2

...so, let's move it.
NASA estimates it will cost One Trillion dollars over ten years to reach Mars. Just think of what we could save!

Basics:
Aphelion 249,209,300 km
1.665 861 AU
Perihelion 206,669,000 km
1.381 497 AU
Semi-major axis 227,939,100 km
1.523 679 AU
Eccentricity 0.093 315
Orbital period 686.971 day
Volume 1.6318 × 1011 km³
0.151 Earths
Mass 6.4185 × 1023 kg
0.107 Earths
Mean density 3.934 g/cm³
Equatorial surface gravity 3.69 m/s²
0.376 g
Mars would be a handy place to:
Dump our nuclear waste.
Provide room for our exploding population.
Study astronomy without atmospheric distortion.
Deport residents of Red states (It's the Red planet).
Vacation.
Conduct dangerous experiments.
And others I haven't thought of.

How to go about it?
That's where you come in.
It seems to me we need to stop the rotation first, in order to apply directional force to change the orbit. I'm thinking many large rocket engines arranged along the equator (Fusion powered, of course).
Once the rotation is stopped, swivel the same rocket engines to apply force in the appropriate direction until an orbit similar to Earth's is achieved.
Your thoughts?

11
Contributors
49
Replies
50
Views
7 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by GrimJack
Featured Replies
  • 1

    [QUOTE=hughv;1062048]Nobody said a thing about stopping earth's rotation. We're talking about Mars here. Mars rotation is 869/kph at the equator, about 540 miles per hour. Maybe you're having trouble with the concept: slow it down until stops, apply enough force to change the orbit until it's closer to the Sun.[/quote] … Read More

0

There is too much dust on Mars. It would be more fun to create some rather large floating islands on Earth.

-1

Where's the forum with the clever people who can help with difficult technical challenges?

0

Where's the forum with the clever people who can help with difficult technical challenges?

Well your posting in it. Also I believe it will be another 291 years before we see humans living on mars - year 2300. Hope to see you then.

0

Well your posting in it. Also I believe it will be another 291 years before we see humans living on mars - year 2300. Hope to see you then.

What would the advantages be to live on mars?

0

What would the advantages be to live on mars?

Then planet is about polluted with global warming making earth unlivable so the temperature would be a lot better on mars if in the next 50 the earths temperature is meant to rise over 7 degrees. So one day earth will be so warm that humans can no longer live on earth which means we will need to move to another planet. That is if the theories of global warming are correct which I don't believe.

0

So, how do you move something the size of a planet?

Teleportation. Scientist have already teleported the first particle. So the technology is going to be available in about the next 10 years so you could just teleport the planet. But why would you move mars or any planet. Mars is fine where it is.

0

You gotta' read the whole thread. You're just like the blind men and the elephant.

0

You gotta' read the whole thread. You're just like the blind men and the elephant.

I have already read the whole thread but are you saying that since Mars is too far away to get to we should teleport the planet closer so it will be just as accessible as the moon. I don't think very many scientists would be keen on doing that as it would affect Mars orbit.

0

...so, let's move it.
NASA estimates it will cost One Trillion dollars over ten years to reach Mars. Just think of what we could save!

(snip)

How to go about it?
That's where you come in.
It seems to me we need to stop the rotation first, in order to apply directional force to change the orbit. I'm thinking many large rocket engines arranged along the equator (Fusion powered, of course).
Once the rotation is stopped, swivel the same rocket engines to apply force in the appropriate direction until an orbit similar to Earth's is achieved.
Your thoughts?

Sorry - you can't stop the rotation nor can you stop the revolution; what you do is take them into account (like using English ((why is it called 'English')) in pool). Well, this is actually as far as I want to go - most any force applied to alter the orbit of Mars will tear it apart.

The teleportation idea is better but only a blind optimist would predict availability in 10 years - it took 25 years for the first report of using silicon as a storage medium to getting USB thumb drives.

-2

No.

Teleportation. Scientist have already teleported the first particle. So the technology is going to be available in about the next 10 years so you could just teleport the planet. But why would you move mars or any planet. Mars is fine where it is.

I have already read the whole thread but are you saying that since Mars is too far away to get to we should teleport the planet closer so it will be just as accessible as the moon. I don't think very many scientists would be keen on doing that as it would affect Mars orbit.

1

hughv -> Waa waa waa.. They don't agree with me.

Get over it, really, if you want ideas, accept them, discuss them, never just completely discount them. Thats why its called a Discussion Forum.

My personal opinion is that the amount of raw materials as well as money required to either :
A) Move the whole planet
B) Teleport
Would be way beyond our reach.. And 25 years ago people thought we would by flying around in jetpacks with computer implanted in us.. unfortunately that hasnt happened yet :P

So i think we really have just this one chance, so rather than spend trillions of dollars trying to move our planet. Why dont we spend that money fixing what we have now?

0

So i think we really have just this one chance, so rather than spend trillions of dollars trying to move our planet. Why dont we spend that money fixing what we have now?

Well the problem with that is the governments do not believe there is global warming so soon we will be swimming from one building to another instead of driving. So if nobody can admit to the problem (global warming) then how do you expect them to fix it. Very few governments or politicians have admitted to global warming none of which are taking much action. So you have to face the earth is doomed.

0

So you have to face the earth is doomed

No i don't. That sounds like someone who has given up. The government is run for the people and by the people. So, if people are serious about climate change (serious enough to want to move the planet) then something can be done. Start small, but it is getting places. Just recently the US announced that they were taking a figure of 17% cut in green house emissions by 2020 (or 2050, cant remember).

Here in Australia a Carbon Trading Scheme is being put through parliment.

People are doing things, and the more public pressure the faster things will get done.

0

Uhh no. Man is nowhere even close to teleporting an apple, let alone a planet. You're delusional. Also, I'm not a physicist, but I read that article, and they didn't teleport anything in the sense you are implying. They 'teleported' it in the sense that they were able to duplicate a property of the particle, not the particle itself. The article says that they are planning to use it in communication, not that they think it is a breakthrough in the future of teleporting Mars.

Edited by BestJewSinceJC: n/a

0

Here is the simplest solution, send hughv to mars by using some recycled space shuttle . :D

0

"Waa, waa? "
This is a simple speculative, engineering question, so I'm not sure where the critics are coming from.
You may have a reason that the revolution can't be stopped or sloweed, but I'd like to know what it is. My thought is to do this very gradually, then reinstate it after the orbit has been adjusted.
It seems to me, and my knowledge of orbital mechanics is very limited, that all we're talking about is increasing or reducing the speed at which Mars travels through space. Faster, the size of the orbit increases, slower, it decreases.

Sorry - you can't stop the rotation nor can you stop the revolution; what you do is take them into account (like using English ((why is it called 'English')) in pool). Well, this is actually as far as I want to go - most any force applied to alter the orbit of Mars will tear it apart.

The teleportation idea is better but only a blind optimist would predict availability in 10 years - it took 25 years for the first report of using silicon as a storage medium to getting USB thumb drives.

0

Okay... we are missing a major point here. Mars is way too far away. When we discovered water on mars, it was the remains of ice lakes. Mars is cold, very cold. If we went to mars, the new problem would be global cooling. In a massive scale.

0

So the Earth is getting a little warmer (maybe), that has happened before without human activity holding the blame. If the ocean surface gets larger, some of us can simply live on floating islands. I would rather do that then live on an ice planet or dust planet. Also. if the ocean surface and volume gets larger, it absorbs more carbon dioxide. Things should balance out.

If you want to settle something, think about the moon. Mars would be an enormous travel cost. An artificial indoor atmosphere needs to be created in either case.

0

Okay... we are missing a major point here. Mars is way too far away. When we discovered water on mars, it was the remains of ice lakes. Mars is cold, very cold. If we went to mars, the new problem would be global cooling. In a massive scale.

If mars has global cooling then we can pollute the planet with the carbon we are using on earth. So polluting the planet would be a good thing on mars as it would sent temperatures to something reasonable.

Uhh no. Man is nowhere even close to teleporting an apple, let alone a planet. You're delusional. Also, I'm not a physicist, but I read that article, and they didn't teleport anything in the sense you are implying. They 'teleported' it in the sense that they were able to duplicate a property of the particle, not the particle itself. The article says that they are planning to use it in communication, not that they think it is a breakthrough in the future of teleporting Mars.

However experiments have already successfully teleported the first particle. Although they haven't figured out how to piece together the particles in the right order I believe in another 10 years that will change as hard work is being done on it with great success.

0

"Waa, waa? "
This is a simple speculative, engineering question, so I'm not sure where the critics are coming from.

there is no such thing as a simple engineering question

You may have a reason that the revolution can't be stopped or sloweed, but I'd like to know what it is. My thought is to do this very gradually, then reinstate it after the orbit has been adjusted.
It seems to me, and my knowledge of orbital mechanics is very limited, that all we're talking about is increasing or reducing the speed at which Mars travels through space. Faster, the size of the orbit increases, slower, it decreases.

The reasons it can't be slowed are numerous but the main problem is that the surface is rotating at 24,000 miles per day(1000 miles per hour - roughly) at the equator; The tips of mountains are rotating at a different speed that the surface; the Earth is not round but roughly an oblate spheroid so even at the equator parts are rotating at different speeds; this holds true to the center of the earth which is a ball of molten liquid nickle/iron that has its own particular problems including the different currents. This is just the 'land'; the water has a completely different momentum to the land; then you have to take into account the air which has a completely different momentum to either earth and water and has the added problem of it varying viscosity, the mountains, the deserts, the glaciers and oceans (the oceans will add moisture to the air, the deserts and glaciers will both add and subtract moisture and the mountains will cause extreme variations in air movement).

You cannot stop anything - you can only match velocities and accelerations. Please go here and add up the velocities (both plus and minus). Even your concept of teleportation is a hostile concept since you would leave the earth at a particular velocity relative to Mars that is stupendous - your teleport would be equivalent to standing on top of a train entering a tunnel at 100 mph (which, according to relativity is the same as you standing still and the mountain hitting you at 100 miles per hour). You can blow smoke and mirrors all you want but until you can account for momentum, acceleration, and/or velocity [yes, I know that there is a formula a = m(V1 - V2)/t but I did not want to digress to far] you can not do any of what you imagine. (I will not go into the pun whose punchline is "long distance teleclone fall")

Being a 'big-picture guy' is more that daydreaming - you have to know something. If you mention stopping the earth again, I will know that you have no concepts based in physics and have done nothing other than thinking "ooh, this would be neat - let the smart guys figure it out".

Edited by GrimJack: not only are the velocities different from surface to center but from equator to poles

0

Nobody said a thing about stopping earth's rotation. We're talking about Mars here. Mars rotation is 869/kph at the equator, about 540 miles per hour.
Maybe you're having trouble with the concept: slow it down until stops, apply enough force to change the orbit until it's closer to the Sun.
I haven't heard a single reason it can't be done.

0

Maybe you're having trouble with the concept: slow it down until stops, apply enough force to change the orbit until it's closer to the Sun.
I haven't heard a single reason it can't be done.

And exactly how do you think someone will do that. Do you suggest sending a few missiles to mars to blow it out of it's orbit like the missile that tested water on the moon. It would take about 30 years to get the job done and not to mention the development of a large enough missile to blow mars out of its orbit. Then how do you expect to get mars back into its orbit... Impossible. Teleportation is the key when it is finally developed and powered by fusion power.

1

Nobody said a thing about stopping earth's rotation. We're talking about Mars here. Mars rotation is 869/kph at the equator, about 540 miles per hour.
Maybe you're having trouble with the concept: slow it down until stops, apply enough force to change the orbit until it's closer to the Sun.

this is the speed - you have to include the mass in the equation to grasp the energy required

I haven't heard a single reason it can't be done.

I have not heard a single way that you could even START the process to do this. Give us a clue about how you expect to accomplish the slowing of Mars to a stop, moving its orbit, then restarting it.

How does it being Mars rather than earth make a difference? What force could you apply to stop it? How would you even begin to think that you could remove billions of tons of angular momentum?

If you would like me to calculate the rotational energy stored in the Mars system, I probably could but be a dear and tell me what would be used to slow the rotation? How would you prevent Mars from flying off out of the system or falling into the sun? Where are you putting the energy removed from the system (conservation of energy rules apply).

Jack your car up until the drive wheels are off the ground, have someone gun the engine then tell me how you will stop the tires from rotating as a small example.

Maybe just put your car on a lake (theoretical frictionless surface), get the car up to top speed then explain how you will stop it.

In the attached formulae ω is the angular speed
I \ is the moment of inertia.
K \ is the kinetic energy.
and I is the moment of inertia of the object (in general, a tensor quantity) and ω is the angular velocity. You can rationalize the 2 formulae. click on the torque image for a cute .gif animation

Edited by GrimJack: why do I bother??

Attachments 6076fd45d3d28166bf0fe90dca1cdef7.png 0.65 KB ceefb7455eaee9b08e55b7100eab695d.png 0.72 KB crossproduct.gif 1.01 KB Torque_animation.gif 156.06 KB
-1

Angular momentum is just a number. In theory, just apply enough force along the same plane and you can negate it.
My (admittedly simplistic) theory is explained in the very first post, along with Mar's mass.

0

just apply enough force along the same plane and you can negate it.

Have you thought about this? It would take thousands of years to slow any planet's rotation down.. See, planets are really really big, newton tells us that really really big things do not like to stop moving. And unless you have rockets the size of the moon and bigger then i can say that there is very little chance we could do anything, at all.

Instead, why don't you go outside and plant trees? Thats a lot better way to save our planet.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.