Timeline for Can we build a world in 1,000 years?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
50 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Feb 28, 2017 at 11:07 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Feb 28, 2017 at 11:07 | history | notice removed | user10945 | ||
| Feb 28, 2017 at 11:07 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | moved from User.Id=10945 by developer User.Id=2 | |
| Feb 27, 2017 at 14:19 | comment | added | SRM | @pete "build" ... moving ain't building. I disqualified that weaseling in my own question, I'm certainly not going to include it here. | |
| Feb 27, 2017 at 7:02 | comment | added | user10945 | @SRM I don't think anything in the question discounts the idea of moving and /or terraforming a planet... | |
| Feb 27, 2017 at 3:52 | comment | added | SRM | @Pete --- I've looked at your question every way I can. I cannot find any way to come anywhere close to 1000 years. Terraforming an existing world? Yes. Moving an existing planet? Plausible. BUILDING one from scratch, even with the material close at hand? Not a chance. I'm sorry. I tried what I could, but it just isn't viable with physics that I know or could find. | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 16:27 | comment | added | JDługosz | See the novel Building Harlequin’s Moon. Deep-freeze ship, needs to build a world before continuing. It took 10s of thousands of years just waiting for it to cool after combining the smaller bodies. | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 9:38 | comment | added | user10945 | @JulianEgner That could work, if you wanted to expand and add this as an answer... | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 9:32 | comment | added | Julian Egner | What about not building a Planet, but moving a Planet or Moon from the outer solar system to the inner? You would still have to do much work for the terraforming, but at lest you dont have to construct the planet itself | |
| Feb 24, 2017 at 4:06 | comment | added | Phylliida | Passages in the Void (the second sequence of short stories there below MOPI) discusses what life would be like/how to maintain life in great detail once the planet is built, which I think is a very important part of building a planet since it needs to be usable | |
| Feb 23, 2017 at 22:14 | comment | added | user10945 | @CortAmmon Lots of technology. In my head, these guys have the tech and skills to do this, it's part of their plan for survival. Give them what they need to succeed... | |
| Feb 23, 2017 at 21:43 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | Given the answers I've seen so far, do you have any guidance on how advanced of technology we can leverage? In particular, I'm thinking about some extremely demanding energy/momentum balances which are... well... fantastic. | |
| Feb 23, 2017 at 20:19 | answer | added | Enigma Maitreya | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 18:45 | comment | added | user45623 | Have you ever seen photos of Singapore? Most of that was built in the last hundred years, using 20th century technology. google.com/… | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 11:15 | comment | added | user10945 | @MrScapegrace - I wanted the experts on WB to have the opportunity to actually build a world, not to find reasons not to (which they do on a pretty much daily basis). | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 11:14 | comment | added | Mr Scapegrace | Lets assume your fleet actually CAN build a planet. The better question is: why would they WANT to build a planet if they have everything they need on these generation ships (including technology to build new ships - I think it would a lot easier then building a planet). The race of mobile space gypsies would see planets as mining material, not potentially dangerous home/vacation spot. | |
| S Feb 22, 2017 at 10:18 | history | bounty started | CommunityBot | ||
| S Feb 22, 2017 at 10:18 | history | notice added | user10945 | Improve details | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 6:56 | comment | added | George McGinn | If the Fleet cannot support the inhabitants forever, what makes you think their technology is even good enough to build a world in the first place? | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 6:55 | answer | added | srirakshith | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 0:20 | comment | added | Cody | Current planet formation theories say there should be rocky planets close in to the star. If there is a huge gap in the orbits like you say, there is probably a good reason for it, such as that system's "Jupiter" tugging everything there towards it, or making it fall into the star, or maybe a hot Jupiter passed through recently. Even if you construct a planet there, it probably wouldn't be around for long. They'd be better off using that 1000 years to check a few nearby stars, as the planet might not even last through construction. | |
| Feb 22, 2017 at 0:19 | comment | added | trichoplax is on Codidact now | Similar question (one of mine) (although not a duplicate as this one includes planets as raw material rather than just asteroids) | |
| Feb 21, 2017 at 23:19 | comment | added | Nick T | If you needed some matter to begin with, see Star lifting. Though given most stars have multiple planets, that'd just be showing off. | |
| Feb 21, 2017 at 14:53 | answer | added | Werrf | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 21, 2017 at 14:42 | answer | added | Durakken | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 21, 2017 at 12:08 | history | edited | user |
edited tags
|
|
| Feb 21, 2017 at 6:24 | comment | added | MolbOrg | "Alternative solutions are also welcome." What do you mean by that, do you know about space habitats? Building a planet is possible, but it is very inefficient (used material wise) solution, so this small sentence just converts your question from "how to build a planet" into "stations are better for what you ask for sure". I found about 14 A from my answers which are more or less related to your problem, so you may think about to be more certain about building a planet(3-5 Answers related to the topic, which is big, but it is possible to do) | |
| Feb 21, 2017 at 5:42 | answer | added | fluffysheap | timeline score: 14 | |
| Feb 21, 2017 at 2:30 | comment | added | Mithoron | "Their original world can no longer support their species" + "create a new home planet out of the resources" you've got to be kidding me... (and yes it is supposed to be sarcastic). | |
| Feb 21, 2017 at 1:59 | answer | added | Tim | timeline score: 2 | |
| S Feb 20, 2017 at 22:44 | history | suggested | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Copy edited. Removed meta information (this belongs in comments).
|
| Feb 20, 2017 at 22:09 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 20, 2017 at 22:44 | |||||
| Feb 20, 2017 at 20:06 | comment | added | nzaman | @Zxyrra: Precisely! | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 19:17 | answer | added | cybernard | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 18:54 | answer | added | Yakk | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 18:31 | comment | added | M i ech | I upvoted this question just for the WorldBuilding joke. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 17:46 | history | edited | Brythan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Feb 20, 2017 at 17:21 | answer | added | Graham | timeline score: 33 | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 16:52 | comment | added | Zxyrra | If they have the power to build a planet, why can't they fix their current one? It seems easier to scrub the atmosphere or filter the oceans or even shift the orbit than to start from nothing. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 16:43 | comment | added | Zxyrra | The "Goldilocks zone" idea seems overrated. Many estimates put Mars outside of it, and yet it's our best option for colonization today; we're also getting ready to search for life on Europa, even though it's millions of miles outside the habitable zone. There are other ways to create a livable climate IMHO | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 16:16 | answer | added | ths | timeline score: 20 | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 16:15 | history | edited | user10945 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added image source
|
| Feb 20, 2017 at 13:44 | answer | added | Youstay Igo | timeline score: 28 | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 11:18 | history | edited | user10945 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added some scope guidance
|
| Feb 20, 2017 at 11:14 | answer | added | Andrew Dodds | timeline score: 52 | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 11:03 | comment | added | Joe Bloggs | While it's physically possible I'll leave the discussion on whether it's viable or not for someone with more time to answer than I! | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 10:51 | comment | added | pablodf76 | @Pᴇᴛᴇ That leaves a lot of room. If you are actually speaking of collecting materials to build a terrestrial planet, the fleet will need to use an awful lot of energy to move them out of their orbits, and most of it will be just to collect "useless" mass into a sphere. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 10:35 | comment | added | user10945 | Like I said in the question, they're aware of how to do this and have appropriate plans. They certainly haven't assumed that they'll find a perfect "Earth" analogue. | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 10:33 | comment | added | Sefa | What is the technology level of the generation ship occupant? Were they K1 with a pretty dyson sphere before departing or modern human ++ which just barely launched the ship by the skin of their teeth? | |
| Feb 20, 2017 at 10:13 | history | asked | user10945 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |