Implications of a terraformed Venus/Triton

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

An arbitrarily convenient and efficient means of tapping into that energy would be required. None occurs to me at the moment.

I had thought that the traditional way to transfer energy (i.e. velocity) between bodies was close flybys causing a gravity boost? Triton comes screaming into the inner system and flies by Venus in a way that slows Triton and boosts Venus? Is this not realistic? Then at least I only have to produce some of the energy once instead of twice.

As I said, astrophysics is not my thing...

And I'm still open to ideas about better moon candidates.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

This is the area where I have the Sufficiently Advanced Aliens use a SM+46 ship to do their terraforming. Bring the SM+43 planet into the hangar bay with a tractor beam, such off the undesired atmosphere, spin it up with a combination of tractors and pressors, cook it in a hypertime chamber until; the ecosphere is done and then put it where you want it. Fly off in your giganto-ship to do it again in the next system.

Wow. That's... incredibly unsatisfying. I'm trying to at least keep the handwavium somewhat capable of fooling the masses, here, Fred. Work with me. :)

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

...wormholes are completely hypothetical and stable wormholes are impossible by our understanding of science...

No, stable wormholes are possible.

It just takes all the energy in the universe... Hey, look over there!

EDIT-- Oh, on a positive note, I managed to get some poor guy at the USGS's astrogeology section to produce cosmetically-filled Magellan elevation data of Venus for me (the Magellan data has a few missed areas and other artifacts) so that I can make better maps than you can see in that old link I provided way back on the first page. The data I had been using was a sort of average of elevation and reflectivity, which incorrectly made rough surfaces appear higher than they are. The upside of that data is that it is available on a scale of tens of meters per pixel, not to mention being simply beautiful in it's detail. The real elevation data, unfortunately, is 4.6km per pixel, but all things considered I think I'd rather use that. the cosmetic fill isn't great, but it's better than starting from scratch. I'll edit it in GIMP to get things looking rational.

And before someone does it, PLEASE don't say "Hell, with the energies you're using you can re-sculpt the surface any way you want to, so why bother with real data?"

Because coolness, ok? Plus, as a sort of metagame excuse, the sort of energy use I'm envisioning wouldn't really be precisely controllable enough for that. SUN ROCKETS, people! Sun rockets.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by acrosome

I had thought that the traditional way to transfer energy (i.e. velocity) between bodies was close flybys causing a gravity boost? Triton comes screaming into the inner system and flies by Venus in a way that slows Triton and boosts Venus? Is this not realistic? Then at least I only have to produce some of the energy once instead of twice.

As I said, astrophysics is not my thing...

And I'm still open to ideas about better moon candidates.



Wow. That's... incredibly unsatisfying. I'm trying to at least keep the handwavium somewhat capable of fooling the masses, here, Fred. Work with me. :)

What? you want your Sufficiently Advanced Aliens to still be using comprehensible physics? The two goals are not compatible.

For example, while it is not only possible but mandatory for two massive bodies in motion relative to each other to interact through gravitic forces such interaction is extremely unlikely to meet my definition of either convenient or efficient.

A moving Triton will interact not only with Venus but every other body in the Solar System. fortunately those interactions will tend to be small. Unfortunately that applies to your "one pass by Venus" design goal also.

I don't even think that the force transferred from Triton to Venus will be mostly in the direction you want. It's more likely I think to be a simple increase in the eccentricity of Venus' orbit.

To spin up Venus through gravitational interaction in a controlled manner I believe you want to apply force symmetrically. So get _2_ asteroids of closely matching masses and using superscience apply a Solar wormhole to supply energy. Then use another wormhole to a gas giant of your choice.

With an efficient design you can use this GG atmosphere first as a coolant to keep your sun rocket from melting what it's propelling and then use it as reaction mass.

Send your 2 sun rocket asteroids into a powered symmetrical and circular course around Venus. This might not technically be an "orbit". You need the rockets to keep replacing the energy you're transferring to Venus while also keeping the asteroids from either crashing into Venus or flying away either. A precise angling of the thrust will be necessary. Do this a _long_ time and it should efficiently spin up Venus.

The later maneuver to supply Venus with a moon must be far more gentle.

[AlexanderHowl]

Spinning up Venus is not required for a habitable Venus. Evaporation will allow for cloud cover during the majority of the day and the atmosphere will balance much of the heat because the winds of Venus circulate every four days. It will be warmer than the Earth, but it will not be dramatically warmer than Earth if you give it an Earthlike atmosphere and Earthlike oceans.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

What? you want your Sufficiently Advanced Aliens to still be using comprehensible physics? The two goals are not compatible.

Don't straw-man me just so that you can make a clever jibe. What I want is technobabble that isn't facetiously ludicrous on it's face. I know what technobabble is and isn't, but I do have some personal standards, if only because I have incredibly overeducated friends who will appreciate it.

Also, they're not aliens. They're TL12 humanity. Er, mostly. (Parahumanity.)

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

For example, while it is not only possible but mandatory for two massive bodies in motion relative to each other to interact through gravitic forces such interaction is extremely unlikely to meet my definition of either convenient or efficient.

Perhaps not convenient or efficient but so long as it's possible then it's really just an issue of computing power, which a TL12 civilization has in abundance. Granted there will be some, er, significant tidal effects, but I want to restart vulcanism, anyway. :)

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

A moving Triton will interact not only with Venus but every other body in the Solar System. fortunately those interactions will tend to be small. Unfortunately that applies to your "one pass by Venus" design goal also.

Granted, but I'm not afraid to shake up the solar system a little, and you could probably find a trajectory that would induce only minor perturbations that would damped out. Also, I understand that it very well probably would require more than "one pass" by Venus.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I don't even think that the force transferred from Triton to Venus will be mostly in the direction you want. It's more likely I think to be a simple increase in the eccentricity of Venus' orbit.

Yes, which is the first step in a Hohmann transfer. First eccentricity, then circularize.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

To spin up Venus through gravitational interaction in a controlled manner I believe you want to apply force symmetrically. So get _2_ asteroids of closely matching masses and using superscience apply a Solar wormhole to supply energy. Then use another wormhole to a gas giant of your choice.

Interesting... two similarly massive moons... I still need decent candidates, though.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

With an efficient design you can use this GG atmosphere first as a coolant to keep your sun rocket from melting what it's propelling and then use it as reaction mass.

Nice idea. I'll put it in.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Send your 2 sun rocket asteroids into a powered symmetrical and circular course around Venus. This might not technically be an "orbit". You need the rockets to keep replacing the energy you're transferring to Venus while also keeping the asteroids from either crashing into Venus or flying away either. A precise angling of the thrust will be necessary. Do this a _long_ time and it should efficiently spin up Venus.

The later maneuver to supply Venus with a moon must be far more gentle.

Spinning Venus is not nearly the task that moving it's orbit is. As I wager you well know, a number of serious proposals have been made in the scientific literature. And if I'm moving orbits then the energy to spin it is a rounding error. So I'm more concerned with moving the orbit without melting it or fragmenting it, even if it takes a thousand years. (And, frankly, I could even live without moving the orbit if I can't come up with a mechanism that meets my aesthetic standards.)

I'm not really expecting nice, neat answers, here. As I said, I just want non-ludicrous technobabble that sounds more like highly advanced science than it sounds like magic or fiat "alien space bats did it." If only because it will lead to an interesting setting about which I can make inferences and from which I can derive design inspiration.

It's going well so far...

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Spinning up Venus is not required for a habitable Venus. Evaporation will allow for cloud cover during the majority of the day and the atmosphere will balance much of the heat because the winds of Venus circulate every four days. It will be warmer than the Earth, but it will not be dramatically warmer than Earth if you give it an Earthlike atmosphere and Earthlike oceans.

All good points, scientifically. But one of my design goals is that this be more of a low-tech almost-fantasy setting than that it be science fiction-y. A 24-hour day helps a lot, especially if the year must be nonstandard.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Don't straw-man me just so that you can make a clever jibe. What I want is technobabble that isn't facetiously ludicrous on it's face. ..

I could take the opportunity to be offended myself. I proposed something that actually does work on the necessary scale and you call it "ludicrous". Hey, you picked the scale we're working on. All "ludicrous" details follow from that.

I didn't mean for the Sun rocket asteroids to be the permanent moons of Venus. The permanent moon would be fulfilling one or more different and separate purposes.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I could take the opportunity to be offended myself.

I'm not offended. A better description of my reaction to that might be "wry amusement." I'm just trying to keep you on message. :)

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I didn't mean for the Sun rocket asteroids to be the permanent moons of Venus. The permanent moon would be fulfilling one or more different and separate purposes.

Heck, if you've got them there already...

I guess I have to give up the tides. My new standard for a moon(s) is "massive enough to stabilize the planet, reducing axial perturbations, etc." How massive is that?

How about some of the smaller Jovian moons? (Assuming that someone would already be kind of attached to the Galilean moons, as well as Ceres and Vesta.) Himalia (670e16kg) and Amalthea (208e16kg)? Eris (1.66e22kg)?- though that's a loooooong way to move a moon...

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by acrosome

I guess I have to give up the tides. My new standard for a moon(s) is "massive enough to stabilize the planet, reducing axial perturbations, etc." How massive is that?

I'm not sure what stability effects you think a moon provides, so zero?

[AlexanderHowl]

The majority of the spin up scenarios that I have seen involve redirecting the orbits of the major asteroids to close apprach Venus twice a year for around a 1,000 years, so it is still high energy.

[acrosome]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I'm not sure what stability effects you think a moon provides, so zero?

The current consensus is that Earth's moon is very important in stabilizing axial perturbations, thus preventing massive climactic shifts, and making possible the development of complex life, though there are other influences.

Granted, there are dissenting opinions.

As a long-term solution, placing a massive moon only requires a crapton of energy once, rather than needing a bit every thousand years or so forever. There is also a problem if an ultratechnological civilization doesn't survive to keep doing it.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The majority of the spin up scenarios that I have seen involve redirecting the orbits of the major asteroids to close apprach Venus twice a year for around a 1,000 years, so it is still high energy.

Or Mercury. I've also seen ideas using Venus's atmosphere as reaction mass for equatorial rockets, and ones that involve building a gigantic circular magnetic dynamo on the equator.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by acrosome

As a long-term solution, placing a massive moon only requires a crapton of energy once, rather than needing a bit every thousand years or so forever.

More like every 10-100 million years forever. I'd worry much less about that than other things that can go wrong.