If someone wanted to move the planet mercury to a higher orbit which type of drive would do the best job?\n\n1. An ion drive that collected charged particles from the solar wind.\n\n2. A magnetic drive that pushed against the suns magnetic field\n\n3. Something else (please describe).
123257
3. Something else.  Because the first two are really idiotic.
572980
It all comes down to how big your planet is and how far you want to move it.  You need a way to exert a force on the planet for a long enough time to get it to produce enough of a velocity change to get into the other orbit.\n\nTheoretically it is simple.  Practically it is impossible.  There just aren't sources of propulsion powerful enough to move something as massive as an average planet a substantial distance.
154028
A and B are correct.  C is kind of sketchy.  The actuall amount of iron and other processed elements is still a very tiny fraction of the sun's total mass, and an even smaller one  on a per particle basis.\n\nOn one hand you could say that there is slightly less fusion fuel for the sun.  On the other hand it will have elevated levels of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen.  Other than fusing 4H->1He via the proton-proton chain, the Sun actually produces around 1% of its energy by turning 4H->1He by way of catalytic fusions involving carbon, nitrigen and oxygen (The CNO cycle).  As stars get bigger (and hotter) the CNO cycle becomes the dominant form of energy production.\n\nWhile the original almost "pure" hydrogen and helium stars technically had more "fuel," they would not have had the elevated levels of C,N, and O to produce energy along that path.
599187
The radiation belts are regions of high-energy particles, mainly protons and electrons, held captive by the magnetic influence of the Earth. They have two main sources. A small but very intense "inner belt" (some call it "The Van Allen Belt" because it was discovered in 1958 by James Van Allen of the University of Iowa) is trapped within 4000 miles or or so of the Earth's surface. It consists mainly a high-energy protons (10-50 MeV) and is a by-product of the cosmic radiation, a thin drizzle of very fast protons and nuclei which apparently fill all our galaxy. \n\n" In addition there exist electrons and protons (and also oxygen particles from the upper atmosphere) given moderate energies (say 1-100 keV; 1 MeV = 1000 keV) by processes inside the domain of the Earth's magnetic field. Some of these electrons produce the polar aurora ("northern lights") when they hit the upper atmosphere, but many get trapped, and among those, protons and positive particles have most of the energy . \n\n"I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt. But there is no danger. The way the particles move in the magnetic field prevents them from hitting the atmosphere, and even if they are scattered so their orbit does intersect the ground, the atmosphere absorbs them long before they get very far. Even the space station would be safe, because the orbits usually stop above it--any particles dipping deeper down are lost much faster than they can be replenished.
29665
This question can't be adaquately addressed in this forum.  There are a couple websites you can refer to for these answers.\n\nhttp://solarsystem.nasa.gov\nhttp://www.nineplanets.org
156610
Both could be entirely possible in theory. However the only problem comes in how to accellerate to above the speed of light, which according to Einstein is necessary to travel in time. Ont theory is to get to the highest speed possible and slingshot in a planet or stars gravitational rotation and use that to accelerate faster while using a rotational acceleration thereby accelerating to the poroper speed for it. That's sound as well, but it's hard to get funding for stuff like that and it's dangerous, because much like Back to the future and Star Trek, only nuclear fuel would provide the power necessary without adding too much weight to the vessel, and will not deplete for the radiation off a nuclear reation last for several thousand year depending on the element used.
586578
Tesla's tower, perhaps?  This is just another way we know that the solar wind is NOT electrically neutral, since the Earth has to absorb the energy and balance itself through the aurora act.  Our instruments in space can't detect the charge difference because the solar "wind" (or electric current) is so big in its plasma state, and the difference per cubic meter is so small.\n\nThis is why scientists like Phil Plait who ride on the nuts of big names like Einstein just might be wrong, but who are we to question Einstein, right?  Well we got bigger and better telescopes and satellites for one, and we've been able to take better pictures and observations because of this.  Damn, I think they were barely discovering the Sun's magnetic field during Einstein's time.\n\nThere are so many examples out there that demonstrate the electrical nature of the universe.\n\nMars, and how it got blasted?  Yep.\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlajPWBaIISxPbzkjEFDsqzsy6IX?qid=20060619194732AAwm9Mf\n\nComet's and their interactions with the Sun? Yep.  Venus' almost perfectly circular orbit, how we detected a long, "stringy" plasma structure issuing from Venus that nearly reached our planet, and how Venus spins the other direction very slowly, and how the entire planet has a nearly brand new surface, AND how ancient names for it are morning star, BEARDED planet, HAIRY planet, and SMOKY planet?  Oh yeah, double mother-fuckin' check on that.\n\nRead up on the "Electric Universe" theory, it's the future of space science.  All these old guys at NASA will be out of jobs if word ever gets out, so they'll get really mad when their life's work is challenged and I guess I can understand that.... but get OUT!
376877
The orbital plane has planets slinging out from the middle of a rotating sun, as the rings of Saturn do around its middle, because of a flow that is slung out from the rotating body that thence returns into the rotating body at the poles. The planets in the orbital plane slung out from the middle of the sun are thus held away by this sling. \n\nPlanets do not flow with the sling round to the poles of the sun, because this would involve a trip too far away from the sun, a gravitational giant, before the trip back. The gravitational draw here can be envisioned as a string from the center of the sun to the planet. \n\nPlanets move, in concert, in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction around a sun due to sweeping arms that reach out from the core of the rotating sun, brushing the planets before them. These sweeping arms can be envisioned as the spokes of a wheel. \n\nPlanets stay in the orbital plane and do not drift to either side because of what we will refer to as eddy currents. The sling out is not solely at the waist of the rotating sun but slings out at a diminishing rate on either side, but the rate outward is greater at the waist. Thus, when the material being slung out from the middle of the rotating sun tries to escape to the sides, it is caught and pulled back by the slower pace of the material at the sides, creating a circular eddy current that returns it to the waist of the rotating sun. This eddy current can be envisioned as flotsam on a river and the manner in which this gets drawn into the center of the river, where the fastest flow occurs. \n\nPlanets find their niche in all this based on more than gravity or magnetism factors, as there are thousands of forces that affect the placement of bodies free to move about in space. The entry of a new planet into the orbital plane would results in a bumping outward or compressing inward of existing planets as this new planet encountered the others during their journeys around the sun, until no further adjustments were required and an equilibrium was established.
615581
In order not enter into an orbit around the Sun, the planetoid would have to be going very fast.  This would mean it would also be going fast enough not to be captured by Earth's gravity.\n\nSo assuming it then passes very close - say as close as the moon - it would raise some tidal forces. But they would be very short lived and so probably not noticeable (the sea tides are noticeable because they are repeated every day and set up resonances that are much larger than the day to day tide - they also set up points of zero tide called amphidromic points).\n\nThere is no prospect of it changing land masses without actually hitting the Earth. It would also be far less likely than the moon to cause any geological disturbance.\n\nThere is no reason at all that a planetoid would set up any sort of EMF.
584759
First of all, it depends on what you need the thruster for. Chemical rockets (solid, liquid, and hybrid) are the only ones with strong enough thrust to get off the Earth, but once you're in orbit even a low continuous thrust will get you where you want to go, if you have the time.\n\nChemical rockets combine fuel and oxidizer to create thrust. Liquid and solid fueled rockets are just what they sound like; hybrids use a solid fuel but a liquid oxidizer to to start and stop the burn. This helps to deal with one of the biggest problems with solid fuel rockets - once they're lit, they can't be shut off. A hybrid can be throttled off just by stopping the flow of oxidizer.\n\nHall effect and ion thrusters are a bit different. They use a fuel (typically a light gas, but there's a particular type that uses solid Teflon) that is ionized and then passed through a magnetic field to accelerate it to very high speeds. The drawback is that the acceleration is very low, so it can't be used to launch off the Earth. The plus is that you don't really need the high thrust of a chemical rocket in space - it just takes you longer to get anywhere. There was a British spacecraft that went from Earth orbit to the Moon using only ion thrusters; it took eighteen months!
553354
An ion engine will get you there the fastest. You get the biggest delta-vee per kg of exhaust. \n\nProblem is, in general you only get one encounter with a specific planet once each solar orbit, and you can only get a kick so large each time. I suppose you can hypothesize a super convenient planetary alignment that could shave off some time, but you might spend a long time waiting for that particular configuration.  A lot of really smart people spent a lot of time developing the computational tools to come up with the VEEGA and VVEJGA options.  I doubt the population here is going to come up with anything a lot better.\n\nYou can read more about the DS1 ion propulsion experimental system here:\nhttp://nmp.nasa.gov/ds1/tech/ionpropfaq.html\n\nThe first science mission using ion propulsion is the Pluto bound New Horizons.  Thanks to this tech, it will reach pluto in 10 short years and reaches Jupiter for a gravity assist in only 1 year.\n\nhttp://pluto.jhuapl.edu/mission/mission_timeline.html
480945
Assume the Earth orbit radius is R=15*10^10m, Mercury orbit radius is r=5.7*10^10m. The surface area of a sphere is S=2*pi*R^2 – for Earth orbit & s=2*pi*r^2. Now the sun is beaming the same power P no matter what distance, yet beaming density (or intensity of radiation) J=P/S for Earth & j=P/s for Mercury. \nThus j/J=S/s=(R/r)^2 or j=J*(R/r)^2 or j=1400*(15/5.7)^2=9700 W/m^2 \n– rather hot, isn’t it Rob!
638517
Hey there:\n\nInteresting question, because a month ago, i stumbled upon a thrown away harddrive while walking my dog.  I desembled it while I was at home, and found inside it TWO EXTREMELY POWERFULL RARE EARTH MAGNETS.  Also, around on each side of these magnets, was a magnetic shield, that did not allow them to attract from one side, but yes from the other.  If I was you, look for any thrown away harddrive, they all have them, and you will also be getting an extremly powerfull magnet while you are at it.
254032
Lets see how nifty each planet is!!!  xD\n\nMercury:  It has extremly hot days and extremly cold nights!!  Everyday while the sun is shining you could go swimming!  Or stuff like that!  But you couldn't plant a garden.  =(  But you COULD grill hambergers without spending a billion and two bucks with a grill.  You wouldn't have to use the microwave in order to make hot coco  At night it's cold, you could make a dirt snowman. o.0 there is no snow on Mercury.  Or you would watch your bugers freeze and you could keep your icecream all nice and cold! ^_^\n\nVenus:  Extremly acidic weather, pretty nifty! Robots disinagrate in it's weather in 2 hours.  Pretty dang nifty if you ask me!  Enough has been told!!!  ♥ Venus\nEarth:  Our home planet, pretty senery, accual trees and lakes here!\n\nMars:  Has 3 mile high mountain, Mount Olympus!!! ((is that what it's called?)) *drools*  Scale it!  Live it!  Rock climbing!  Repelling!  falling off of it!!!  *ohh that's fun*  It has burly a land scape, but who cares?  With a VERY tall mountain!  ^_^\n\nJupiter:  Biggist hurricane in the solar system, a lot of moons, each comes with a different theme!  *Europa would be cool*  Is the biggest planet in the solar system!!!\n  \nSaturn:  Nifty rings!!  Can float in water!  Is the lightest planet EVER and a really big one also!  Almost as big as Jupiter!  Has a really cool color!  The rings would be so awsome to invent sports on!  To make colonies there, to put theme parks there!  Ohh heaven!\n\nNeptune:  Pretty blue planet, freakish weather with the Scooter going around it every once in a while!  Pretty big with nifty moons!  Very calming to look at, and day and night you could see the stars!!!\n\nUranus:  It's axis are totaly messed up!  Insted of horozontal they're virtical!  It would be so cool to see the sun!  Has a greenish color, its atmosphere has a lot of ammonia so you don't really need to go buy the Pine Sol in order to clean your bathroom!  Very nice color, very nice moons, and you can see the crystal clear sky with the stars glistening, and the ring around it!\n\nPluto:  Cold!  Ice!  2-3 miles round!!  Small small SMALL!!!  It's moon is 2/3 the size of it, scientists wonder if it should even be called a planet, or at least both of them planets!  Pretty nifty\nSedna:  Don't know about it!\nPlanet X:  Does it RLLY exist???\n\nIndesisive!!!  Love Saturn's rings, love Mars and Neptune.  I would go with either Uranus or Mars.  ^_^
190386
The Earth is in receivership of the energy of the Sun. No one thing such as a planet can generate Gravity. Gravity is the product of a transmitter (Sun), a receiver (Earth) and an object on or about the receiver. All planets rotate about the strongest electro-magnetic generator along a predictable plane. Electricity flows in a path of a helix as in $ our dollar sign. The helix is doubled and at the null or the point of crossing is where the dust accumulates and forms planets. Thus we are fixed within the boundaries established when the first two particles of dust magnetically aligned N & S and bonded. We are fixed in position therefore we can not be the hitter. We could be hit by a comet or other foriegn body that are in orbit by another cosmic energy beyond our solar system. Astroids that are dust fragments adrift as a result of other cosmic collisions. Particles adrift will be attracted by like elements which follow magntic trails of moving celestrial bodies in search of a home.
158901
i dont' know what causes the rotation of an orbiting planet, but the moon would definitely have gravity even if it didn't spin.  that dude was full of crap.  if anything, the spin would cause things to fly off.
77389
Something more powerful than the Sun's gravitational influence on Mercury.