Extra Giant Planet May Have Dwelled in Our Solar System

On Nov 22, 2:25*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
| wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

If humanity colonizes the Ort cloud then speed is much less important.
Live there and hop from comet to comet. *All without warp speed or
unreasonable shielding. *Solve the radiation problem from fusion plants
and it is likely the radiation problem of deep space will be solved in
similar fashion.

Developing the skill set to mine the chunks of dirty ice may be
a pretty huge challenge. It is so bitterly cold out there and metals
would shatter in some instances. It might be easier to take
the big jump. Though finding life on the other end might be
a deal killier in that life in one place may have dire results for
life from another.

If someone were to invent the warp drive or even a working Bussard
ramship I'd agree. *But I think as we gradually explore the solar system
the technology needed to colonize the Oort cloud will be developed
anyways. *My model needs a lot of steps that are known to be possible.

What model do you have for launching and powering a starship? *Large
solar arrays in Mercury orbit could power their launch but could not
power their deceleration. *That's the fastest option I know of that uses
what is known to be possible.

decleration? anywhere....

deploy a transhab balloon that would dig in the atmosphere to slow down

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
...
quoted:

"Within our solar system, an extra giant planet, or
possibly two, might once have accompanied Jupiter,
Saturn, Neptune and Uranus.

Computer models showing how our solar system
formed suggested the planets once gravitationally
slung one another across space, only settling into
their current orbits over the course of billions of
years."

Who knows how many large objects there are in interstellar space. I
suggest that once humans have fusio drives humanity will start moving
out into the Ort Cloud. There are so many planet sized bodies out their
we will eventually migrate through interstellar space to the clouds
around other stars.


Why is it assumed humanity will eventually move out into
the solar system and colonize distant places?

Is this simple logical statement so difficult to see?
Which is if we someday learn how to sustain ourselves
here on Earth, such colonies won't be needed.
And if we...don't learn how to sustain ourselves
we won't be around long enough to colonize anything.

Either way, we'd better learn that Earth is our home
....till death do us part.

Why would anyone in their right minds want to live
anywhere else? The Earth is the only oasis in this
part of the universe. Earth is heaven, everywhere else
is hell.


"The Fact that Earth is Heaven
Whether Heaven is Heaven or not
If not an Affidavit
Of that specific Spot
Not only must confirm us
That it is not for us
But that it would affront us
To dwell in such a place."



s






I think most of those clouds overlap to some
extent.







Similar will have happened when dwarf galaxies have merged into large
galaxies. There are supposed to be large black holes in the center of
almost every large galaxy. Almost every large galaxy is assembled from
many dwarf galaxies. In the process a vast number of huge black holes
must have been ejected into intergalatic space. The matter visible in
galaxies is the tip of the iceberg. I tend to think that a lot more of
it is present than the dark matter advocates suggest.

In article 0e99f0cf-2002-4ced-873d-
, says...

On Nov 22, 2:25*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
| wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

If humanity colonizes the Ort cloud then speed is much less important.
Live there and hop from comet to comet. *All without warp speed or
unreasonable shielding. *Solve the radiation problem from fusion plants
and it is likely the radiation problem of deep space will be solved in
similar fashion.

Developing the skill set to mine the chunks of dirty ice may be
a pretty huge challenge. It is so bitterly cold out there and metals
would shatter in some instances. It might be easier to take
the big jump. Though finding life on the other end might be
a deal killier in that life in one place may have dire results for
life from another.

If someone were to invent the warp drive or even a working Bussard
ramship I'd agree. *But I think as we gradually explore the solar system
the technology needed to colonize the Oort cloud will be developed
anyways. *My model needs a lot of steps that are known to be possible.

What model do you have for launching and powering a starship? *Large
solar arrays in Mercury orbit could power their launch but could not
power their deceleration. *That's the fastest option I know of that uses
what is known to be possible.

decleration? anywhere....

deploy a transhab balloon that would dig in the atmosphere to slow down

What atmosphere? You don't aerobrake a starship.

Jonathan wrote:

Why is it assumed humanity will eventually move out into
the solar system and colonize distant places?

If we do not leave it is absolutely certain we will go extinct. If we
do leave there is the option of evolving out there later. I understand
that humanity will eventually go extinct but we are likely to be
replaced by the next intelligent species rather like we replaced Home
Erectus. Don't leave and our descendents go with the Sun dies.

Is this simple logical statement so difficult to see?
Which is if we someday learn how to sustain ourselves
here on Earth, such colonies won't be needed.
And if we...don't learn how to sustain ourselves
we won't be around long enough to colonize anything.

Either way, we'd better learn that Earth is our home
...till death do us part.

False dichotomy. We can do both, either or neither.

Why would anyone in their right minds want to live
anywhere else? The Earth is the only oasis in this
part of the universe. Earth is heaven, everywhere else
is hell.

An argument to religion then. I offer a better one -

If the gods had meant humanity to spread into space they would have
given us enough brains to be able to figure out how to do that. They
didn't have to give all of that those brains only some of us.

J. Clarke wrote:
says...
Doug Freyburger wrote:

What model do you have for launching and powering a starship? *Large
solar arrays in Mercury orbit could power their launch but could not
power their deceleration. *That's the fastest option I know of that uses
what is known to be possible.

decleration? anywhere....

deploy a transhab balloon that would dig in the atmosphere to slow down

What atmosphere? You don't aerobrake a starship.

All stars have atmospheres. Since you're coming in at 1% C or better
the only way to slow down enough is to use the star to decelerate you.
It's an experience that's better seen on the video from the outside than
from being there in person. Not even Vorlons survive doing it.

In article , says...

J. Clarke wrote:
says...
Doug Freyburger wrote:

What model do you have for launching and powering a starship? *Large
solar arrays in Mercury orbit could power their launch but could not
power their deceleration. *That's the fastest option I know of that uses
what is known to be possible.

decleration? anywhere....

deploy a transhab balloon that would dig in the atmosphere to slow down

What atmosphere? You don't aerobrake a starship.

All stars have atmospheres. Since you're coming in at 1% C or better
the only way to slow down enough is to use the star to decelerate you.
It's an experience that's better seen on the video from the outside than
from being there in person. Not even Vorlons survive doing it.

So what kind of gees are we talking about for this maneuver?

J. Clarke wrote:
says...
J. Clarke wrote:
says...

deploy a transhab balloon that would dig in the atmosphere to slow down

What atmosphere? You don't aerobrake a starship.

All stars have atmospheres. Since you're coming in at 1% C or better
the only way to slow down enough is to use the star to decelerate you.
It's an experience that's better seen on the video from the outside than
from being there in person. Not even Vorlons survive doing it.

So what kind of gees are we talking about for this maneuver?

Whatever it takes to vaporize someone like hallerb who doesn't know the
difference between coming in at a velocity like planets orbit and at
velocities like starships cross interstellar space.

I know of a method to accelerate enough for an interstellar mission to
be not ridiculous in length - Use power from solar stations orbitting
the distance of Mercury. I don't of a method to decelerate at the far
end. That was the context that hallerb addressed with aerobraking.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:

Why is it assumed humanity will eventually move out into
the solar system and colonize distant places?


If we do not leave it is absolutely certain we will go extinct.


I don't think that holds up, any distant colony would be
highly dependent upon a healthy Earth to survive for
the foreseeable future. If you're talking beyond that
then it becomes shear guess work.


If we
do leave there is the option of evolving out there later.

The idea is to save the Seven Billion people on Earth.
Any 'plan' that leaves all of them, the entire human race
....behind, isn't a plan at all. It's the last flower dying
before winter takes over.

An epitaph, to no one!


I understand
that humanity will eventually go extinct


I strongly disagree with that conclusion.
Life is the most resilient, adaptive and
inventive of all. Once established, life can
and will overcome just about anything.

Remember, when an ecosystem suffers some
calamity, the strongest and most inventive
are left behind ...to rebuild. Life becomes
harder and harder to completely kill off
as time goes on.


but we are likely to be
replaced by the next intelligent species rather like we replaced Home
Erectus. Don't leave and our descendants go with the Sun dies.


That kind of time span is too far removed to even consider
when talking about spending money today. Any project
more than five or ten years long, maybe twenty for a
desperate problem, is too much to get the kind of support
a large scale project needs.

Why waste time on some pie-in-the-sky project
when it's chances of becoming reality are literally
zero? Better to optimize the benefits and the
chances of success.

Space Solar Power wins on that count by
leaps and bounds.



Is this simple logical statement so difficult to see?
Which is if we someday learn how to sustain ourselves
here on Earth, such colonies won't be needed.
And if we...don't learn how to sustain ourselves
we won't be around long enough to colonize anything.

Either way, we'd better learn that Earth is our home
...till death do us part.



False dichotomy. We can do both, either or neither.

There's plenty of things we can do, but given the
enormous amount of time and money needed
how likely is it we...will do both? Given the
current state of affairs?




Why would anyone in their right minds want to live
anywhere else? The Earth is the only oasis in this
part of the universe. Earth is heaven, everywhere else
is hell.


An argument to religion then. I offer a better one -



It was a statement of fact. The Earth is a thousand times
more wondrous and life sustaining than anywhere else
we can find.


If the gods had meant humanity to spread into space they would have
given us enough brains to be able to figure out how to do that. They
didn't have to give all of that those brains only some of us.


When I look around the universe, the only things I see that
qualifies as gods, or a heaven, is right here and with
everyone alive.

Relatively speaking, of course.



s