Hi Pop Worlds

[Gaidheal]

Kind of my point... [don't know you have a Ph.D.] I know that you've not been wrong on the stuff you have said and there are points of opinion where I might disagree but they've been, by their nature, speculation and I could doubtless line up a few 'real scientist' mates and get a range of opinions from them, too, so... you know.

In other words, I don't actually care about your Ph.D. in this context (well done, though, mate) you established your authority with me through being correct and well presenting what you know.

Now, is it me or has this topic drifted further than an earth-sized planetoid caught in the gravitational field of a large gas giant? ;¬)

 

[atpollard]

At TLs close to the OTU, this is bound to be just as economically unfeasible as a ringworld is, if not more. Drive systems are expensive.

"Economic Feasability" is probably the worst possibe criteria to apply to any worthwhile 'Great Endeavour' (which a rosette or ringworld would surely be).

Which of the following would prove economically efficient:
The Pyramids,
The Great Wall,
The Eiffel Tower,
Apollo (lunar landing),
any building over 60 stories.

If a rosetta were economically feasible, then they would be not only possible, but common.

TRAVELLER (and sci-fi in general) offers two handwaves that make moving planets less dificult than they would be if subject to Newtonian Reality:
1. Cheap, plentiful fusion power.
It should be possible to calculate the total energy needed to accelerate Venus to Earth's orbital velocity (a prerequisite to shifting the orbit). While this value will be large (unobtainably so in current technology) it is a trivial matter to design a Traveller PP to generate the necessary power and to determine the fuel required.
2. Magic Reactionles Drives and Repulsors.
With these technologies, it is possible (within Traveller physics) to convert energy into a force and apply it at a distance. This makes planet moving potentially plausible.

These same technologies should also allow a mechanism to gently nudge the worlds to maintain the orbit and counteract other gravity perturbations. The force exerted on the Earth by Jupiter (gravity) is probably a small fraction of the energy required to shift an orbit.

 

[Gaidheal]

I think economics is a good thing to consider, actually, even if you're talking about 'one of a kind' affairs like the monuments listed. It's not efficiency we necessarily care about but economic output and engineering feasibility running a close second.

In other words, could it even be built at all? Do we have enough stuff to manage that before our civilization is but a distant memory?

After that you need motivation and someone powerful enough (or some entity, at any rate) to command that kind of economic output. The things you listed all had that.

 

[EDG]

I'm assuming that detatching the planet from the GG after moving it might be traumatic; and if so, probably too the grabbing ?

I don't know enough about this to answer either question.

It's not really a case of "grabbing" though. Flinging a GG past a planet will just change the planet's orbit. Actually capturing a planet by using a somehow-mobile GG is going to be damn difficult in terms of the orbital mechanics of it all. And if it's captured around the GG, you can't really "uncapture" it without involving another large mass in the problem (like, say, the star - which you'd have to move the GG-planet system darn close to). So just moving the planet out of its orbit will severely screw up the planet's environment just by itself (especially if it's habitable).

Gravity isn't a claw to "grab" planets with - it's a lot more complicated than that.

 

[captainjack23]

I'm assuming that detatching the planet from the GG after moving it might be traumatic; and if so, probably too the grabbing ?

I don't know enough about this to answer either question.

It's not really a case of "grabbing" though. Flinging a GG past a planet will just change the planet's orbit. Actually capturing a planet by using a somehow-mobile GG is going to be damn difficult in terms of the orbital mechanics of it all. And if it's captured around the GG, you can't really "uncapture" it without involving another large mass in the problem (like, say, the star - which you'd have to move the GG-planet system darn close to). So just moving the planet out of its orbit will severely screw up the planet's environment just by itself (especially if it's habitable).

Gravity isn't a claw to "grab" planets with - it's a lot more complicated than that.

Makes sense. I assumed that that's why the earth remained in orbit around the remnants of Uranus in the book; sounds like while one could move a gas giant (in the same sense that one could build a dyson sphere ) capturing the planet you actually want moved is pretty problematic. I was kind of skeptical that the moons of a GG would work, as described, given the exhaust and heat issues......

Thanks !

 

[captainjack23]

I'm assuming that detatching the planet from the GG after moving it might be traumatic; and if so, probably too the grabbing ?

I don't know enough about this to answer either question.

It's not really a case of "grabbing" though. Flinging a GG past a planet will just change the planet's orbit. Actually capturing a planet by using a somehow-mobile GG is going to be damn difficult in terms of the orbital mechanics of it all. And if it's captured around the GG, you can't really "uncapture" it without involving another large mass in the problem (like, say, the star - which you'd have to move the GG-planet system darn close to). So just moving the planet out of its orbit will severely screw up the planet's environment just by itself (especially if it's habitable).

Gravity isn't a claw to "grab" planets with - it's a lot more complicated than that.

Makes sense. I assumed that that's why the earth remained in orbit around the remnants of Uranus in the book; sounds like while one could move a gas giant (in the same sense that one could build a dyson sphere ) capturing the planet you actually want moved is pretty problematic. I was kind of skeptical that the moons of a GG would work either , as described, given the exhaust and heat issues......

Thanks !

 

[Tobias]

Which of the following would prove economically efficient:

"Efficient", I don't know. Feasible, all of them. Besides, this is not the scale we are talking about here. All these things cost a miniscule part of the economic output of the civilizations that built them, over a limited number of years.

TRAVELLER (and sci-fi in general) offers two handwaves that make moving planets less dificult than they would be if subject to Newtonian Reality:

TRAVELLER also offers a cost for moving planetoid hulls. Taking the most generous of these (FFS2, Cr1 per m³) and ignoring the difficulties of moving a single planet instead of many small asteroids, for a planet slightly smaller than Earth we get about Cr 500,000,000,000,000,000,000.
That would be Cr 25,000,000 per citizen of the Imperium (which has ~20 trillion citizens), so if each and every citizen of the Imperium, man, woman, child, or trisexual multistage alien, contributed a whopping Cr 5000 per year, it would take this endeavour 5000 years to be completed.

You can also, for fun, calculate how much it would cost to give such a planet a drive system capable of even 0.000001 G. It's not going to be affordable either.

 

[alex_greene]

This topic has well and truly drifted.

Further comment withdrawn, having served its purpose and no longer being necessary.

 

[Tobias]

And you are certainly proving that you are a much better and more mature person this way - especially by openly pronouncing your superior stance instead of keeping quiet. I congratulate you.

 

[alex_greene]

Comments withdrawn, having hopefully served their purpose.

 

[Tobias]

I'm kinda puzzled. Either my sarcastic remark above was wickedly effective. Or it was not recognized as sarcasm. What is it, now?

 

[alex_greene]

I'm kinda puzzled.

The beginning of wisdom.

 

[Gaidheal]

"You haff mudge to rurn, glasshobber!"

;¬)

 

[Tobias]

No, seriously. I don't.
Note that this is insightful commentary which you will "get" if you are smart enough. It's not self-serving, nonsensical spam.

 

[Gaidheal]

[chorus] "Oh yes you do!"

...


I think you might be taking this all too seriously, mate; it's pretty clear you were 'right' on pretty much everything you said and plausible on those bits that were speculation based on facts, so why not just move on and accept that some people would cut their own throats before admitting they might have made an error of assertion on an online forum?

 

[Tobias]

Because cryptic, self-serving one-liners which have no topical relevance altogether seem to be all the rage here?

 

[rust]

I'm kinda puzzled. Either my sarcastic remark above was wickedly effective. Or it was not recognized as sarcasm. What is it, now?

Well, I am a German, we have no sense of humour and never recognize
sarcasm, it has something to do with the genome. :?

 

[Tobias]

Das glaube ich weniger.

 

[Gaidheal]

rust - As I never tired of telling my German girlfriend... who is now my ex... wait, I think I see a pattern... ;¬)

 

[alex_greene]

And because sometimes you have to stop an argument, tell each party involved that they have valid points, however contradictory, and tell them all to return to their corners, because they're really getting nowhere and all it's doing is putting off people from coming to this forum to discuss Taveller.

Now the thing is, there have been any number of non-mods telling all arguing parties to put a cork in it. Should the next voice along be a mod, or can we now all just, as the cliche says, get along?