> Countering that is the immense gravitational weight of the star itself, pressing inward with all the might that 1,027 tons of hydrogen and helium can muster.
More like 2 x 10^27 tons.
The first option steals momentum from Jupiter to reach a larger orbit:
> So instead, we’ll have to resort to asteroids. We can send them on long orbits that loop around Jupiter, using their gravitational interactions to speed up the asteroid in exchange for a slight slowing of the giant planet’s motion. We can then return the asteroid to Earth, looping it in the opposite direction, slowing it down and giving us a boost.
> The difference from a single pass will be barely measurable, let alone noticeable. It’s not like random floating space rocks can carry that much kinetic energy with them. But we just have to set it on repeat, looping over and over for hundreds of millions of years, nudging the Earth into ever higher orbits to escape the increasing ferocity of the Sun. If our descendants can manage it, it will keep our planet in the safe band of the habitable zone.
One big problem with the article's proposal to steal momentum from Jupiter to move Earth to a larger orbit is that it is an energy absorbing process. In other words, there has to be an external source of energy to move momentum from Jupiter to Earth. This is because the ratio of specific energy to specific momentum is higher for lower orbits than it is for higher orbits. In other words, the closer you are to the Sun, the more energy you get for a specific amount of momentum (because the gravity is stronger there). This is assuming near circular orbits.
So, you can gain energy by moving momentum from Earth to Jupiter, but you lose it the other way. Another planet, such as Saturn, would be needed as an energy donor (moving momentum from Jupiter to Saturn, then using the excess energy to move momentum from Jupiter to Earth) to make the energy equation balance.
This article borders on climate change denial, it's kinda ridiculous. The problem we face is not that the sun is getting hotter, but rather the greenhouse effect due to CO2 emissions.
Yes, we face an immediate climate emergency today. This article is for the humans of ~200 million years from now and avoiding the future red giant. Climate change won’t matter for them when the Earth will no longer be in the habitable zone.
Though even if we do manage to alter the orbit, the eventual white dwarf would require moving out orbit a second time, but into a highly radioactive environment.
I think it can be done by diverting a very large asteroid or series of asteroids to pass close by the Earth repeatedly, using their gravity to gradually change Earth's orbit. 200 million years gives us enough time to do so.
if we start to build a dysonsphere , then a big UV light towards the earth, powered by the dyson sphere. easypease. we can dim the light a bit to taste even to have some seasoning, maybe colour it for holidays :D
More like 2 x 10^27 tons.
The first option steals momentum from Jupiter to reach a larger orbit:
> So instead, we’ll have to resort to asteroids. We can send them on long orbits that loop around Jupiter, using their gravitational interactions to speed up the asteroid in exchange for a slight slowing of the giant planet’s motion. We can then return the asteroid to Earth, looping it in the opposite direction, slowing it down and giving us a boost.
> The difference from a single pass will be barely measurable, let alone noticeable. It’s not like random floating space rocks can carry that much kinetic energy with them. But we just have to set it on repeat, looping over and over for hundreds of millions of years, nudging the Earth into ever higher orbits to escape the increasing ferocity of the Sun. If our descendants can manage it, it will keep our planet in the safe band of the habitable zone.
reply