well assuming our species experiences exponential growth in knowledge and technology, then this could be a matter of millennium. the focus is also not really on whether we do it or not. it's assuming we can.

"Not too fast though, and you gotta be real hot. Not too hot though, and you gotta have layers, like an onion. Not sure if you can have too many layers, but you don't wanna be an onion anyway."

i don't think so. after the fact, you have an entirely separate sustaining inhabitable planet. good until the death of the solar system.

the engineering hurdles are irrelevant. the fact that a certain amount of V would be sufficient, regardless of how, is the focus.

[removed]

[removed]

Do you all take this stuff seriously or are you practicing science fiction? Is there a time period in which these massive projects-something on the order of the pyramids times thousands-are expected to be completed? “Oh, in a million years…” I doubt humans will have the wherewithal in a million years, if any representatives of the species still exist. Maybe pangolins will have evolved to replace us by then.

Your gonna have to eat a shit load of iron and nickel and spin really fast.

[removed]

>"the situation kind of reminds me the issues we have trying to achieve fusion energy, in both cases we know the that phisics work, we know is a desirable outcome but we need to workout the engineering problems"

Sometimes, engineering problems can themselves be insurmountable or simply not worth implementing. It's not a great feeling, but it's happened in the past and will happened again.

Nonetheless, the low payload capacities of SSTOs are a big risk because there may simply not be a worthwhile market for such small sizes. So many people focus on kilos to Low Earth Orbit while failing to take into account any other factor. It matters very little if you can get 1 kilogram to orbit for mere pennies at a time if no one wants to launch something that small, and a lot of payloads require additional space or higher orbits that any near-future SSTO would be hard pressed to accommodate.

So if beings have the power to move planets, or planetoids, why do they want a magnetosphere?

Are you asking for a friend?

[removed]

Just a question, how does one get a magnetosphere?

Unless we find or somehow make a wormhole, very very unlikely.

When we launched the Voyager probes in 1977 the planets were aligned in a way that we could do a gravity assist with several planets (“the grand tour”), which only happens every 75 years. This is the best way we know to make something go really fast. The Voyagers are by far the fastest things humans have ever made (not including protons being shot around LHC). Since the launch in 1977, it’s travelled 0.002 light years. The closest star is 4.3 light years.

That means with the fastest possible launch, which we can only do every 75 years, it will still take about 98,900 years to reach the nearest star at only 4.3 light years away.

This isn’t even considering the ship with humans would have to have ways to produce food, support life, and deal with 3,200+ generations of humans. So yeah, it’s not even feasible to use normal space ships to reach even the nearest star, not to mention the things in this image that are hundreds, thousands, and millions of light years away.

Space is very big and very empty

Interesting point. I'm afraid that the gravitational waves generated would cause mass tidal chaos on all the inner planets. I'd imagine mercury and venus would be just ripped apart by such forces. Earth... Possible mass tectonic instability but also the addition of such a huge mass would have a huge impact on our mostly iron core, thus irrevocably damaging our van allen belts (magnetic fields formed by our spinning iron core and what protects our atmos from being blasted away by solar wind and our genome from exited particles thrown out from the sun).

The question remaining would be only what would end life first, the tectonic disruption or the loss of atmo and mass mutations because of nothing to protect us from the fierce solar radiation and solar wind (two different phenomena) in the absence of the van allen belts.

Im ignoring the heat factor for now.

Edit. It could potentially widen the habitable belt, but there's no saying Where this belt would be relative. So it might be much larger, but pushed further back, might not start till past earth.

Grab an asteroid and put it into orbit? Drill to the center of a planet? Seems like the cost and effort of terraforming Mars would exceed the benefit.

I think it would exponentially increase radiation for sure. Then with with the orbit of (either/and-or/both) then destroy our solar system just due to the difference in orbital " Unless the simulation runs perfect and they somehow manage to drop it on a location that will figure 8 our solar system in a manner that will keep things at status quo.

Short answer is no fuckin way my dude.

Depends on distance, really. Too close? Fries everything. Too far away, no net effect. Good enough? Still depends: could expand tye current habitable zone (probably not, though), more likely, makes a figure 8 habitable zone where Neptune becomes Habitable (in terms of heat, anyway)

I'm talking about them in the past. The light that is reaching us now... Back then someone was looking up this way thinking wow.

I think there's eyes always looking from somewhere, at some point in time. It's just so many solar systems out there....

It just sucks I'll never get to see or know so much. We're so tiny and our time is so short.

it would totally fry the Earth and throw all the planets out of orbit. Systems evolve organically, if you suddenly throw huge mass into them, everything goes to hell.

Considering the distance, they are looking at a barren Earth and a young Solar System. They themselves would probably be long extinct by now.

you talk about the problem with extra fuel needed yet mention that there are some trying to develop a reusable second stage which incidently will require fuel

so lets watch the youtube video about why single stage rockets suck right? oh shit conbustible

meanwhile i'm talking about different technologies

hypersonic and sabre engines take advantage of the air in the atmosphere so they don't need to carry so much oxidizer with them

on a very quick search designs similar to this

https://physicsworld.com/a/air-breathing-rocket-engines-the-future-of-space-flight/

or this

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27524937_StarRunner_A_Single-Stage-to-Orbit_Airbreathing_Hypersonic_Propulsion_System]

still looking further ahead there are other technologies being explored and imho that can be explored further

I just love these deep fields.

I wonder how many aliens are looking back at me in awe as well.

No, it would destabilise the solar system. If you mean a heat source with no gravitational influence, then still no; it would just turn Mars into a hot wasteland instead of a cold one, since Mars has no magnetosphere to protect biological systems from solar radiation.