Moving Mars Mission (in Off-topic)
Okay, to say it was in some way possible to move Mars, could we put it in a close orbit without like screwing up the solar system to ours?
Or does this make no sense?
April 8 2010 5:05 PM EDT
No sense, or nonsense. It's a fine line, but qualifies for both methinks :)
Gravity engines capable of moving planets are still a little ways out I suspect, but if they did exist I don't see why we couldn't have Mars share our orbit somehow.
Wow, for this to truly happen. this questions makes me think of shadow raiders or w/e its called with the ice fire and ooze planet. the rock planet had like 4 moons that could move freely from orbit. They were like mini death stars.
April 8 2010 6:11 PM EDT
there are planets out there that share one orbit, but it is most common seeing stars and planets share an orbit where the plant is close enough to the star to make the star wobble
April 8 2010 8:22 PM EDT
Mass of Mars is roughly 6.4185 * 10^23 kg.
Average orbital speed of Mars is 24.077 km/s.
Average orbital speed of Earth is 29.783 km/s (yes, orbital speed of Earth is higher - the closer you get to a gravity well, e.g. The Sun, the faster you have to move to keep in orbit).
First, you'd need to give Mars a slow-down enough to turn its (let's call it circular even if it's not) orbit an eliptical look, with its current position in the new orbit "long" axis (approx. 1.523 AU from the Sun), and with the "short" axis being about where you want it to stop (approx. 1 AU from the Sun), letting it naturally accelerate as it "goes down towards the Sun", then give it enough of an extra bump in speed to stabilize in the new orbit properly.
Ok, realistically (?lol?) speaking, you'd have to do this in many small stages (slow down, wait, accelerate, wait, slow down, wait, accelerate, wait, etc) so you won't simply tear it apart from the stress you have to put into it.
Either way, let's assume for the sake of argument you COULD somehow manage to pull it off with minimal total delta-v requirements, you still need roughly 5.7 km/s of delta-v (or at least the same order of magnitude, don't quite recall if you need that/2 or that*2 for this kind of maneouver).
ANYWAY, even if we lowball that to 6.7 * 10^23 kg mass to be adjusted by 5700 m/s of delta-v, that's still 6.7*10^23*5700*5700 Joules, or roughly 2.17 * 10^31 Joules.
Like I said, that could be actually around 1.08 * 10^31 or 4.34 * 10^31 Joules, but that's not the point.
The point is, that in 2008, the total worldwide energy consumption was 4.74 * 10^20 Joules.
In other words, you need AT LEAST 91,000,000,000 years' worth of WORLDWIDE energy consumption (as per a couple of years ago) to pull this off.
Needless to say... not a big chance of that happening any time soon, even under ideal circumstances.
April 8 2010 8:31 PM EDT
Nah doo u cud totally do that all u need is a flashlight.
Very nice sickone.
What if we got a handful of giant(10x normal size?)nuclear reactors in space without the safety, environmental, and different set limitations in place on Earth. Ignore solar batteries or china syndrome likely hood for the time being. How many years could that shave off with that big maybe?
April 8 2010 9:31 PM EDT
April 8 2010 10:34 PM EDT
Which is really just conservation of energy.
I think you all are missing the question. He wants to know if moving mars would have detrimental effects to our solar system or earth...not if or how much energy it would require.
The energy and machines needed to do so could have a profound affect on our system. Mars could spin off into space, collide with Jupiter, cannonball into the sun, or explode like a galactic grenade sending chunks into our oceans.
We will have a new planet called Marpitur.
As for moving Mars why do we need to? Both Mars and Venus are in the green zone already. We just need to terraform their atmospheres.
it would be so much more difficult, expensive, and time consuming to transport back and forth between their current orbits than to just jump off of one bus and wait for the next one to come around... When you factor in all the construction that would need to be done, all the stuff that would be moved, and the consumer retardation of people insisting that mars water is better, but earth grows the best broccoli... Then think "well if mars doesn't have much rocket fuel, this won't last long..."
April 9 2010 12:43 AM EDT
If Mars were to come into close orbit of earth, I'd definitely go surfing. The tides are going to be HUGE.
April 9 2010 7:51 AM EDT
Okay, to say it was in some way possible to move Mars, could we put it in a close orbit without like screwing up the solar system to ours? Or does this make no sense?
It makes no sense because of the energy requirements you could not do this even if you wanted for about 50 million years.
The question wasnt really could we, cause most things like that are possible in time, if technology continues as is, more like if it was moved would it mess everything up and we'd like crash into the sun etc... :)
As far as I can tell most problems with mars could be solved by crashing various asteroids into it.
I guess the main thing im geting toward is if you generally mess with one planet, namely Mars, how badly is that going mess up Earth?
April 9 2010 1:19 PM EDT
Im not asking is it possible, im saying if we did move mars like the opposite side as to where earth is so its like on the same zxis just other side, would that mess with the other planets too much, especially ours.
April 9 2010 1:29 PM EDT
Which is a waste of time because the energy required to do so would be so huge that there would be other effects of it.
April 9 2010 2:13 PM EDT
Give me a place to stand, and I will move the earth. (Or possibly Mars)
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00326L">Moving Mars Mission</a>