Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl
That orbit will cause massive instabilities in the orbital mechanics of both planets and... etc etc
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by a humble lich
OK, first as mentioned above the gravitational interactions between Earth and Venus means that this isn't a stable orbit, especially with the new Venus orbit being so close to Earth's...
|
Yes, I'm aware. I was going to have Earth in the same orbit on the opposite side of the sun with some sort of surviving active-maintenance mechanism in place. One result being that Jews/Baha'i/Muslims all prayed towards the sun, since that's where the Holy City(ies) are/were, and now sun cults abound. I was actually impressed with my own cleverness, there...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
...Moving it out to 1 AU will reduce both values by 28%, for a total of about 8e+32J... This is... several times the gravitational binding energy of Venus, and about a quarter the total annual energy output of the sun.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl
...Venus receives around 3.5e17 J every second from the sun, so the energy required to move it is more than 2e15 times as much, the amount received by Venus from the Sun over 60 million Earth years. Even a process with 99% efficiency would have to be done over 600,000 years to avoid the waste heat boiling off Venus...
|
THIS, on the other hand, is a problem for me. Hmm. Ok, I'll rethink the setting with Venus kept in it's orbit (or at least very close). I actually liked the idea of a statite soletta in a lot of ways, anyway, though it would also need a surviving active-maintenance system. (I
don't like the idea of sunshades a la Ringworld- too obvious.) Though, the statite soletta might make for a decent save-the-world sort of scenario at some point...
So. A 224.7-day year. Hmm.... How ridiculous would the energy budget be to move Venus out just a bit to give it a 240-day year? (That'd be twelve 20-day months, each of two weeks called "tendays." I like neat numbers.)
A significantly massive moon is highly desirable, though. Both for aesthetic meta reasons and for it's stabilizing effect. I'll rethink, again. It seems like there would still be a significant problem with the energy budget to move Titan, though, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trechriron
Why worry about it?
|
Because I do. Just accept that as a given, please, because it ain't going to change. :)
Besides, oddly enough when you stick to the science sometimes it gives you interesting inspirations.
For instance, Venusian geology is entirely volcanic (scoria, granite, basalts, etc.) yet my world is going to have a sort of limestone filling some of the basins that I need to fill on the maps. How? Well, it turns out that one scheme to fix Venus's atmosphere (other than using it as reaction mass) involves precipitating the carbon in the form of metal carbonates- largely, calcium carbonate. There will also be a lot of potassium and magnesium carbonate deposits in deserts.
Also, it turns out that Venusians rocks have deposits of
elemental aluminum chondrules! (Often alloyed with titanium, magnesium, and other metals, granted.) So, there will be aluminum (aka "white metal"), and I have had to figure out how that fits into the setting. One place it fits is in making highly corrosion-resistant aluminum bronzes to trade with aquatic peoples. Etc.