Moreover on interstellar planemos

karov · 2016-09-17 05:45:29

I always suspected that right into the dense molecular clouds way before pre-stellar, proplyd formation etc., goes condensation of solid bodies.

Some links.:

[1] http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100 … _13#page-1

[2] https://books.google.bg/books?id=gFv-CA … ls&f=false

[3] http://paperity.org/p/39513900/interste … lar-clouds

...

karov · 2016-09-17 07:39:09

10exp12 to 10exp20 kg objects condensing out within the molecular clouds way before they to collapse into proplyds

corresponds to 10s to 100s of km diameter ones.

Given the universal mass distribution and pre-stellar chemistry of molecular coulds it could be easily estimated the distro of numbers of objects vs their mass vs mass of the cloud.

Now imagine a molecular cloud whose magnetic fields are fine scale manipulated so ALL the astronomical 'metals' condense into neat 1g planet surfaces and all H/He into neat QUADRILLION years long living red dwarfs ( of 80-ish Jovian masses )...

These molecular clouds are comparativelly compact, even the giant ones, hence a SRAs ( self-replicating automata ) will do the job in exponential fashion in few centuries ...

Void · 2016-09-17 11:36:08

Perhaps so.

I long been annoyed that theories for star and planet formation ignore the existence of rouge planets, and now this as well.
It would seem that we are to get a more rational explanation for why star systems are not all the same.

These little objects, and rogue planets could I think be captured into a cloud, or indeed nucleate inside a cloud. I think that prior to having a solar system condense, first several of these objects would be in a gravitational dance with each other and the cloud.
In fact I would suppose that due to the clouds characteristics, friction, magnetism. Eventually objects orbiting each other would merge, and perhaps reach sufficient size to be the nucleus for a star or planet.

But then I have come up with wild ideas before which turned out to be wrong. Not in the sense that they could not happen, but in the sense that they did not explain what really happened in a particular case.

And then again, of course sometimes I am just wrong. :[

karov · 2016-09-19 06:13:32

Yeah,

most probably will occur that cometesimalization and planetemalization occur in-cloud in prior with respect with accretion and proplyd formation.

most probably will occur that the two processes - interstellar radiation pressure driven compactificaton & gravitational accretion kinda-sorta "meet in the middle" - the biggest radiation-formed objects' field merge with the smallest gravity-accretion ones ( the Earth-size?)

and even it naturally and logically may occur that into the molecular clouds ( bok globules ) the biggish radiation-driven-together solid , 'metalic' nucli are natural ( like raindrop ) nucleation 'dusticles' to jump-start the gravitational accretion proplyds formation, when big enough to deal with H/He as runaway mass-sinks ... laying the foundations of stars, brown dwarves, gas giant free-range chicken ... pardon gas- and icy-giants

which proplyds stir, mix up and eat and launch intergalactically cometesimals and planemos like centrifugal slong-shots.

---

Now I conclude that this inevitable natural process could be accelerated and refuned by use of SRAs ( self-replicating automata ).

The energy gradients needed ARE there - gravitational, magnetic, photonic ...

The mass and chemical compsition IS there ... only the 'metals' must be in more optimal way distilled out of the mix, and condensed into good planets with good 1G-ish LAND on them...

The stars - preferably of the dwarfest of all red dwarfs type ( for the sake of efficiency and long life of about a QUADRILLION years each ) - would consist of almost pure H/He mix.

Yes, I'm talking about the exactly diametrically opposite process of aka Stellar Husbandry ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting ). ( to put stars together , not to decant them out )

I'll play out the scenario with some more known molecular cloud to see how much fusors and planemos we can count in out of such material.

btw, the location and orbits if such of the planemos is entirely arbitrary, because first they'll be too many to densely park them in neat orbits around the suns to utilize the 'natural HZ' and because luminospherics are entirely local issue.

the planets can soak light from the newborn red dwarfs cluster and also from any ambient source within the galaxy. ...

Void · 2016-09-19 13:00:12

Lots of material goods there!

Void · 2016-09-19 23:39:04

Karov,
I recalled a book "The Iron Sun".
It is from a long time ago, so I am not sure I recall it correctly, but I think it proposed to manufacture a black hole using a bussard Ram Jet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
Anyway here is a reference to it I think:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-revi … taneous-t/
I don't particularly buy into the potential success of doing so, or that faster than light travel or time travel could be done with it, but the idea of creating/manipulating objects is in that idea.

While I was chasing that information around on the web, I stumbled onto this: (They propose that dark matter is primordial black holes)
http://www.businessinsider.com/dark-mat … les-2016-7
According to this there could be black holes all over the place, a lumpy universe indeed, if so.

So, if that were true, I wonder if dark energy could be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Hawking Radiation from all those primordial black holes that supposedly make up 80% of the matter of the universe?
If so, then black holes are also sort of like the theoretical white holes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
So, is 80% of the universe still to pour out into space over distant time spans, if this proves true? If this were true, then we might still be in the "Big Bang", but it is a big black hole wind.

What does this have to do with your material?
Well it might seem that it is a lumpy universe, and if there are all those black holes, you better be careful when you construct your directed solar systems

In Sci Fi, sometimes black holes have been used as an energy source. Not a recommendation, just more speculative information.

I have been stumbling on a lot of weird stuff lately, some provided by you in this thread, so I am going to guess that at least some of it is going to prove "Trueish", and so, we may have a new notion of how things are/work in a few years.

Last edited by Void (2016-09-19 23:57:08)

karov · 2016-09-20 13:05:24

Void,

black holes, dark matter, spacetime ... manipulation lean too strongly to post- and transhuman states.

There terraforming will not be so much needed I'm afraid.

It is necessary for near baseline humans.

---

Back to calcs.
IF Barnard 68 (B68) has similar chemical composition to what is considered to be the initial solar primordial nebula one, THEN B68 has ~2 solar masses of H/He and 0.04 solar masses of [astronomical] 'metals'. Lets make them 0.05 by 'allowing' quite a few H into the planetary mass-mix.

One solar mass is 333 000 Earths.

x 0.05 = 16 650 Earths

By playing with density distribution etc. lets round them up to 20 000 of 1G-ish planemos.

At the 1% solar mass red dwarfs threshold we have enough material for 200-ish fusors of almost pure H/He.

About 100 Planets per fusor.

100 stars + 20 000 habitable planets within a region measured about half a light-year across.

Or less... what is the minimum spacing between these stars, while still the galactic pull prevails?

Last edited by karov (2016-09-20 14:29:43)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-09-20 16:40:10

Void wrote:

Karov,
I recalled a book "The Iron Sun".
It is from a long time ago, so I am not sure I recall it correctly, but I think it proposed to manufacture a black hole using a bussard Ram Jet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet
Anyway here is a reference to it I think:
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-revi … taneous-t/
I don't particularly buy into the potential success of doing so, or that faster than light travel or time travel could be done with it, but the idea of creating/manipulating objects is in that idea.
While I was chasing that information around on the web, I stumbled onto this: (They propose that dark matter is primordial black holes)
http://www.businessinsider.com/dark-mat … les-2016-7
According to this there could be black holes all over the place, a lumpy universe indeed, if so.
So, if that were true, I wonder if dark energy could be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Hawking Radiation from all those primordial black holes that supposedly make up 80% of the matter of the universe?
If so, then black holes are also sort of like the theoretical white holes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole
So, is 80% of the universe still to pour out into space over distant time spans, if this proves true? If this were true, then we might still be in the "Big Bang", but it is a big black hole wind.
What does this have to do with your material?
Well it might seem that it is a lumpy universe, and if there are all those black holes, you better be careful when you construct your directed solar systems
In Sci Fi, sometimes black holes have been used as an energy source. Not a recommendation, just more speculative information.
I have been stumbling on a lot of weird stuff lately, some provided by you in this thread, so I am going to guess that at least some of it is going to prove "Trueish", and so, we may have a new notion of how things are/work in a few years.

There is a way to make a black hole, you need to exceed a certain energy density. You are aware that as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. If you have a giant particle accelerator, lets say on the order of 1 AU long, and you slam a baseball sized object into a target at near the speed of light, the impact might create a black hole, the energy density plus the relativistic mass might do it. Once you have a black hole, there is a certain threshold mass you need to have to prevent it from radiating away with Hawking radiation, if it is above that threshold you can feed it mass at a rate equal to or exceeding the amount of hawking radiation it puts out, what you have in effect is a way to convert matter into energy without using antimatter, and this is important because now your fuel can be ordinary matter, jus feed it to your black hole, and you get back radiation, or you can simply use the black hole's mass as fuel, and eventually the black hole will explode. With a more massive black hole, you just feed it matter, on the way down, some of that matter gets converted into energy and the rest enlarges the black hole. Black holes could be important power sources, could be used to power starships, it could make a more efficient engine for an interstellar ramjet for instance, or it could be used to power an artificial sun for a rogue planet you wish to terraform.

Suppose the Earth was a frozen rogue planet, and its moon accompanied it. Place a mini black hole at the L2 point behind the Moon, and feed it mass, from an mass driver, hurl moon rocks into it, and get black Hawing radiation. If the Moon gets enough hawking radiation, it will glow like the Sun.

karov · 2016-09-20 23:07:47

Tom,

http://www.gdnordley.com/_files/_KL_images/

karov · 2016-09-21 06:10:09

More precision on B68.:

[1] Example of 'smallest star'.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2MASS_J0523-1403

All stars should be at least 8.7 percent as wide as our own sun, with average brightnesses no less than 0.00125 percent that of Earth's star, researchers said. They further calculated that all stars likely have surface temperatures of at least 3,140 degrees Fahrenheit (1,727 degrees Celsius).

from.: http://www.space.com/21420-smallest-sta … dwarf.html

by mass.: about 7.5% Sun's.

Hence, B68 makes more then 200 fusors - rather 260-270.

x 100-ish 1G surface gravity planemos per star... ( this is only if we seek solid rocky surfaces, not shell worlds on top of H/He gas giants ... which makes the proportion fusors to planemos practically arbitrary -- in fact given the low luminocity of the smallest stars and the big surface areas of the puffy H/He planets there is a crossection in the mass budgeting where the luminosphere power EXACTLY matches the geospheric surface if we go supramundane, but because the project is Baseline Human Monumental Art one lets stick to as natural fusors as possible and as natural planets as possible ... )

About longevity.:

http://mrphome.net/starlifecalculator.htm

Wow!

A smallest fusor / red dwarf of 75 jovian masses ( 0.0075 Sol's ) = lives longer then 2 000 000 000 000 000 ( two QUADRILLION ) years !!!

About radiation.:

the overall illumination ...

One smallest star emits 0.00125% of Sun's.

x 250 = all these 250+ condensed out of B68 would emit just a THIRD of 1% of the Sun's output!

But, our Sol is still quite excessive - it outputs enough to feed with light two billion+ planets like Earth.

So, the dim 250 minimal fusors can still power over 6 000 000 Earths, not 'just' 20 000 (!)

Yes, the most efficient way is not to coalesce planets outta the available 'metals', as planets are famous to be tremendously, horibly areally inefficient , but the most economical way is to utilize the metals to actually shell the stars, to encapsulate them into multi-layered supra-stellar habitats, BUT...

again - but because the project is Baseline Human Monumental Art one lets stick to as natural fusors as possible and as natural planets as possible ...

Last edited by karov (2016-09-21 06:11:05)

Void · 2016-09-21 21:56:55

I enjoy your presentations Karov. But I struggle to harmonize. I will continue to try.

karov · 2016-09-21 23:44:38

Void wrote:

But I struggle to harmonize.

?

Antius · 2016-09-22 08:04:29

karov wrote:

Void,
black holes, dark matter, spacetime ... manipulation lean too strongly to post- and transhuman states.
There terraforming will not be so much needed I'm afraid.
It is necessary for near baseline humans.
---
Back to calcs.
IF Barnard 68 (B68) has similar chemical composition to what is considered to be the initial solar primordial nebula one, THEN B68 has ~2 solar masses of H/He and 0.04 solar masses of [astronomical] 'metals'. Lets make them 0.05 by 'allowing' quite a few H into the planetary mass-mix.
One solar mass is 333 000 Earths.
x 0.05 = 16 650 Earths
By playing with density distribution etc. lets round them up to 20 000 of 1G-ish planemos.
At the 1% solar mass red dwarfs threshold we have enough material for 200-ish fusors of almost pure H/He.
About 100 Planets per fusor.
100 stars + 20 000 habitable planets within a region measured about half a light-year across.
Or less... what is the minimum spacing between these stars, while still the galactic pull prevails?

Are you suggesting that we deconstruct stars to provide fuel for fusion reactors?

karov · 2016-09-22 08:34:43

Antius wrote:

Are you suggesting that we deconstruct stars to provide fuel for fusion reactors?

The diametrically opposite - condensing out of molecular clouds the optimal mass distro of fusors-planemos, so stars to be smallest of red dwarfs burning for quadrillions of years and planets to be all 1G-ish surface gravity...

Antius · 2016-09-22 09:22:54

So you are basically talking about building stars from nebula, accumulating hydrogen gas distributed over volumes measured in cubic light years. How do you propose to do this? Also, why bother? Nature has already done the difficult job of building stars and planets over Eons. We do not need to build our own stars, just take advantage of what nature has thoughtfully provided. There would appear to be no shortage of stars, planets and rogues within our galaxy.

If the goal is to provide energy for new planets, why not build a big fusion reactor on an interstellar rogue planet and light the surface using illuminators on giant towers? This is a task beyond humanity as it exists today, but it would always appear easier to do this than build an entire star – many orders of magnitude easier.

karov · 2016-09-22 11:44:17

Antius wrote:

So you are basically talking about building stars from nebula,

Yes. And chemical differentiation, so almost all [astronomical] 'metals' to end up making planets, and the [threshold minimum] red dwarf fusor made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium.

accumulating hydrogen gas distributed over volumes measured in cubic light years.

the dense molecular clouds [bok gobules] are compact - as much as the solar system - even more compact = under half a ly wide...

How do you propose to do this?

SRAs. Replicators. Replicator magsails, mirrors, ramscoops ... Easy.

Also, why bother?

I mentioned/replied that - as a form of monumental art.
Because we can.
"Why bother?" - is universal question, which is also valid for terraforming per se itself ...

Nature has already done the difficult job of building stars and planets over Eons. We do not need to build our own stars, just take advantage of what nature has thoughtfully provided. There would appear to be no shortage of stars, planets and rogues within our galaxy.

I agree. There are plenty. And yet plenty of uncoalesced material too. In fact it is the same old story - regardless whether one star lifts, supra-bodies etc. The Big Terr ( by analogy with Big Oil or Big Ag ) will be the major business. Dealing with planets will be like nowadays DYI and SME bizes The Big Terr will scale much-much upper...

If the goal is to provide energy for new planets, why not build a big fusion reactor on an interstellar rogue planet and light the surface using illuminators on giant towers?

There are plenty of natural fusors. Te natural gravity confinement way is excellent & ubiquitous. Easier to manipulate natural star light on arbitrary distances.

This is a task beyond humanity as it exists today, but it would always appear easier to do this than build an entire star – many orders of magnitude easier.

I do not agree. See the scale. You compare 1000000BC camp fire 'ease' with global electric systen 'difficulty'.
Also stars 'build themselves' - they just can't overcome their self-gravity

Void · 2016-09-24 23:24:18

I don't know how displeased you might be Karov, but I am going to go beyond your guard rails, and ask why a somewhat different objective would not be desirable.

For a definition, perhaps one you will also accept, so then to have a common reference:
http://space.wikia.com/wiki/Planemo

We have three objects of a similar size, which are suspected of having an underground ocean. Europa, Ganymede, and now it would seem Pluto.

http://gizmodo.com/plutos-liquid-water- … 1787010446

But how much water, exactly, is needed to make Pluto’s heart heavy enough? That’s the question Johnson and his colleagues sought to answer, by running a series of collisional models. It turns out, in order to reproduce a feature that look like present-day Sputnik Planum, you need a subsurface ocean more than 100 kilometers thick, with salinity levels of approximately 30 percent. (Salinity increases the density of water, enhancing the positive mass anomaly.)
Thirty percent salinity is about as salty as the Dead Sea—extreme, but not outside our realm of Earthly experience. A 100 kilometer-deep ocean, on the other hand, is nothing short of astonishing. The deepest parts of our ocean are a little over 10 kilometers (7 miles). We’re talking about something ten times deeper, on a world too small to be classified as a planet, at the frozen edge of our solar system.

What catches my attention is the salt. I presume or Ass u me, (ed) that such an ocean if it existed, would have a type of ice below it, and that the planet would have few metal resources. But if the ocean is 30% salt, then metals available from those salts.

I have had my eyes on places like Europa, but have been fearful of places like Pluto.

I was afraid that Pluto had too much overburden of light ices, and would be metals poor, too poor.

I think the planet stores energy of impacts as sea water, and stores it very well.

I am still a bit spooked about what some references say Pluto would have to offer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto

In my previous (And continuing) ignorance, I presumed that Nitrogen and other overburden would make all substances even water ice not accessible, but this:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/02/ … rogen.html

NASA notes that, because water ice is less dense than nitrogen-dominated ice, scientists believe the hills are floating in “a sea of frozen nitrogen” and move like icebergs in Earth’s Arctic Ocean.

So, I am starting to form an updated notion of what Pluto is behaving like from this partial information update.

It does seem that the frozen Nitrogen (Which flows like tooth paste), is heavier than water ice, but fresh water is ~10% heavier than fresh water ice.

However, a salty cold ocean of liquid water might be heavier than frozen Nitrogen.

So, I am guessing that frozen Nitrogen which is heavier than water ice, and flows like toothpaste, may slowly flow through fractures in the ice, and be heated by the salt water ocean far below. (Or I am wrong).

So, I am going to presume that the sources of Pluto's heat may be:
-Original condensation (Long ago, probably much gone).
-Radioactive
-Impactor. An asteroid or comet hitting such an object will generate a lot of liquid water.
-Serpentinization (Rusting, I think, more or less.)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20572872
-And of course, completely unproven and without evidence, the notion that the solar wind may impart energy to a planet, particularly with a salty ocean by magnetic interactions.

Anyway, with most of the above, we might speculate that the Planemo's you now present evidence for may in many cases have some resemblance to Pluto.

>>>>OK to get to the point finally:
The degree of manufactured structure you have proposed would be less than;
-Obtain metals from the underground sea.
-Use the crust of ice to host habitat for ~Humans.
-Perhaps create a shell of metal and inflate some of the Nitrogen, to provide a background atmospheric pressure of 1 bar.
-But also capture and use the interstellar materials as you suggest, but run fusion generators on the Planemo off of it. Also capture the Metals, and build stuff.

As for the Nitrogen ice overburden, push it to an artificial moon around the Planemo as is convenient.

When your Planemo was fully developed (According to this particular plan), you would have an ocean covered by an ice shell. The ice shell would include vast habitats as it would be somewhat 3 dimensional rather than more or less 2 dimensional.

Above that a shell, filled with Nitrogen gas, and eventually a partial 02 atmosphere.

Later, perhaps a open sky atmosphere above that, if you could generate enough power to keep an atmosphere inflated.

And then finally, if the accumulation of heat, was large, from the fusion process, the ice layer over the ocean would be replace with manufactured structure.

So, you would finally have an Ocean with a raft of manufactured materials, and then above that a shell of "Metals" covering a N2/O2 atmosphere, and above that a lesser pressure atmosphere, if you could generate enough heat.

Granted, to do this it might be necessary to move to the level of fusion where H2 itself could be fused. But, you are already talking fantastic technologies, so I don't feel too, stupid to mention it.

In this situation, then each significant Planemo could become a very excellent world, and of course by doing this you would have far more living space than if you combined Planemo's to make Earth sized objects.

If somehow reactors are eventually created that can handle H2, then as far as energy use, this would be better, I think than fusor stars.
Maybe some would be created anyway just for happiness. Maybe some very large ones would be made to make metals.

But is transmutation so much more out there than manufacturing stars, etc.?

As for gravity, the humans I am thinking could eventually be altered to be healthy in lower gravity such as a Planemo would have, but synthetic gravity in the shell of ice/manufactured materials, would be another pathway, if that proves impossible.

Oh, and lets use your H.W.M. to help keep the outer atmospheres inflated, if there is not enough waste heat to radiate out of it.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2016-09-25 00:23:32)

karov · 2016-09-26 01:41:01

Void,

Not 'displeased' at all, mate

Pls, mind.: the definition of planemo ( shorthand of PLAnetary Mass Object ) indeed covers really impressive range of masses.

I.e. from 1/10th of Pluto's mass to 13 Jupter masses (the brown dwarf deuterium-lithium fusors range is between 13 and 75 jovian masses, 75 is the red dwarfs treshold when the gravitational confinement is strong enough naked protons ( H1 ) to star fusing into He4.), bellow approx. 1/10th of Pluto mass the objects don't pull themselves strong enough to get rounded. 1/10th of Pluto's mass corresponds, depending on composition / i.e. density, i.e. chemical composition / to between 300 and 700 km diameter. ...

The criterion , you know is self-rounding by self-gravity.

See again this - http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2687

Thus study uses Pluto mass as a lower treshold of base of estimation the planemo numbers, placing them in the 100 000-ish per star range.

If we use the fundamental planemo mass lowest threshold then the planemo galactic population goes to rather a MILLION planemos per fusor!

Given the demonstrated galactic radiation pressure onto dusticles in dense molecular clouds as a compatifier and cometesimals and planetesimals formator ( way before the proplyd-ing of stellar and sub-stellar formation )... perhaps THIS would be the explanation about the SO BIG plenty of planemos population ( if it gets confirmed by observations ).

See this again, also.: https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1599

It seems that size/mass vs number power law holds from smallest to universal scale. ( Which is logical - see Earth, it has few continents, but zillions of islands ... the bigger the fewer, the smaller the more ...)

Other argument is the Oort clouds of the fusors.

They are SO wide, that indeed they overlap.

The Oort cloud (/ˈɔːrt/ or /ˈʊərt/,[1] named after the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort), sometimes called the Öpik–Oort cloud,[2] is a theoretical cloud of predominantly icy planetesimals believed to surround the Sun to as far as somewhere between 50,000 and 200,000 AU (0.8 and 3.2 ly).

IN FACT aka "Oort clouds" are GALACTIC phenomenon, which at stars get swirled / whirlpooled just locally.

And 'icy planetesimals' is wrong impression about its population. Because the 'radiation pressure preproplyd formation mechanism' it seems has upper threshold which is in crossection with the accretion formation lower one ...

Which draws the following quite realistic, logical and expected ( confirmed piece by piece practically everyday with newer and newer discoveries) :: in Milky way - TRILLIONS ( 10exp12s) of fusors/stars , QUINTILLIONS ( 10exp18s ) of planemos/planets, ...

It is comparativelly easy to guestimate how much of these all are Earth-, Mars- , lunar or Pluto-sized.

As I many times noted gravitational confinement stellar core fusion is the most efficient. And easiest. Most thermodynamically efficient, too.

There is absolute plenty of natural light.

Which is easy to harvest with Archimedian level of Sci-Tech. Mirrors and lenses.

Thus, each and every suitable planemo in and out of a galaxy can be illuminated to the desired degree.

AND, if the 1G planemos (regardless whether they are interstellar or star-bound) are SO numerous, as we scratched-the-surface-about in the Proxima topicin this forum, perhaps the time of icy Pluto-like realty will never come ...

Antius · 2016-09-26 05:20:06

karov wrote:

As I many times noted gravitational confinement stellar core fusion is the most efficient. And easiest. Most thermodynamically efficient, too.
There is absolute plenty of natural light.
...

It is difficult to imagine a synthetically constructed star ever being an efficient means of producing energy. The power density of the sun is 276.5 W/m3. Compare that to a nuclear reactor on Earth, which has power density of 10’s MW/m3 – a 5 order of magnitude difference. And the sort of stars you are talking about will have much lower reaction rates than the sun – orders of magnitude lower for dim dwarf stars. Now consider that only a small fraction of the energy released by that star can be intercepted by orbiting planets, plenemos, whatever. To produce the smallest synthetic star you must gather several thousands of Earth masses of diffuse interstellar gas. Are you seriously proposing that this is most efficient means for an interstellar species to produce the energy it needs? Human beings tend to be quite stingy with their time and resources. We tend to invest them in ways that give us the highest return most rapidly. This drives us towards the most efficient technologies, the highest power densities, fastest travel, etc. The successful plan is the one that gives the biggest bang for the buck. Stars are only efficient for human beings if we are able to exploit something that nature has already provided.

Mastering nuclear fusion in compact reactors will be a precondition for colonising our outer solar system. We will need to master this technology before we even attempt to reach something like an interstellar planemo. This is not an unachievable goal for humanity, the things holding it back have more to do with capital investment and competitiveness against nuclear fission here on Earth, not technical achievability.

Void · 2016-09-26 09:46:46

Antius said to Karov:

Mastering nuclear fusion in compact reactors will be a precondition for colonising our outer solar system. We will need to master this technology before we even attempt to reach something like an interstellar planemo. This is not an unachievable goal for humanity, the things holding it back have more to do with capital investment and competitiveness against nuclear fission here on Earth, not technical achievability.

It is interesting that by "Mastering nuclear fusion in compact reactors", then the game changes, if indeed the interstellar and Oort cloud mediums may be filled with planemos.

It will no longer be attractive to dash off even to Proxima b (Or it's presumed sibling planemos), rather a chunky interstellar medium would presumably offer many more local options to set up house, and would discourage fast speeds as well by collision hazards.

For a speculated future human heritage holding "Species or type/kind organism/machine/cyborg", I will presume a similarity to typical "Now" human ambitions. Just because it is convenient for any projection speculation.

I suppose Ceres to Ganymede size might be presumed to be reasonable to try to eventually "Shell". I am not a natural lover of the concept, as I always pessimistically presume that the sky will eventually fall. But if the main residence of "Pseudo-Humans" would be a raft of Ice/Machine over a deep ocean of water, then not all the residents would perish in such a mishap, so it is possible to think of a "Civilization" with hopes of prolonged continuity, if such worlds are habituated by the means presumed by current speculation. Therefore an investment in the methods might be merited.

For larger sized objects, magma of rocks reaching the surface at the splits of tectonic plates just might occur. I am a bit worried that glaciation would cover those spots, but anyway, I have a certain entertainment thinking that it might be possible to set up camp on a mid-ocean ridge with hot lava seeping out, where glaciation is slower than the spreading of a dry and very cold sea floor.

While the larger objects just might offer such a starter method in some cases, I do indeed think that the smaller ones might be easier to bring to full "Bloom".

As I see it, eventually a network of artificial raft land floating on an ocean of water.

Above that a shell which helps to keep what is floating on the ocean at "Temperate" temperatures.

Above the shell ideally, a less pressurized and colder environment, perhaps polar in temperatures, where waste heat would be vented to the universe, but stars could be observed directly.

Last edited by Void (2016-09-26 10:07:58)

karov · 2016-10-01 09:30:21

Antius wrote:

It is difficult to imagine a synthetically constructed star ever being an efficient means of producing energy. The power density of the sun is 276.5 W/m3. Compare that to a nuclear reactor on Earth, which has power density of 10’s MW/m3 – a 5 order of magnitude difference. And the sort of stars you are talking about will have much lower reaction rates than the sun – orders of magnitude lower for dim dwarf stars. Now consider that only a small fraction of the energy released by that star can be intercepted by orbiting planets, plenemos, whatever. To produce the smallest synthetic star you must gather several thousands of Earth masses of diffuse interstellar gas. Are you seriously proposing that this is most efficient means for an interstellar species to produce the energy it needs? Human beings tend to be quite stingy with their time and resources. We tend to invest them in ways that give us the highest return most rapidly. This drives us towards the most efficient technologies, the highest power densities, fastest travel, etc. The successful plan is the one that gives the biggest bang for the buck. Stars are only efficient for human beings if we are able to exploit something that nature has already provided.
Mastering nuclear fusion in compact reactors will be a precondition for colonising our outer solar system. We will need to master this technology before we even attempt to reach something like an interstellar planemo. This is not an unachievable goal for humanity, the things holding it back have more to do with capital investment and competitiveness against nuclear fission here on Earth, not technical achievability.

Antius,

Well, ALL you need in order to start a gravitational fusion reactor is to put together 75 Jovian masses and to step little bit aside.
It shall burn steadily for over ONE QUADRILLION years with zero maintenance.
NO energy will be wasted using simple methods like dysoning, solasing, etc. e.g. OPTICS.

But one does not NEED to do so.
It is just 'pushing down the already falling' - it is acceleration of a natural process and all the forces involved are already present and vectored into the right direction.
This gives also the energy and momentum for distillation of the astronomical 'metals' out, putting them together for building habitable LAND, and making little stars from pure H/He mixtures.

ALSO,

more importantly.:

Even staying with the natural ready stars without to star-lift or star-pouring ...

see the estimates for the total GALACTIC luminosity!

NO murky places in the Universe at all.

Using mere optics each and every plot of land regardless of its location can be cheaply provided with optimal luminosphere.

---

A earth like planet in Solar Oort cloud on say 1 ly from Sun would need only 160 000 times wider then the planetary diameter of mirror or lense system in order to get illuminated properly with natural star light.

The optic system might be anything - swarm of vacuum bubbles, flakes, meso-scale objects ...

---

Which is more efficient and easier to maintain - a replicator swarm of optical elements - or fusion reactors?

karov · 2016-10-01 09:49:06

Void,

It will no longer be attractive to dash off even to Proxima b (Or it's presumed sibling planemos), rather a chunky interstellar medium would presumably offer many more local options to set up house, and would discourage fast speeds as well by collision hazards.

Yes, the LAND location is irrelevant. Only local surface gravity matters - regardless whether the LAND is::
- rocky planet surface,
- raft floating over liquid ocean/lake/sea or into vast bottomless atmosphere
- plot part of infra-atmospheric rotator-town into a zero-G Virga
- patch of alive solid foam over icy crust of Europa like world
- plate hang over a gas giant via kinetic rings
- suprasolar shell ...

For a speculated future human heritage holding "Species or type/kind organism/machine/cyborg", I will presume a similarity to typical "Now" human ambitions. Just because it is convenient for any projection speculation.

I think anything post- or trans-human , anything beyond the human-now, the baseline human form ... totally derails the very notion of "terraforming", 'cuz why to change the environment, when we adapt ourselves, or make ourselves ubiquitous in terms of tolerable living conditions?

I suppose Ceres to Ganymede size might be presumed to be reasonable to try to eventually "Shell". I am not a natural lover of the concept, as I always pessimistically presume that the sky will eventually fall. But if the main residence of "Pseudo-Humans" would be a raft of Ice/Machine over a deep ocean of water, then not all the residents would perish in such a mishap, so it is possible to think of a "Civilization" with hopes of prolonged continuity, if such worlds are habituated by the means presumed by current speculation. Therefore an investment in the methods might be merited.

after-humans are beyond terraforming. This is, one.
Two, NO trans-numanization is unchangeable and irreversible!
Or rather 'two' is before 'one'.
The Lower-G locations ... :
I again, advise this.: http://www.gdnordley.com/_files/Gravity.pdf to be read VERY carefully, and also
Para-terraforming or more generally the non-gravitational atmospheric confinement methods ( mostly including solid state matter and utilizing its intrinsic tension streghth, OR combination of gravity, solid-matter closing and electromagnetism ) , where naturally fall ALL the variety of rotating habitats where the 1G surface is not a spheroid but cylindrical in shape ...
all these REQUIRE rotation of the whole habitat or parts of it in order to provide for 1G islands.

The 1G requirement could be avoided using partial , not so dehumanizing methods, though. But this is another topic.

This is good recent conceptual dev.: http://www.ultimax.com/whitepapers/Shel … Sfinal.pdf

May be it is time to start a terraforming-challenge competition over here, ah?

By proposing the least terraformable objects and places

Terraformer · 2016-10-01 11:00:29

That's a hard one, but I'll give it a shot - a black hole. Nothing else allowed, you have to extract all the mass-energy you need for a supramundane shell from the black hole itself (well, you're allowed the seed equipment...).

Places, I'd suggest inside a star. Only really doable with exotic matter and wormholes.

Re. red dwarfs, the smallest are expected to last for 10 trillion years. That's very roughly 1000 times as long as the universe has lasted so far. I don't think running out of stars is going to be the biggest worry, unless there's a grey goo scenario that dissembles them all. It's far more likely the universe will die off before that point...

Void · 2016-10-01 21:20:53

Karov,

Not enough time to read the whole article just now, I did take a look.

I likely will annoy you, but I feel I should have further conversation on the trans human concern. I think it could become possible to deal with the low gravity, by changing the genome of humans, after they are born, but leaving the germ line unaltered. Using viruses this could prove to be possible. Experiments are actually currently on-going on that topic.

http://www.inspiredinsider.com/liz-parr … interview/

Bioviva: The Woman Who Wants to Genetically Engineer You

Others, have notions of medicines which could keep you lean and muscular even if you eat rich foods, and don't exercise. So, my point is that with the scale of fantastic technology being contemplated here, it is not against logic in my opinion to suppose that such alterations of adults could compensate for low gravity, while keeping the primary intentions of the population as very similar to humans now. The medicine then could be about as trivial as normal dental treatments. (Maybe)

Terraformer,
I am not nearly as enlightened about black holes as I want to be. What I think I know:
http://www.sciencefocus.com/qa/are-blac … ot-or-cold
*So, doing my best to understand, it seems this quote is to be trusted for now:

Black holes are freezing cold on the inside, but incredibly hot just outside. The internal temperature of a black hole with the mass of our Sun is around one-millionth of a degree above absolute zero. Just outside the hole, however, the material being pulled into the hole's gravity well is accelerated to near the speed of light. The molecules of the material collide with such vigour that it is heated up to a temperature of hundreds of millions of degrees.

So, interesting. It seems that barring new discovery of some kind, the insides of a black hole could be the most vibration free mass naturally occurring in our known universe, so it would seem to occupy a polarity opposite of light, I think. Is light then vibration with virtually no characteristics of matter, is it the opposite of a polarity involving it, and the interior of black holes?

This can evaporate black holes they say, over a long period of time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

But inside the black hole, is time operating?
http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/blackholes.html#q2
They say time is much slowed down.
So the interior of a black hole is very cold, and time runs very slow there.
Quantum effects create virtual particles which split and one part drops into the black hole and diminishes its quantity, the other part is emitted to the universe as (Particles?) Highly energetic I would suppose. Vibrating much.

So, if energy is being released from the black hole by Hawkings radiation, and the black hole then shrinks in the process, what is actually going on? (Still pondering that).

And so I will flee to the shallow end of the pool, knuckles dragging

A black hole may be someplace, but it is also elsetime. Not sure it can be handled like a planet, star, or comet.

Then again, please if you can go further than I did.

Last edited by Void (2016-10-01 22:40:05)

karov · 2016-10-03 01:13:58

Void wrote:

Karov,
Not enough time to read the whole article just now, I did take a look.
I likely will annoy you, but I feel I should have further conversation on the trans human concern. I think it could become possible to deal with the low gravity, by changing the genome of humans, after they are born, but leaving the germ line unaltered. Using viruses this could prove to be possible. Experiments are actually currently on-going on that topic.
http://www.inspiredinsider.com/liz-parr … interview/
Bioviva: The Woman Who Wants to Genetically Engineer You
Others, have notions of medicines which could keep you lean and muscular even if you eat rich foods, and don't exercise. So, my point is that with the scale of fantastic technology being contemplated here, it is not against logic in my opinion to suppose that such alterations of adults could compensate for low gravity, while keeping the primary intentions of the population as very similar to humans now. The medicine then could be about as trivial as normal dental treatments. (Maybe)

Annoyed? No way.

I just say the basic humans reversible or irreversible modification to adapt for various non-earth-like environments just makes the topic INFINITE.

In order to 'tame the infinity' I stick to 'baseline' human condition habitability specs.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-09-17 05:45:29

Moreover on interstellar planemos

#2 2016-09-17 07:39:09

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#3 2016-09-17 11:36:08

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#4 2016-09-19 06:13:32

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#5 2016-09-19 13:00:12

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#6 2016-09-19 23:39:04

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#7 2016-09-20 13:05:24

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#8 2016-09-20 16:40:10

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#9 2016-09-20 23:07:47

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#10 2016-09-21 06:10:09

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#11 2016-09-21 21:56:55

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#12 2016-09-21 23:44:38

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#13 2016-09-22 08:04:29

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#14 2016-09-22 08:34:43

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#15 2016-09-22 09:22:54

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#16 2016-09-22 11:44:17

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#17 2016-09-24 23:24:18

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#18 2016-09-26 01:41:01

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#19 2016-09-26 05:20:06

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#20 2016-09-26 09:46:46

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#21 2016-10-01 09:30:21

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#22 2016-10-01 09:49:06

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#23 2016-10-01 11:00:29

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#24 2016-10-01 21:20:53

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

#25 2016-10-03 01:13:58

Re: Moreover on interstellar planemos

Board footer