Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.

From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit

there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.

So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).

One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.

So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
V. Sim.

(And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible.. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)

-------------------
Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 4:46:09 PM UTC+3, VSim wrote:
> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
>
> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>
> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>
> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>
> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>
> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> V. Sim.
>
> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
>
> -------------------
> Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
> http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm

The problem might be that the target moon of Jupiter is too big to be extracted from orbit by an asteroid hit.
But I have a plan for that too. I think there's a good chance it could actually work. See
http://mhtt.50webs.com

On 7/18/2023 8:46 AM, VSim wrote:
> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
>
> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>
> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>
> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>
> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>
> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> V. Sim.
>
> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
>
> -------------------
> Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
> http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm

I like my solution a lot better. Have SpaceX launch a bunch of remote
controllable umbrellas for us. Open and close them as needed.

Lynn

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:11:39 AM UTC+3, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 7/18/2023 8:46 AM, VSim wrote:
> > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> >
> > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> >
> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> >
> > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> >
> > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> >
> > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> >
> > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> > V. Sim.
> >
> > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> >
> > -------------------
> > Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
> > http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
> I like my solution a lot better. Have SpaceX launch a bunch of remote
> controllable umbrellas for us. Open and close them as needed.
>
> Lynn

Who's going to control the process ? The UN ? Or the US ? :)
Anyway, I don't think it works. Too costly. The umbrellas would have to be big and would go broke way too quickly. The orbit, once increased, remains so for a lot of time.

They're floating a similar proposal, with the reflective particles, I've read about it these days (which brought me to the idea of enhancing the orbit). Looks like they're pretty sure it can be done, except for 2 things: the side effects that are very unpredictable, and this problem of who does what and how much. Once people and countries start to do things like that, they'll be very tempted to fix their own climate as they'd like it to the expense of others. And right now it doesn't seem like the West, China and Russia are likely to agree on a common plan for it.
With the increased orbit it should be simpler. It would be uniform for everybody. (Though I can imagine that some countries wouldn't like their own climate cooler, but that's it, those are the very countries that like global warming. Unfortunately for them, it has to be reversed for the sake of the planet.) And the side effects hopefully are minimal.

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
>
> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>
> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>
> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>
> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>
> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> V. Sim.
>
> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
>
> -------------------
> Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
> http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm

The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.

pt

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> >
> > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> >
> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> >
> > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> >
> > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> >
> > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> >
> > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> > V. Sim.
> >
> > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> >
> > -------------------
> > Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
> > http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>
> pt

But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> > > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> > >
> > > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> > >
> > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> > >
> > > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> > > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> > >
> > > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> > > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> > >
> > > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> > >
> > > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> > > V. Sim.
> > >
> > > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> > >
> > The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
> > and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
> >
> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.

Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet

although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > > > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> > > > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> > > >
> > > > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> > > >
> > > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> > > >
> > > > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> > > > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> > > >
> > > > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> > > > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> > > >
> > > > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> > > >
> > > > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> > > > V. Sim.
> > > >
> > > > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> > > >
> > > The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
> > > and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
> > >
> > But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
> Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet

I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?

> although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.

Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem. If it would, I think people would bother with it much less.

In article <f6f190a9-3d5f-4d3c-b594-b005472dfc6dn@googlegroups.com>,
VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>> > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>> > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big
>enough flyby object.
>> >
>> > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>> >
>> >
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>> >
>> > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more
>or less similar conclusions.
>> > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I
>don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>> >
>> > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with
>a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon)
>would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the
>right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the
>Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it
>completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big
>enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>> > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but
>judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm
>wrong.
>> >
>> > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page
>above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist
>in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few
>moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we
>could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it
>leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the
>right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could
>even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>> >
>> > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It
>probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One,
>because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident
>considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but
>the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the
>effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>> >
>> > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the
>planet later.
>> > V. Sim.
>> >
>> > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be
>possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy,
>if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's
>still something worth saving.)
>> >
>> > -------------------
>> > Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
>> > http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least
>50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time',
>where one is a major plot point,
>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions
>envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>>
>> pt
>
>But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.

One could achieve impressive levels of immediate cooling simply
by redirecting a much smaller asteroid into a geologically
appropriate location on Earth.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 9:54:03 AM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <f6f190a9-3d5f-4d3c...@googlegroups.com>,
> VSim <inte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> >> > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> >> > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big
> >enough flyby object.
> >> >
> >> > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> >> >
> >> >
> >https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> >> >
> >> > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more
> >or less similar conclusions.
> >> > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I
> >don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> >> >
> >> > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with
> >a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon)
> >would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the
> >right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the
> >Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it
> >completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big
> >enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> >> > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but
> >judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm
> >wrong.
> >> >
> >> > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page
> >above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist
> >in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few
> >moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we
> >could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it
> >leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the
> >right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could
> >even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> >> >
> >> > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It
> >probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One,
> >because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident
> >considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but
> >the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the
> >effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> >> >
> >> > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the
> >planet later.
> >> > V. Sim.
> >> >
> >> > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be
> >possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy,
> >if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's
> >still something worth saving.)
> >> >
> >> > -------------------
> >> > Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
> >> > http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
> >> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least
> >50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time',
> >where one is a major plot point,
> >> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions
> >envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
> >>
> >> pt
> >
> >But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
> One could achieve impressive levels of immediate cooling simply
> by redirecting a much smaller asteroid into a geologically
> appropriate location on Earth.

Its been tried before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis

It was not gentle.

pt

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:11:39 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 7/18/2023 8:46 AM, VSim wrote:
> > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> >
> > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> >
> > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> >
> > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> >
> > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> >
> > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> >
> > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> > V. Sim.
> >
> > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> >
> > -------------------
> > Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
> > http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
> I like my solution a lot better. Have SpaceX launch a bunch of remote
> controllable umbrellas for us. Open and close them as needed.

That is not a solution. You are treating GW as if the whole problem is summed up in one
number, the global average temperature. It is not. Among other things, any attempt to
intercept incoming sunlight will affect precipitation, with nuclear powers like India and
China being likely victims. When it comes to the food supply on a world of ten or
more billion people, whose ox gets gored is a problem which bids fair to have
a nuclear solution.

At first sight the move-the-earth proposal, impossible as it is with current or foreseeable technology,
avoids this problem by reducing sunlight a uniform percentage everywhere. But it will reduce the
land-sea temperature gradient, and thus reduce the monsoons on which India and other places
(US southwest) rely. It will also reduce the equator-to-pole gradient, with some effect on the jet stream.

And of course neither attempt will deal with the increasingly acid ocean. Enjoy
the stench of rotting ocean life while your oxygen levels drop precipitously!

The answer to the problems inherent in driving a car at 200 mph on a busy highway does not
consist of better seat belts and bigger bumpers. The answer is to slow down..

William Hyde

William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> writes:
>On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:11:39=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote=
>:

>> I like my solution a lot better. Have SpaceX launch a bunch of remote=20
>> controllable umbrellas for us. Open and close them as needed.=20
>
>That is not a solution. You are treating GW as if the whole problem is su=
>mmed up in one
>number, the global average temperature. It is not. Among other things, an=
>y attempt to
>intercept incoming sunlight will affect precipitation, with nuclear powers =
>like India and
>China being likely victims. When it comes to the food supply on a world of=
> ten or
>more billion people, whose ox gets gored is a problem which bids fair to ha=
>ve
>a nuclear solution.
>
>At first sight the move-the-earth proposal, impossible as it is with curren=
>t or foreseeable technology,
>avoids this problem by reducing sunlight a uniform percentage everywhere. =
>But it will reduce the
>land-sea temperature gradient, and thus reduce the monsoons on which India =
>and other places
>(US southwest) rely. It will also reduce the equator-to-pole gradient, wit=
>h some effect on the jet stream. =20
>
>And of course neither attempt will deal with the increasingly acid ocean. =
>Enjoy
>the stench of rotting ocean life while your oxygen levels drop precipitousl=
>y!
>
>The answer to the problems inherent in driving a car at 200 mph on a busy h=
>ighway does not
>consist of better seat belts and bigger bumpers. The answer is to slow down=

Ah, but the real, and viable, solution to the problem would put Lynn out of business.

On 7/19/2023 8:53 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <f6f190a9-3d5f-4d3c-b594-b005472dfc6dn@googlegroups.com>,
> VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big
>> enough flyby object.
>>>>
>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>>>>
>>>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>>>>
>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more
>> or less similar conclusions.
>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I
>> don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>>>
>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with
>> a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon)
>> would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the
>> right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the
>> Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it
>> completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big
>> enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but
>> judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm
>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page
>> above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist
>> in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few
>> moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we
>> could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it
>> leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the
>> right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could
>> even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>>>>
>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It
>> probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One,
>> because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident
>> considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but
>> the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the
>> effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>>>>
>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the
>> planet later.
>>>> V. Sim.
>>>>
>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be
>> possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy,
>> if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's
>> still something worth saving.)
>>>>
>>>> -------------------
>>>> Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
>>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least
>> 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time',
>> where one is a major plot point,
>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions
>> envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>>>
>>> pt
>>
>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
>
> One could achieve impressive levels of immediate cooling simply
> by redirecting a much smaller asteroid into a geologically
> appropriate location on Earth.

And that location is ?

Lynn

In article <u99e1a$29kb4$2@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 7/19/2023 8:53 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <f6f190a9-3d5f-4d3c-b594-b005472dfc6dn@googlegroups.com>,
>> VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big
>>> enough flyby object.
>>>>>
>>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>>>>>
>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more
>>> or less similar conclusions.
>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I
>>> don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>>>>
>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with
>>> a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon)
>>> would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the
>>> right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the
>>> Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it
>>> completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big
>>> enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but
>>> judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm
>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page
>>> above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist
>>> in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few
>>> moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we
>>> could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it
>>> leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the
>>> right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could
>>> even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>>>>>
>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It
>>> probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One,
>>> because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident
>>> considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but
>>> the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the
>>> effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the
>>> planet later.
>>>>> V. Sim.
>>>>>
>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be
>>> possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy,
>>> if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's
>>> still something worth saving.)
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------
>>>>> Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
>>>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least
>>> 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time',
>>> where one is a major plot point,
>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions
>>> envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>>>>
>>>> pt
>>>
>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
>>
>> One could achieve impressive levels of immediate cooling simply
>> by redirecting a much smaller asteroid into a geologically
>> appropriate location on Earth.
>
>And that location is ?
>
Somewhere sulfur-rich, ideally not too far from the equator.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 7/19/2023 2:45 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <u99e1a$29kb4$2@dont-email.me>,
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/19/2023 8:53 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>> In article <f6f190a9-3d5f-4d3c-b594-b005472dfc6dn@googlegroups.com>,
>>> VSim <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big
>>>> enough flyby object.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more
>>>> or less similar conclusions.
>>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I
>>>> don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with
>>>> a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon)
>>>> would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the
>>>> right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the
>>>> Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it
>>>> completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big
>>>> enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but
>>>> judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm
>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page
>>>> above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist
>>>> in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few
>>>> moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we
>>>> could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it
>>>> leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the
>>>> right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could
>>>> even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It
>>>> probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One,
>>>> because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident
>>>> considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but
>>>> the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the
>>>> effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the
>>>> planet later.
>>>>>> V. Sim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be
>>>> possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy,
>>>> if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's
>>>> still something worth saving.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------------------
>>>>>> Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
>>>>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
>>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least
>>>> 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time',
>>>> where one is a major plot point,
>>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions
>>>> envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>>>>>
>>>>> pt
>>>>
>>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
>>>
>>> One could achieve impressive levels of immediate cooling simply
>>> by redirecting a much smaller asteroid into a geologically
>>> appropriate location on Earth.
>>
>> And that location is ?
>>
> Somewhere sulfur-rich, ideally not too far from the equator.

Sulphur, Louisiana ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur,_Louisiana

Actually, the biggest sulfur mine in the USA was located in Newgulf,
Texas. Several of my cousins worked there until the mine closed in the
1980s. My mother is from Iago, Texas.
http://www.texasescapes.com/TexasGulfCoastTowns/Newgulf-Texas.htm

Lynn

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:16:37 PM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> William Hyde <wthyd...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:11:39=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote=
> >:
>
> >> I like my solution a lot better. Have SpaceX launch a bunch of remote=20
> >> controllable umbrellas for us. Open and close them as needed.=20
> >
> >That is not a solution. You are treating GW as if the whole problem is su=
> >mmed up in one
> >number, the global average temperature. It is not. Among other things, an=
> >y attempt to
> >intercept incoming sunlight will affect precipitation, with nuclear powers =
> >like India and
> >China being likely victims. When it comes to the food supply on a world of=
> > ten or
> >more billion people, whose ox gets gored is a problem which bids fair to ha=
> >ve
> >a nuclear solution.
> >
> >At first sight the move-the-earth proposal, impossible as it is with curren=
> >t or foreseeable technology,
> >avoids this problem by reducing sunlight a uniform percentage everywhere.. > >But it will reduce the
> >land-sea temperature gradient, and thus reduce the monsoons on which India =
> >and other places
> >(US southwest) rely. It will also reduce the equator-to-pole gradient, wit=
> >h some effect on the jet stream. =20
> >
> >And of course neither attempt will deal with the increasingly acid ocean.. =
> >Enjoy
> >the stench of rotting ocean life while your oxygen levels drop precipitousl=
> >y!
> >
> >The answer to the problems inherent in driving a car at 200 mph on a busy h=
> >ighway does not
> >consist of better seat belts and bigger bumpers. The answer is to slow down=
>
> Ah, but the real, and viable, solution to the problem would put Lynn out of business.

Actually, if carbon sequestration and storage becomes a part of the solution, and I am
beginning to think it must (though I admit nothing in the field seems particularly
promising to me now) expertise like Lynn's may be as valuable as ever.

William Hyde

On 7/19/2023 1:05 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 7/19/2023 2:45 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <u99e1a$29kb4$2@dont-email.me>,
>> Lynn McGuire  <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/19/2023 8:53 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
>>>> In article <f6f190a9-3d5f-4d3c-b594-b005472dfc6dn@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> VSim  <intelnav@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>>>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>>>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big
>>>>> enough flyby object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new.
>>>>>>> See
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more
>>>>> or less similar conclusions.
>>>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I
>>>>> don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with
>>>>> a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the
>>>>> Moon)
>>>>> would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the
>>>>> right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering
>>>>> the
>>>>> Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it
>>>>> completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big
>>>>> enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>>>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but
>>>>> judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page
>>>>> above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't
>>>>> exist
>>>>> in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few
>>>>> moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we
>>>>> could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it
>>>>> leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the
>>>>> right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could
>>>>> even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It
>>>>> probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One,
>>>>> because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident
>>>>> considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but
>>>>> the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see
>>>>> the
>>>>> effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the
>>>>> planet later.
>>>>>>> V. Sim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be
>>>>> possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy,
>>>>> if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's
>>>>> still something worth saving.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------------------
>>>>>>> Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least
>>>>>>> logically. See
>>>>>>> http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
>>>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least
>>>>> 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time',
>>>>> where one is a major plot point,
>>>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions
>>>>> envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pt
>>>>>
>>>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
>>>>
>>>> One could achieve impressive levels of immediate cooling simply
>>>> by redirecting a much smaller asteroid into a geologically
>>>> appropriate location on Earth.
>>>
>>> And that location is ?
>>>
>> Somewhere sulfur-rich, ideally not too far from the equator.
>
> Sulphur, Louisiana ?
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur,_Louisiana
>
> Actually, the biggest sulfur mine in the USA was located in Newgulf,
> Texas.  Several of my cousins worked there until the mine closed in the
> 1980s.  My mother is from Iago, Texas.
>    http://www.texasescapes.com/TexasGulfCoastTowns/Newgulf-Texas.htm
>
More likely somewhere in Indonesia. Lots of volcanic activity so should
be plenty of sulfur near the surface.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > > > > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> > > > > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> > > > >
> > > > > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> > > > >
> > > > > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> > > > > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> > > > >
> > > > > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> > > > > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> > > > >
> > > > > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> > > > > V. Sim.
> > > > >
> > > > > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> > > > >
> > > > The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
> > > > and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
> > > >
> > > But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
> > Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
> I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?

Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
Saturn's is 9.7 km/s

We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s

1% of earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^22 kg

You figure out the energy involved in doing that

> > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.

It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)

>If it would, I think people would bother with it much less.

your logic is not earth logic

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 8:54:15 PM UTC+3, William Hyde wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:11:39 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > On 7/18/2023 8:46 AM, VSim wrote:
> > > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> > > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> > >
> > > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> > >
> > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> > >
> > > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> > > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> > >
> > > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> > > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> > >
> > > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> > >
> > > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> > > V. Sim.
> > >
> > > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> > >
> > > -------------------
> > > Complete paradox-free time travel is possible, at least logically. See
> > > http://mhtt.50webs.com/time_travel.htm
> > I like my solution a lot better. Have SpaceX launch a bunch of remote
> > controllable umbrellas for us. Open and close them as needed.
> That is not a solution. You are treating GW as if the whole problem is summed up in one
> number, the global average temperature. It is not. Among other things, any attempt to
> intercept incoming sunlight will affect precipitation, with nuclear powers like India and
> China being likely victims. When it comes to the food supply on a world of ten or
> more billion people, whose ox gets gored is a problem which bids fair to have
> a nuclear solution.
>
> At first sight the move-the-earth proposal, impossible as it is with current or foreseeable technology,
> avoids this problem by reducing sunlight a uniform percentage everywhere. But it will reduce the
> land-sea temperature gradient, and thus reduce the monsoons on which India and other places
> (US southwest) rely. It will also reduce the equator-to-pole gradient, with some effect on the jet stream.

There will never be a perfect-for-all solution. If we look at such details I'm sure some equally valid can be found for carbon-neutrality too. Restoring the situation to more or less 200 years ago in a uniform way, as best as possible, seems like the best way to do it.

> And of course neither attempt will deal with the increasingly acid ocean. Enjoy
> the stench of rotting ocean life while your oxygen levels drop precipitously!

There will be other things to do, sure. For global warming this might be the solution.

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> > > > > > Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> > > > > > How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> > > > > >
> > > > > > there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> > > > > > Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> > > > > > Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> > > > > > V. Sim.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
> > > > > and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
> > > > >
> > > > But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
> > > Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
> > I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?
> Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
> Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
>
> We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s
>
> 1% of earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^22 kg
>
> You figure out the energy involved in doing that

As I said I'm not an expert. I'd like somebody who is to look at it properly.
And just throwing out big numbers won't change anything. We know we're dealing with pretty big things here, and the tools and actions needed to do them will need to be correspondingly big.

> > > although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
> > Going carbon-neutral won't solve the problem.
> It does stop further ocean acidification, limits the increase in temperature etc and over time afterwards natural processes will reduce the atmospheric CO2 levels (and we can do carbon extraction, although how practical it is to do is still unknown)

I'm not arguing in any way against 0-emissions. Please do (though it looks like it's easier said than done). But it doesn't solve the problem of natural global warming. It will have to be addressed at some point, my guess is it will be pretty soon.

James Nicoll wrote:

>In article <u99e1a$29kb4$2@dont-email.me>,
>Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 7/19/2023 8:53 AM, James Nicoll wrote:

>>> One could achieve impressive levels of immediate cooling simply
>>> by redirecting a much smaller asteroid into a geologically
>>> appropriate location on Earth.
>>
>>And that location is ?
>>
>Somewhere sulfur-rich, ideally not too far from the equator.

Krakatoa?

Brian

On 19/07/2023 15:27, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
>>>>
>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>>>>
>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>>>>
>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>>>
>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>>>>
>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>>>>
>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
>>>> V. Sim.
>>>>
>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
>>>>
>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>>>
>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
>
> Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
>
> although both of them seem much less practical than eliminating fossil fuel usage.
>

Like, the fossil fuel usage of doing this (if we even have enough fossil
fuels to do it) on its own would accelerate the problem immensely in the
short term. Which someone could argue doesn't matter, but that someone
can't be the one who said "We need a quicker solution".

On 20/07/2023 03:01, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
>>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
>>>>>> V. Sim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
>>>>>>
>>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
>>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>>>>>
>>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
>>> Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
>> I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?
>
> Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
> Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
>
> We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s

I see your numbers and accept it seems like it's acceleration that's
required, but intuitively shouldn't bringing Europa lower in the Sun's
gravity well (after taking it out of Jupiter's ofc) require
*decelerating* it ?

On 20/07/2023 04:29, VSim wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:01:31 AM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
>>>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
>>>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
>>>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
>>>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
>>>>>>> V. Sim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
>>>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
>>>> Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
>>> I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?
>> Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
>> Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
>>
>> We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s
>>
>> 1% of earth's mass is 5.972 × 10^22 kg
>>
>> You figure out the energy involved in doing that
>
> As I said I'm not an expert. I'd like somebody who is to look at it properly.
> And just throwing out big numbers won't change anything. We know we're dealing with pretty big things here, and the tools and actions needed to do them will need to be correspondingly big.
>

"Throwing out big numbers" is exactly the point. The laws of physics and
thermodynamics say what is possible to do and what it would take to do
it, and it seems you don't have an appreciation for what it would take
to do what you're saying - on a pure resource consumption level, let
alone developing the infrastructure and political will to achieve
something so unlike anything any human society has ever done before.

It seems like your mental image of this problem is that we need to nudge
these huge foam balls floating in space in our direction. Like a small
tugboat pulling a huge ship, it seems manageable because there is no
friction, right. Even if you can't move it a lot, a small amount of
acceleration in the right direction is enough to make it move in the
right direction and then it kind of takes care of itself.

The two issues are 1) these aren't huge foam balls or a large ship,
they're planetary bodies within two order of magnitudes of our own
planet in size. It's hard to picture how big that is because we can't
even picture how big *our* planet is BECAUSE IT'S SO BIG, but it's big.
And 2) while there is no friction in space to oppose movement, all those
planetary bodies are subject to gravitational forces that do.

Now, it's been too long since I've done maths and physics to actually do
the maths for you but I can try and find numbers that can help our
intuitions. First, in terms of mass it seems that Europa or Io are the
only ones of Jupiter's moons that are in our ballpark, with about
9x10^22 kg to the Moon's 7 for Io and 4x10^22 for Europa. Io is about
420 000 km from Jupiter, only a bit more than the 380 000 km the Moon is
from the Earth, and Europa is further at 670 000 km from Jupiter. All
the other moons are bigger (Callisto and Ganymede) or so many orders of
magnitudes smaller that you'd need millions to get the mass you want.

(already things are starting pretty badly because I can already say the
political will for destroying Io or Europa, of all moons in the Solar
System, will be nil).

Anyway, the distance from Jupiter tells you how much energy they'll need
to get out of Jupiter's orbit. Earth's mass is about 6x10^24 kg while
Jupiter's is about 500x that. While I can no longer do the math, I
*think* it should mean that at from an equal starting distance it should
take about 500x more energy to leave Jupiter's orbit than Earth's (I
checked equations, yes it seems energy should scale linearly with mass
and inversely with distance).

In other words, it would take 500 times more energy to pull Io from
Jupiter's orbit than it would take to pull the Moon from Earth's orbit,
and with smaller, further Europe it would merely take a modest 100 times
more energy to achieve that goal.

OK so pulling the Moon from Earth's orbit is also pretty hard to
picture, but unlike Io and Europa we have some concrete examples of
interacting with it. So here are some questions for you:

* By how much did the Apollo landers push the Moon when they landed on
it, do you think? Did they appreciably impact its orbit or was their
impact about as negligeable as that of you jumping on the couch ?

* For that matter, would you say that the total number of spaceships
that crashed into the Moon since the dawn of the space age had a
noticeable impact on its orbit or nah?

* While we're at it, what impact do you think atom bomb explosions had
on Earth's orbit?

* With that calibration out of the way, how much mass in terms of
spaceships or energy in terms of atom bombs do you think we'd have to
slam into the Moon to significantly impact its orbit?

* How much more do you think it would take to make it leave Earth's
orbit entirely and hurtle down towards Venus?

* If that mass is supposed to come from Earth, what fraction of that
mass would you say is carried in a typical Artemis launch - the most
powerful rocket launched so far ? 2 ? 10 ? 1000 ? 1 000 000 ? A number
too big to usefully picture?

* How many Artemis launches could humanity make a year if we *really*
tried do you think - considering right now we've done 1 and the next is
in a couple of years? And that adding it all other rockets (even though
many are doing things like launching satellites that we might want to
continue doing) increases that number by maybe two orders of magnitude
at most?

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:13:35 PM UTC+10, Arkalen wrote:
> On 20/07/2023 03:01, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:34:20 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 4:27:42 PM UTC+3, Hamish Laws wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 10:20:37 PM UTC+10, VSim wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 3:18:02 PM UTC+3, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 9:46:09 AM UTC-4, VSim wrote:
> >>>>>> Increase the orbit of the Earth by a few million kilometers.
> >>>>>> How do we do that ? By means of the gravity attraction of a big enough flyby object.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From the start it should be noted that this is by no means new. See
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-modest-proposal-lets-change-earths-orbit
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> there are few other pages out there on the same subject, with more or less similar conclusions.
> >>>>>> Which are that it is not possible with current technology. While I don't necessarily dispute this, they don't convince me on this point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So let's see. From the page above I understand that an object with a mass of around 1% of that of the Earth (which is similar to the Moon) would be enough. If it passed some 1 million km away from us, with the right trajectory and speed, it would do the trick. Without altering the Moon's orbit too much, we don't want that, let alone losing it completely in the process. Also, the distance to the Earth is big enough so that we don't risk hitting the Earth itself by some error.
> >>>>>> Of course, these things should be confirmed by specialists, but judging from the page above they seem right to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now the big question, where do we get that object from ? The page above and other similar ones reach the conclusion that it doesn't exist in the solar system. Which IMO is where they're wrong. There are a few moons of Jupiter and one of Saturn which are just big enough. Maybe we could borrow one of them ? Hit it with an asteroid big enough so it leaves the orbit around its planet, then steer it towards Earth on the right trajectory. And, after the job is done, I'm pretty sure we could even put it back into its orbit (more or less).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> One more observation, it doesn't have to be done in one shot. It probably would even be better to do it in 2 or even 3 steps. One, because the distance would be bigger and the risk of an accident considerably smaller (it would be practically non-existent anyway but the safer the better). Two, because we could wait a few year to see the effects of a smaller increase first before moving further.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, I welcome any observations. You can thank me for saving the planet later.
> >>>>>> V. Sim.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (And even if it can't be done today, maybe in 100 years it will be possible. As we know, global warming won't end with 0-emission energy, if we're ever capable of doing that. That is, if in 100 years there's still something worth saving.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The idea of a 'gravity tug' isn't new. Its been around for at least 50 years. I just finished rereading Niven's 'A World Out Of Time', where one is a major plot point,
> >>>>> and I don't think it was new in 1976. Most practical versions envisage hundreds or thousands of passes by a much smaller tug.
> >>>>>
> >>>> But that would take centuries. We need a quicker solution.
> >>> Compared to the time it'll take for us to come up with a way of moving a moon out of orbit of a gas giant, moving it for there to close enough to earth to affect the orbit and controlling it accurately enough to get the desired new orbit centuries seems a more likely bet
> >> I strongly doubt that. But then of course I'm no expert. Are you ?
> >
> > Jupiter's orbital speed is 13 km/s
> > Saturn's is 9.7 km/s
> >
> > We'd need to accelerate one of their moons to Earth's 29.8 km/s
> I see your numbers and accept it seems like it's acceleration that's
> required, but intuitively shouldn't bringing Europa lower in the Sun's
> gravity well (after taking it out of Jupiter's ofc) require
> *decelerating* it ?

No, the centripetal acceleration required to stay in a circular orbit is
a = v^2/r
a is provided by the sun's gravitational attraction and force is
F = G*m1*m2/(r^2)
m1 is sun mass, m2 is body mass
F = m2 * a
so
a = G*m1/r^2

G & the sun's mass are constant for all intents and purposes, call G * m1 = K

so we have
v ^ 2 /r = K / r^2

v^2 * r = K

So the velocity needed to orbit at a given radius is faster the closer you get to the sun

Now it's not quite that simple because the orbits are elliptical but for planets it's close enough to get the idea.