Timeline for Mining Suns For Terraforming?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Dec 25, 2016 at 17:32 | comment | added | user31336 | You also seem to have a strange idea of how magnets work. If you're using superconducting magnets, (almost) no work is done by the magnets on the plasma, and no work is done by the plasma on the magnets. All the energy for extraction is supplied by the reflectors. Tokamaks wouldn't be a thing if curving charged particles with magnets inherently transferred energy between them. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 17:12 | comment | added | user31336 | Um, just wait? Space is cold and the Sun's photosphere is an incredibly rarified gas by atmospheric standards. Some rough calculations (hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cootime.html#c2) suggest that a thousand-kilometre column (tiny, by astroengineering standards) can support a mass flow rate of over a billion tons per hour and still passively cool the plasma to room temperature. I didn't say "not pump". Stop putting words into my mouth. I said "not pipe". As in, not dropping a metal pipe into the Sun and trying to suck stuff up it, because that would be stupid. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 16:27 | comment | added | Zxyrra | @Yurgen You say not to pump it but the answer you cite literally uses the word "pump" in the context of moving hot plasma, and still suggests storing it. Please clarify what you believe will work. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 16:25 | comment | added | Zxyrra | @Yurgen Short of touching the plasma, if you don't plan to harvest it nor store it in that way, how would you suggest transporting it? Magnetism would transfer the energy to the magnets, melting them instead - and storage still requires some form of interaction. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 15:38 | comment | added | user31336 | In addition, you have failed to clarify why you're talking about coming into contact with the Sun. All the methods in consideration don't involve physically scooping matter out of stars with solid objects. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 15:34 | comment | added | user31336 | Jupiter, the largest gas giant in our solar system, has about 0.1% of the mass of the Sun. To claim that it will always remain cheaper than extracting mass from the Sun is taking a very short-sighted view of things. Jupiter will be mined out long before any significant change in the mass of the Sun is achieved. Furthermore, the methods of extracting matter from the Sun use solar energy to do so. Do you have calculations to show that the additional cost of transporting that energy to Jupiter are less than the savings from a shallower gravity well? | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 15:26 | comment | added | user31336 | Energy input is practically equivalent to size. Most of the fusion fuel in the Universe is in stars, so your energy input is always limited by the number of stars you control. Stars are also far enough away from each other that without FTL, it's not easy to control many stars without having highly developed infrastructures on the ones you do control. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 13:33 | comment | added | Zxyrra | @Yurgen The Kardashev scale is representative of energy input, not size or technology level, but many people equate it with technology. I cited it for that because that is what the OP asks for. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 13:32 | comment | added | Zxyrra | @Yurgen Being able to build a giant sphere out of solar panels does not translate to "not caring about mining gas giants" but "only caring about stars" in any way shape or form! Even if they have the power to do both, which is incredibly difficult to achieve, gas giants are significantly cheaper and will always remain so. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 11:28 | comment | added | user31336 | Surely you don't think that "mining the sun" involves building physical objects which enter the sun and move matter out with pipes, right? Right? See the video linked in Thucydides' answer. By definition, the Kardashev scale is a measure of size, not technology level. Since a Kardashev 2 civilisation can harvest the entire energy of its parent star, it is, by definition, already past the point where it cares about mining gas giants for raw materials. Basic star lifting is a considerably smaller scale project than getting to a full Kardashev 2 energy consumption. | |
| Dec 25, 2016 at 0:42 | history | edited | Zxyrra | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 21 characters in body
|
| Dec 25, 2016 at 0:13 | history | edited | Zxyrra | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 693 characters in body
|
| Dec 25, 2016 at 0:02 | history | answered | Zxyrra | CC BY-SA 3.0 |