Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

Void · 2018-02-03 19:35:13

Actually I am not serious about doing that (The subject). Perhaps if something exists that would like to help the Earth escape a red giant sun, in the rather distant future then that creature can worry about that. For now, I am actually really just interested in modeling how the Earth might react to such a treatment. This could be important to understanding how other terrestrial planets might behave in such situations around other stars.

Terraformation the section is the least hostile area for bumpkins to air their ideas, so this is convenient an comfortable to me.

I am going to speculate on an Earth in orbit 1.5 AU, 2.0 AU, and beyond.

1.5 AU is approximately Mars. 2.0 AU is perhaps an average of the Asteroid belt I believe.

So, ice age Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

So for terrestrial planets with ocean seas, and ice domains, there is a balance. Cool things off and the sea surrenders to land, and the land surrenders to the seas water, as ice.

An interesting thing is that even in such a northern area as Doggerland, an extra amount of atmospheric column would lead to a greater greenhouse effect, and even more protection from U.V. light. Potential conveniences to life on planets with less solar flux than the Earth.

What if we caused the Earth to move to 1.5 AU, gradually?

My expectation would be more of the same. Where Mars, became dead or almost dead at such a location in the time span of the solar system, I would expect the Earth to remain alive, but with serious ice caps on much of the continental areas, and land rather deep into the sea. I don't have measuring models to provide the maps for this but I suspect it would be true.

I will just give a random number 5000 feet (I am a primitive American after all) in drop of sea level. Well, then that indicates a redistribution of atmosphere the land at where sea used to be would have up to 5000 feet of extra atmosphere above, and that would be paid by the uplands having less of the atmosphere.

That model might hold approximately, but I will have to push it more to fantasy to go to 2.0 AU. (Not that there would not be real numbers, I just don't have the means to reasonably estimate them)>

So, at 2.0 AU would most of the sea floor be exposed land, and the atmosphere above that be 10,000 feet deeper that what we are used to? Quite a greenhouse effect even though the sun only gives perhaps 2500 lumens, instead of 10,000 (Earth Lumens?).

Under those conditions, I would expect that at most there would only be seas in the deepest areas such as the Mariana Trench. I would expect almost all water to be locked up in ice caps and glaciers. I would expect that from the continents those would spill onto the sea floors.

So how far out could you go with the volume of Earths atmosphere and still have locations where water melted?

The information I have is 10 bars of atmosphere. I am sure it has clauses.

So I am thinking the Mariana Trench. How far out could you go with the total number of molecules of the Earths atmosphere, and still have a livable area in the Mariana Trench at 29,000 feet below our sea level?

Somewhere between the Asteroid belt and the Jupiter orbit, I am just guessing.

So in this model I have behaved as if the Earth would not react to such a changed environment. The continents and sea floor would be the same. I believe they would react, volcanism and erosion would be different.

Further for alien planets, around other stars, we should not expect the same quantity of atmospheric molecules. Maybe 1/4 what we have, maybe 10 times what we have.

So, I am not that sure about the habitability limits that are proposed for planets around other stars.

Without this bored really.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-03 19:59:05)

elderflower · 2018-02-04 04:12:21

The relentless expansion of the Moon's orbit will reduce the stability of Earth's rotation axis and probably render the planet largely uninhabitable for so called higher organisms long before the Sun reaches red giant stage.

Void · 2018-02-04 09:07:47

I will go in two directions with that.

1) An intelligent species might be able to build induction power generation on the Moon, generating electricity selectively in the parts of the Moons orbit that they want to, the parts where the solar wind would slow the Moon down. This could also be a way to displace the Earth/Moon system outward from the sun. But that is not my problem. My expiration date is much sooner than that.

2) I am inclined to believe that a Moonless Earth might actually foster adaptable generalization, and intelligence because non-adaptive and unintelligent specialists would be constantly be finding themselves stuck in the wrong places at the wrong times.

Void · 2018-02-04 09:11:30

So, those are two things that I don't think rule out habitability.

1) Moonless Terrestrial.

2) A claim that the outer bound of habitability is 1.5 AU in our solar system.

I claim that Planetary Volatile Displacement likely can extend the outer bound to 2.0 AU and even more.

And then there is the total mass of atmosphere. Anything from 10 mb to 10,000 mb could be habitable.

And then there is Tidal Geothermal as in Io, Europa, Ganymede.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST-1
Quote:

Tidal locking[edit]
All seven planets are likely to be tidally locked (one side of each planet permanently facing the star),[34] making the development of life there "much more challenging".[11] A less likely possibility is that some may be trapped in a higher-order spin–orbit resonance.[34] Tidally locked planets would typically have very large temperature differences between their permanently lit day sides and their permanently dark night sides, which could produce very strong winds circling the planets. The best places for life may be close to the mild twilight regions between the two sides, called the terminator line.
Tidal heating[edit]
Tidal heating is predicted to be significant: all planets except f and h are expected to have a tidal heat flux greater than Earth's total heat flux.[5] With the exception of TRAPPIST-1c, all of the planets have densities low enough to indicate the presence of significant H2O in some form. Planets b and c experience enough heating from planetary tides to maintain magma oceans in their rock mantles; planet c may have eruptions of silicate magma on its surface. Tidal heat fluxes on planets d, e, and f are lower, but are still twenty times higher than Earth's mean heat flow. Planets d and e are the most likely to be habitable. Planet d avoids the runaway greenhouse state if its albedo is ≳ 0.3. [47]

Some planets could have too much or just right amounts of tidal heating in the Trappist-1 system.
If they are tidal locked, this could very much help in redistributing water from the dark side to the sun side.

https://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=39185

Quote:

Given that their orbits are slightly eccentric, there is the possibility of tidal heating, which in the Galilean moons has intrigued us for its possibilities at providing an energy source for life beneath an icy crust, and indeed, the paper notes that “…on planets b, e, f, g and h, life might appear in the tidally heated (subsurface) ocean close to hydrothermal vents.“

And then their is the chance of inductive heating of some planets:
http://www.newsweek.com/trappist-1-alie … ace-690638

My understanding is that likely it is 1000 times larger than for our solar system.
The article says that the four closest planets could experience inductive heating. Personally, I expect that the others also do, but of a much lesser magnitude.

Planetary Volatile Displacement on tidal locked worlds would be very significant as to it's habitability I believe.

Planets 'd' and 'e' were said to be the most likely to be habitable in one of the above quotes.

For 'f', 'g', and 'h' I also give chances due to Volatile displacement, and also potential tidal heating.

These worlds should have a very tricky way they conserve heat, if they maintain an atmosphere and have significant water/ice. For this I will presume 1 bar just to keep it simpler.

It is mentioned that their is a real possibility of tidal heating, so if the dark sides are occupied by a giant slab of ice, it will likely be melting from the bottom. And there will likely be flows of water from there to the sunward sides.

There has to be a limit to how high ice can pile up on the dark sides. 5000 feet? Maybe more?

But if the dark side surface is 5000 feet higher on average than the presumed relatively ice free day side, then strange things happen with heat.

Winds coming off that ice sheet must drop 5000 feet and that will compress that air and heat it up. So it becomes difficult for the night side cold to impose itself with the full force that otherwise might be imagined.

And also there is atmospheric displacement from the dark side to the day side. The day side has a very significantly thicker atmosphere, so, presumably a better greenhouse effect, and very likely improved protection from harmful radiation.

But another form of displacement would be that of CO2. I would expect that it would pretty much try to freeze out on the dark side. Methods for it to return to the day side would be:
1) Glacial flows into the sunlight.
2) Melt water flows from under the ice cap (Tidal Heating).
3) Katabatic air flows carrying snow (Dust) to the day side.

So, I feel that these worlds may have better chances for habitability on their day sides than what is typically presumed. Also, I presume that the further from a star a planet is, up to the point of collapse of the atmosphere by condensation, the better chances that planet will retain an atmosphere.

I went very far with Red Dwarf planets, but I feel that many of these principles will work for terrestrial planets around orange and yellow stars as well.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-04 10:25:21)

Dao Angkan · 2018-02-04 09:54:11

The sun's luminosity is increasing by 1% every 100 million years, in a billion years time the Earth will no longer be in the habitable zone, the oceans will evaporate, with photodissociation resulting in the hydrogen being lost to atmospheric escape. We need to move the Earth far before the red giant phase!

Fortunately this can be done slowly as the habitable zone gradually moves outwards. As long as the Earth is moved at the same speed as the habitable zone moves, then we don't need to be concerned about climatic change.

Void · 2018-02-04 09:59:21

Well, my expiration date is considerably sooner than that, but:
-Use the Moons momentum and inductive reactance to generate electrical power against the solar wind, on the Moons surface, but only when the Moon is moving against the flow of the solar wind.

The Moons orbital energy is actually in a large part energy taken from the Earths spin, slowing the Earth down.

If there were a "We" who could persist for the required time, perhaps the Earth/Moon could go get Mars, and drag it along, and pick up some asteroids as well, and then put the whole bunch in orbit around Jupiter, finally when the sun goes red giant.

But they would sure have to be skilled. They have a lot of time to learn such skills before that.

Then when the white dwarf stage arrived, engage tidal heating and super dupper fusion processes to maintain habitability.

Have Tom Kalbfus build a giant space ship world that could go close to the white dwarf and spiral in as it cools down.

But I am really just interested in modeling what could happen if terrestrial type planets were currently at locations equivalent to our 1.5 to 2.5 AU. I believe that due to Volatile displacement and some other factors they may be habitable.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-04 10:06:17)

Dao Angkan · 2018-02-04 10:42:49

Venus may be a paradise at those distances, but note that CO2 would freeze at distances past 2 AU, not modelling for any greenhouse effect at least.

Last edited by Dao Angkan (2018-02-04 10:45:35)

SpaceNut · 2018-02-04 13:51:18

Stabilizing the moon/ earth system:
The moon is in essence inductive coupled to the earth. Its shows in the tidal crust and ocean tides of the earth. Since we are looking at a magnetic attraction that is based on mass as well. So field set up on the moon from solar energy to create an attraction to earth must also have an oposite field created on earth as well. The field will rotate as the moons position around the earth and so will the earths field but would need a steady power source to run it for attraction as well. Now that the earth does tilt seasonally the field must also move to counteract the seasons. Does the move also tilt with the seasons?
Trying to move earths orbital path outward as the sun gets hotter will be a bit of a problem to allow for earth to keep its gold lock zone temperatures.

Dao Angkan · 2018-02-04 14:28:04

Void wrote:

So, those are two things that I don't think rule out habitability.
1) Moonless Terrestrial.

Agree

2) A claim that the outer bound of habitability is 1.5 AU in our solar system.

Kind of agree, but it would need a greenhouse gas atmosphere, and be massive enough to retain it. It would probably also require the planet migrating outwards rather than inwards.

I claim that Planetary Volatile Displacement likely can extend the outer bound to 2.0 AU and even more.
And then there is the total mass of atmosphere. Anything from 10 mb to 10,000 mb could be habitable.
And then there is Tidal Geothermal as in Io, Europa, Ganymede.

Right, subsurface life doesn't really have an outer limit when tidal forces are considered, but for detectable surface life the world needs to be massive enough to at least retain it's atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST-1
Quote:
Tidal locking[edit]
All seven planets are likely to be tidally locked (one side of each planet permanently facing the star),[34] making the development of life there "much more challenging".[11] A less likely possibility is that some may be trapped in a higher-order spin–orbit resonance.[34] Tidally locked planets would typically have very large temperature differences between their permanently lit day sides and their permanently dark night sides, which could produce very strong winds circling the planets. The best places for life may be close to the mild twilight regions between the two sides, called the terminator line.
Tidal heating[edit]
Tidal heating is predicted to be significant: all planets except f and h are expected to have a tidal heat flux greater than Earth's total heat flux.[5] With the exception of TRAPPIST-1c, all of the planets have densities low enough to indicate the presence of significant H2O in some form. Planets b and c experience enough heating from planetary tides to maintain magma oceans in their rock mantles; planet c may have eruptions of silicate magma on its surface. Tidal heat fluxes on planets d, e, and f are lower, but are still twenty times higher than Earth's mean heat flow. Planets d and e are the most likely to be habitable. Planet d avoids the runaway greenhouse state if its albedo is ≳ 0.3. [47]

Some planets could have too much or just right amounts of tidal heating in the Trappist-1 system.
If they are tidal locked, this could very much help in redistributing water from the dark side to the sun side.
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=39185
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-cont … RATION.jpg
Quote:
Given that their orbits are slightly eccentric, there is the possibility of tidal heating, which in the Galilean moons has intrigued us for its possibilities at providing an energy source for life beneath an icy crust, and indeed, the paper notes that “…on planets b, e, f, g and h, life might appear in the tidally heated (subsurface) ocean close to hydrothermal vents.“
And then their is the chance of inductive heating of some planets:
http://www.newsweek.com/trappist-1-alie … ace-690638
My understanding is that likely it is 1000 times larger than for our solar system.
The article says that the four closest planets could experience inductive heating. Personally, I expect that the others also do, but of a much lesser magnitude.
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/wp-cont … RATION.jpg
Planetary Volatile Displacement on tidal locked worlds would be very significant as to it's habitability I believe.
Planets 'd' and 'e' were said to be the most likely to be habitable in one of the above quotes.
For 'f', 'g', and 'h' I also give chances due to Volatile displacement, and also potential tidal heating.
These worlds should have a very tricky way they conserve heat, if they maintain an atmosphere and have significant water/ice. For this I will presume 1 bar just to keep it simpler.
It is mentioned that their is a real possibility of tidal heating, so if the dark sides are occupied by a giant slab of ice, it will likely be melting from the bottom. And there will likely be flows of water from there to the sunward sides.
There has to be a limit to how high ice can pile up on the dark sides. 5000 feet? Maybe more?
But if the dark side surface is 5000 feet higher on average than the presumed relatively ice free day side, then strange things happen with heat.
Winds coming off that ice sheet must drop 5000 feet and that will compress that air and heat it up. So it becomes difficult for the night side cold to impose itself with the full force that otherwise might be imagined.
And also there is atmospheric displacement from the dark side to the day side. The day side has a very significantly thicker atmosphere, so, presumably a better greenhouse effect, and very likely improved protection from harmful radiation.
But another form of displacement would be that of CO2. I would expect that it would pretty much try to freeze out on the dark side. Methods for it to return to the day side would be:
1) Glacial flows into the sunlight.
2) Melt water flows from under the ice cap (Tidal Heating).
3) Katabatic air flows carrying snow (Dust) to the day side.
So, I feel that these worlds may have better chances for habitability on their day sides than what is typically presumed. Also, I presume that the further from a star a planet is, up to the point of collapse of the atmosphere by condensation, the better chances that planet will retain an atmosphere.
I went very far with Red Dwarf planets, but I feel that many of these principles will work for terrestrial planets around orange and yellow stars as well.

The issue with M dwarfs is that they are extremely variable, especially when young, and the habitable zone is so close to these stars that the effects of these violent events might strip any terrestrial planets of their atmospheres before they have enough time to become habitable. Of course this is all just theoretical, we don't actually know that yet.

Still, as you mention, the further from a star, then the more likely it is to retain an atmosphere. Of course, the further from the star, then the less likely it is to be tidally locked, so K and G type stars are the most promising.

If a tidally locked planet does have an atmosphere which freezes out on the dark side, what would stop this becoming a runaway effect? As the atmosphere freezes out it becomes less dense, reducing the affectiveness of the atmosphere to transfer heat around the planet, resulting in more atmosphere freezing out ... etc ... etc. If this distributes more mass to the dark side of the planet, then gravity will eventually pull it back to hydrostatic equilibrium. NASA can actually detect the change in mass at the Martian poles when CO2 freezes out there.

Void · 2018-02-04 21:43:01

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland
Dogertland and the ice age ice caps demonstrate what I have tried to show.

That displacement provides more greenhouse gasses over low locations that used to be sea, and less greenhouse gasses over high areas. The dogertland would have had 400 extra feet of atmosphere. Possibly the ice cap had a loss of 1000's of feet.

Nitrogen and Oxygen are actually greenhouse gasses. Otherwise the Earth would be very much colder without them.

I did go to red dwarf planets, simply because they are an interesting model.

Now suppose the Earth were 2.5 AU out, and displacement of sea water had occurred, with the vast bulk of water being deposited as ice at the poles and on top of continents. There should be no fear that the N2 and O2 atmosphere would freeze out, since the Earth spins. Titan manages to keep it's Nitrogen as a gas, so I have no fear of an atmospheric freeze out at 2.5 A.U. Not sure how much if any ocean basin lands would support liquid water, but I suspect that some might, because they would have and extra 10,000 feet of N2 and O2 above them so the original 1 bar atmosphere, and whatever further atmospheric column may result from 10,000 extra feet of atmosphere. 2 bar? 5 bar? 10 bar? I don't have those calculations.

So, back to red dwarf planets, I do believe that for the three outer planets, I speculated that with the displacement of ice and atmosphere, chances increase for a warmer atmosphere at lower altitudes on the sunward size. But I made the condition that the N2 atmosphere would not condense out on the dark side.

I think there are good chances it would not. And if it did then there would be rivers of liquid Nitrogen which would flow down into the lower basins, to be evaporated back into the atmosphere.

The upper atmospheric winds from the sun side would very likely be sufficient to deliver heat to the high altitude dark side.

As for atmospheres being swept away by red dwarf star solar winds, maybe.

But can you answer me why Venus has such a dense atmosphere without a geomagnetic field? Well it has an induced magnetic field that largely protects it. There are very good chances that the more fierce the magnetic solar wind pushing on a red dwarf planets atmosphere the equally strong, induced counter EMF magnetic field.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-04 21:57:29)

elderflower · 2018-02-05 03:36:31

Venus' atmosphere has plenty of CO2 and sulphur compounds. It doesn't have water and this is probably due to loss of hydrogen to the solar wind. As atmospheric water is broken down by solar radiation any hydrogen can escape and be swept away.

Void · 2018-02-05 12:36:04

A good challenge Elderflower. I believe I can respond well.

Let me first restate my objectives. I want to consider in the imagination what would happen to the Earth if you moved it out to the position of Mars ~1.5 AU, and beyond to perhaps 2.5 AU.

The reason for this is I want a constant, which is the current nature of Earth, and to change one variable, that is the solar flux the planet receives, and to consider what the planets response will be. I already make the assertion that a natural redistribution system may make portions of the planet habitable, by redistributing Ocean>Ice Cap, Atmosphere from continents and ice caps to ocean basins. I expect as this model is pushed to the limits, the Mariana Trench would be the very last place on the Earth to be habitable. Even if Habitable indicates the equivalent of Antarctic Dry Valleys, with ice covered lakes or seas.

I want to do this because I think that there may be terrestrial planets around other stars that are outside of the commonly stated "Habitable Zone". The Habitable zone I believe is how much solar flux is required to melt ice at sea level air pressure, Earth atmospheric composition. (More or less).

I am avoiding extending the Habitable zone by adding more atmosphere to the model, because I want to keep that as a constant, the volume of Earths atmosphere, to be better able to more accurately estimate the results of redistribution of Ocean>Ice, and Atmosphere from polar caps and continents to ocean basins.

I am actually by now quite interested in such upside down setups around Yellow and Orange suns. Such planets will likely not be tidal locked. However unfortunately it is very unlikely that such planets the equivalent of 1.5 to 2.5 AU can yet be detected around Orange and Yellow stars.

So, I am left with terrestrials in our solar system. (All four, as they are).

And I also choose to examine Trappist-1 planets as much as is possible (As they appear to be by evidence).

So, Venus:
-Sulfuric Acid clouds on high, but at the cloud base, the heat breaks that down to Sulfur Dioxide, and Water Vapor.
-UV is largely unopposed due the lack of Ozone, and the high elevation of the Sulfuric Acid and Water steams.
-Hydrogen is lost because it is a very light element.
-Oxygen is lost also because of an electrical field that levitates it up to where the Solar Wind can sweep it away. What I have read is that the electrical field that does that is due to the extreme dryness of the atmosphere of Venus. That condition may not exist for planets in a 1.5 to 2.5 AU location.
-The Sulfuric Acid and water vapor are kept at a high altitude where they are more exposed due to the extreme temperatures of Venus. Again, a cold planet may not have a Troposphere higher than 5000 feet as at our polar areas. Moisture for the most part is kept at or below that altitude.
-I speculate that Venus could have developed an Oxygen atmosphere without life and also a Ozone layer if two things were different:
1) Oxygen did not levitate out of the atmosphere by electrical field.
2) Carbon was not so active in the atmosphere.

So Venus falters as a good model for a habitable planet in the zone of 1.5 to 2.5 AU. But, it does demonstrate that a planet of ~90% the gravity of Earth and ~twice the solar wind can retain a very substantial atmosphere for billions of years.

......

So lets have a new look at the Trappist-1 system's planets. (New information)
https://www.astrobio.net/also-in-news/n … 1-planets/
Quote:

The seven Earth-size planets of TRAPPIST-1 are all mostly made of rock, with some having the potential to hold more water than Earth, according to a new study published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics. The planets’ densities, now known much more precisely than before, suggest that some planets could have up to 5 percent of their mass in water — which is 250 times more than the oceans on Earth.
The form that water would take on TRAPPIST-1 planets would depend on the amount of heat they receive from their star, which is a mere 9 percent as massive as our Sun. Planets closest to the star are more likely to host water in the form of atmospheric vapor, while those farther away may have water frozen on their surfaces as ice. TRAPPIST-1e is the rockiest planet of them all, but still is believed to have the potential to host some liquid water.
“We now know more about TRAPPIST-1 than any other planetary system apart from our own,” said Sean Carey, manager of the Spitzer Science Center at Caltech/IPAC in Pasadena, California, and co-author of the new study. “The improved densities in our study dramatically refine our understanding of the nature of these mysterious worlds.”
Since the extent of the system was revealed in February 2017, researchers have been working hard to better characterize these planets and collect more information about them. The new study offers better estimates than ever for the planets’ densities.

So, it appears from the above that this set of Red Dwarf planets, may very well be able to hold onto water. If they can do that, then I find it hard to believe that they cannot hold onto atmosphere.

Yes for the outer ones, there is a potential that they are like the three outer Jupiter moons, Calisto, Europa, and Ganymede, icy and without significant atmosphere, but I have been working on the notion that they could actually host habitability by natural processes that redistribute the Oceans/Ice Caps, and Atmospheres.

It is hard for me to believe that the inner planets can hold their water/water vapor without atmospheres, and thinking that I don't see why the outer planets would not also have atmospheres, perhaps dominantly of Nitrogen, similar to Earth.

After all they are each much bigger than the moons of Jupiter.

......

For the outermost planet I will make a case for habitability which may be wrong. That is not the point. I am just exploring the limits of the model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen
Quote:

Melting point
63.15 K (−210.00 °C, −346.00 °F)
Boiling point
77.355 K (−195.795 °C,−320.431 °F)

So, lets imagine that the outer planet is just able to prevent it's atmosphere from freezing out. The above information suggests, that first before freezing Nitrogen out, there would be Nitrogen precipitation. I should expect in that case that there would then be Nitrogen rivers flowing off of the night side ice caps, which I expect to be at a significantly higher elevation than the day side.

Of course then you have the donation of molecular vibration from the day side to the night side, and with the delivery of Nitrogen rivers to the day side you have recycling of the Nitrogen to do it again.

It would be something beautiful to see, I expect, but I don't want a swim.

At the same time I expect that water melted under the ice cap by geothermal, tidal, and perhaps inductive heating will flow out of the base of the ice cap into the day side. I expect it to contain dissolved CO2. Further their might be CO2 eruptions from the base of the ice cap.

I expect that the ice cap will be composed of a mix of H2O and CO2 primarily.

Even though the top of the ice cap will be quite capable of freezing out CO2, I expect that the edges at lower elevations will be sufficiently warm to prevent re-freezing.

CO2 being heavier than Nitrogen, I expect it to flow into the daytime low spot. While this might present options of death to Earth animals, it might not. This is an alien planet after all.

Quite a lot, probably not all the arguments, but I am getting tired. Maybe Mars as a model needs further examination, but not now.

I am done with this post.

Last edited by Void (2018-02-06 13:42:32)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-02-03 19:35:13

Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#2 2018-02-04 04:12:21

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#3 2018-02-04 09:07:47

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#4 2018-02-04 09:11:30

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#5 2018-02-04 09:54:11

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#6 2018-02-04 09:59:21

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#7 2018-02-04 10:42:49

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#8 2018-02-04 13:51:18

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#9 2018-02-04 14:28:04

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#10 2018-02-04 21:43:01

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#11 2018-02-05 03:36:31

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

#12 2018-02-05 12:36:04

Re: Moving the Earth to more sun distant locations.

Board footer