-fa … nto-space/
Blasting the planet next door
https://www.boulderweekly.com/features/ … next-door/
Record-Setting Flare Spotted on the Nearest Star to the Sun
https://eos.org/articles/record-setting … to-the-sun

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2016-08-23 01:16:21

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#27 2016-08-24 13:11:25

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#28 2016-08-25 00:46:13

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#29 2016-08-25 01:41:11

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#30 2016-08-25 08:26:51

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#31 2016-08-25 14:53:38

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#32 2016-08-25 16:26:31

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#33 2016-08-26 01:36:41

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#34 2016-08-26 08:17:36

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#35 2016-08-26 08:35:29

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#36 2016-08-28 21:03:52

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#37 2016-10-07 18:09:01

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

#38 2021-06-09 07:26:39

Re: Colonizing the Proxima Planet

Board footer