Colonization of the Sun.

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know, perhaps if there was a way to protect you from the extreme heat and radiation. Colonizing the sun's surface or atmosphere seems unlikely, though in some distant future perhaps scientific stations could exist there

satellites at a sufficient distance to be outside the frying range, and also not in the freezing range that can support lives like mine are few and far between. i have heard that earth is such a place, but there does not seem to be many vacancies of habitable spots on it.

the sun is the original engine that powers our lives, but it also powers much more than our lives, and so a respectable distance from it should be maintained (93 million miles is enough i would think (from experience)).

The the portion of the corona near the sun is over a million degrees Celsius.

ruveyn

well i would not wear thermal underwear if i was forced to live there.
problem not solved i would suspect.

silly scenarios do not command my wits attention to a great degree.


i am off to bed and i could not give a damn about almost anything..

I'm thinking some kind of solar-powered, sealed, air-conditioned bio-enclosure, accelerated to the point where you've entered an orbit low enough that the "centrifugal" forces counteract solar gravity to ~1G.

thats almost vacum. Its not a blizard at 1million degrees.

The thermonuclear reaction going on in the sun is converting billions of ton's of barionic matter to photons every second. Those photons are flying out of the sun along with a dense sheath of magnetic field force lines. The area near the sun is hardly a vacuum.

You might want to read this article from -Nature-

Magnetic tornadoes as energy channels into the solar corona

Sven Wedemeyer-Böhm, Eamon Scullion, Oskar Steiner, Luc Rouppe van der Voort, Jaime de la Cruz Rodriguez, Viktor Fedun & Robert Erdélyi
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature 486, 505–508 (28 June 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11202
Received 07 February 2012 Accepted 24 April 2012 Published online 27 June 2012
Article tools


Heating the outer layers of the magnetically quiet solar atmosphere to more than one million kelvin and accelerating the solar wind requires an energy flux of approximately 100 to 300 watts per square metre1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, but how this energy is transferred and dissipated there is a puzzle…

ruveyn

I think i know about the corona.

The corona is millions of degrees, but almost a vacuum. Near the surface of the sun a lot denser, but at 6000 degrees. At 6000 degrees, we can do something reasonable to shield a facility.

You don't have dense material at millions of degrees around the sun.

From what i understand. You just need some normal shielding to cross the corona. You will not melt like ice-cream.

at the surface of the sun there are some 30 g's, humans cannot sustain that level for long, in most cases people would be dead at that point from the blood sloshing around in their feet.

the highest ever survived was 45 for around 1 second, gave the test person permanent vision dammage, in tests the usual level of sustainable g's are around 12-17 when lying on your back gravity pressing down.
if you stand up that drops to around 9.

i cant really see any current technology that can change that, short of a dyson ring using centrifugal force to counteract the suns gravity, not that there is even enough metal on earth to undertake such a project, which says soething of the scale

that bellow seems ok

That's not quite how gravity works.

When you stand on the ground, the reason you don't continue to fall through the ground is because the ground is also pushing you back up with the same force that gravity is pulling you down. (To be precise, this is not a consequence of the 3rd Law of motion - it is a consequence of the fact that since you are at rest (technically: not accelerating), the net forces on you must add up to zero. This may sound like semantics but it will be important later in the lecture. There will be a brief quiz next week.) What you feel as "gravity" is actually compression of your insidey-parts as a result of these two opposing forces. The molecular bonds keeping you from ripping the ground apart and gravity are literally "squishing" you between them. Were you to somehow stay alive in freefall towards the sun's surface (ignoring repulsive forces from the solar radiation), the oppressive gravitational forces would not compress you in the slightest, because all of you is undergoing the exact same gravitational acceleration. (However, this is NOT true of the gravitational forces around a black hole, which are so massive that the gravitational gradient across your body will literally rip you apart.)

This is why freefall rides at carnivals and amusement parks give a feeling of "Zero-G". Of course you're not experiencing a net gravitational force of zero or near zero - but here's the thing: astronauts in orbit are not experiencing a net zero gravitational force either. They're too close to Earth's surface to be in a true zero or near zero gravity environment - the gravitational acceleration in earth orbit is actually equal to about .9G! They are actually experiencing perpetual freefall - but their lateral motion is so great that they will constantly fall in a circle. That's what orbit is. The reason you don't "feel" gravity when falling is because the compressive interplay of supporting and gravitational forces from standing/sitting/lying on solid ground are no longer present.

Incidentally this is also how the "centrifuge" carnival rides work, as well, not to mention your cited tests of G-force limits. To move a body under constant angular velocity, you must apply a constant force towards the center of the circle, which means the body is constantly changing direction. Because of the dynamics of this type of motion (and if I may liberally shift inertial frames of reference) you feel "compressed" similar to the interplay of normal and gravitational forces, without a gravitational force being present. As a consequence you feel like you are being "pulled out" of the circle as if by gravity, even though no such "centrifugal" force exists. (But, but bernerbrau! Every force must have an equal and opposite force! If there is no centrifugal force, what is the force that opposes the centripetal force? Quite simple, actually. Your body is also exerting a contact force on your container, equal to the centripetal force exerted on you. The total forces on you do not have to add up to zero, and in fact cannot, because you're constantly changing direction (technically: accelerating) and as such you're no longer in an inertial frame of reference. See, I told you the distinction would be important later!) Were the support to be spontaneously removed, you would actually fly out in a direction parallel to the circle, not perpendicular as your senses (and perhaps intuitions) might indicate.

Back to my point, if you could somehow sustain a fast or slow enough powered orbit around the sun (incidentally my previous post was wrong - a free orbit would always have a net "compressive" force of ~0g) so that there is a net centripetal force of 29G or 31G, you would only feel a compressive force of +/-1G, which is perfectly survivable.

Now, dealing with the intense solar radiation is a completely other problem. But the problem of gravity is actually pretty simple.

if one is orbiting the sun, then the mass of the planet that one inhabits must have an orbital velocity where the centrifical force (the need to travel in a straight line (outward) is cancelled out by gravitational influence (centrifugal force))
if you have a record player with a dull needle, and if it is incapable of staying in the groove, then it will skip and lose traction and spiral in toward the spindle. the reason the tone arm goes toward the spindle is because it is the least distance with respect to circumference), and whatever.

we are already a heavy weight (6.6 sextillion tons) and we are in a stable orbit around the sun, and the sun will be similar to how it is now for more than a billion years. the earth is traveling around at a magically correct speed to remain in orbit for the rest of the suns life.

it is vastly more imperative to limit population growth than it is to rapidly try to find alternative worlds to go to. (i think)

Not quite. In order to maintain a stable orbit in a two-body system, your momentum (not force!) orthogonal to the body you are orbiting must be great enough to overcome the gravitational (centripetal) attraction from the body itself, but not exceed the body's escape velocity at your current distance. There is no centrifugal force.

On a record player, the needle does not actually orbit the spindle, as it is the record that is moving. It is not equivalent to say that the record is stationary and the needle is moving, because due to the rotation, the former is an inertial reference frame and the latter is not. The needle itself is actually being held stationary (from an angular frame) and slowly drawn into the center by kinetic friction between the groove edge and the needle itself. It moves in a circle when it skips only because its motion is constrained by its arm, and as such it can only move in a circle.

The question is how to deal with solar gravity, and I'm confident I've addressed it sufficiently and that the physics would back me up.

With regard to whether we should even be discussing colonizing the sun, you have to realize that it's all largely an academic discussion for us aspies to get our geek on. Nobody's ever actually going to have a solar colony in my opinion.

..

Sorry if I offended. Physics (at least Newtonian) is one of my "narrow areas of interest."

you did not offend me. i could not care less about what you think and what you write is of no interest to me. sorry about that.

i have no opinion of you in any way so please do not feel insulted.
thanks
bye.