A Plan to Save Mankind

[Seret]

As such, were I in charge of Earth's Survival Plan when Moho is first spotted, I'd put all of our resources into constructing a super-modular station in orbit of Mars, and focus all future I.S.S research on how to keep the food chain alive in a small, controlled, high-radiation zero-G environment. Health risks are a mute point when your 3 realistic choices are: Mars, Mars orbit, or Lava Planet A. [Earth]

A rational and sensible plan IMO. I wouldn't rate our chances of pulling it off very highly though. We'd need to invent a huge amount of infrastructure very quickly, and it would have to work first time or we'd be finished. I think it would be prudent to hedge our bets with several concurrent outposts in different locations relying on different technologies, but that were capable of mutually supporting each other to the maximum degree possible.

If we thought that Earth might be passably habitable (as in, we were able to raise crops and livestock) within a reasonable timeframe then it might be possible to simply stockpile enough consumables for the intervening period. Enough water for a hundred people for a hundred years isn't an insane demand for a planetary civilisation to put into space in an emergency, given reasonably efficient life support technology aboard the stations.

I'd also emplace several genetic time capsules containing stored copies of the genetic codes (and samples?) of every organism we know of, along with as much of our data as possible, for long-term storage. Might as well give a future visiting alien civilisation the chance to resurrect us if we didn't make it.

[Tygroux]

30 years? Invest everything on physics research, and find a way to get that alcubiere drive working.

Then slingshot us, or slingshot him.

Or find a way to nuke it a way or another, probably using that giant fusion bomb that is our sun as a power source.

Actually, building a giant antimatter factory in solar orbit, then use it to nuke the thing, or alter it's movement does not seems that a crazy idea, given what we managed in barely 6 years of WW2.

[Nibb31]

You've "explained". Yet you've not shown me one example that could disprove that building a lunar colony is impossible with today's technology.

Rubbish. Scientific method requires that for a technology to be available, it needs to be demonstrated. You should read about NASA's TRL process:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level

The concepts that you keep on suggesting on a regular basis are TRL 2 or 3 at best. In order to be seriously considered for a mission involving actual astronauts, it needs to be at least TRL 6 for a prototype auxiliary system. For something as vital as life support or propulsion, you will need to reach TRL 8 if it is mission-critical.

I've already told you this, but I'll say it again. If YOU want to propose the use of a technology, YOU need to demonstrate that it has reached the appropriate TRL. It's not up to ME to prove that what YOU are proposing doesn't work.

Besides, what I said was that a viable self-sufficient Mars colony is impossible with current technology. I believe that a semi-permanent lunar outpost with a crew rotation and a regular line of supply is probably feasible. However, not something large enough to survive an extinction event with genetic bottleneck.

Tell a 19th century man about the ISS. He'll say "preposterous, young chap! It's a lie! It's impossible!". And yet, we built it. Spaceflight is impossible, sure, but it is the spirit of humanity that can conquer it.

Yet a large portion of Humanity is still living in the 19th century today. And if you had told someone from the 19th century that we could grow wings and fly, he wouldn't beleive you either, and he would be right.

The ISS was impossible in 19th century. I'm not saying that it will not be possible in 200 or 300 years, but really that's irrelevant because anything can happen by then. Civilizations rise and fall in that sort of timeframe. We might have all mutated into some sort of cybernetic singularity for all we know...

Being in a bunker, it might work, but how deep will it have to go? Is anyone even going to want to go to a bunker at the Earths core?

I sincerely don't know. My guess is that if you built them at something like a kilometer deep, bunkers within a certain range of the impact site would probably not survive, but a majority of them would.

After the impact, the major problem would be firestorms on the surface that would rage for several months and cause a nuclear winter. After that however, if you have working life support, communication, transport, hydroponics, stockpiles of supplies, wind power generators, you might be able to save enough population to survive a genetic bottleneck event.

[NASAFanboy]

Rubbish. Scientific method requires that for a technology to be available, it needs to be demonstrated. You should read about NASA's TRL process:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level

The concepts that you keep on suggesting on a regular basis are TRL 2 or 3 at best. In order to be seriously considered for a mission involving actual astronauts, it needs to be at least TRL 6 for a prototype auxiliary system. For something as vital as life support or propulsion, you will need to reach TRL 8 if it is mission-critical.

I've already told you this, but I'll say it again. If YOU want to propose the use of a technology, YOU need to demonstrate that it has reached the appropriate TRL. It's not up to ME to prove that what YOU are proposing doesn't work.

Besides, what I said was that a viable self-sufficient Mars colony is impossible with current technology. I believe that a semi-permanent lunar outpost with a crew rotation and a regular line of supply is probably feasible. However, not something large enough to survive an extinction event with genetic bottleneck.

Yet a large portion of Humanity is still living in the 19th century today. And if you had told someone from the 19th century that we could grow wings and fly, he wouldn't beleive you either, and he would be right.

The ISS was impossible in 19th century. I'm not saying that it will not be possible in 200 or 300 years, but really that's irrelevant because anything can happen by then. Civilizations rise and fall in that sort of timeframe. We might have all mutated into some sort of cybernetic singularity for all we know...

I sincerely don't know. My guess is that if you built them at something like a kilometer deep, bunkers within a certain range of the impact site would probably not survive, but a majority of them would.

After the impact, the major problem would be firestorms on the surface that would rage for several months and cause a nuclear winter. After that however, if you have working life support, communication, transport, hydroponics, stockpiles of supplies, wind power generators, you might be able to save enough population to survive a genetic bottleneck event.

NASA is moving too slow, because if budget constraints and changing Administrations. However , if such a event would to happen, NASA would find itself forced to adhere to public pressure and develop self suffiecent space colonies.

It need not be Mars. It may well be the lunar far side, as the moon will provide a "shield" of rock to protect the colonists from sharpnel generated by the collision.

But staying on Earth isn't a good idea. After the impact, Earth will likely be a lava planet for several centuries, proving to be a hell-hole that no one even wants, and will likely lose a good chunk of its atmosphere. And if it does settle, it'll more likely be a bigger version of Mars than a paradise...and that'll take thousands of years.

Living in space, however, will give us much more room to expand, and allow us to keep exploring and colonizing the stars. Sure the technology is not here (We can get to Mars with humans, but we can't stay for long times, we can build a moonbase, but we need to send regular supply ships), but who knows what it'll be like in 2050? Maybe well even have space colonies in 2050 that we can just move to, instead of establishing new ones.

[Moon Goddess]

I've seen several posts in this thread talking about the math of if this would melt the surface or break the lithosphere, The thing I think everyone is missing in this math is that there are no free roaming Moho sized rocks left in the solar system, all of that stabilised some 4 billion years ago.

If something that big is going to hit the earth, then it has to be extra solar, there are planetoids out there thrown out for the formation of various different planetary systems.

So we're not talking a big rock traveling at km/s in the teens like a asteroid, or in the 50's like a comet.

We're talking about a rock traveling at speeds of ~200 km/s.

If it strikes any continent on earth that landmass is now replaced with a melt pool of lava....

The only chance of survival is about a mile down on the opposite side of the planet where it'll hit.

[NASAFanboy]

I've seen several posts in this thread talking about the math of if this would melt the surface or break the lithosphere, The thing I think everyone is missing in this math is that there are no free roaming Moho sized rocks left in the solar system, all of that stabilised some 4 billion years ago.

If something that big is going to hit the earth, then it has to be extra solar, there are planetoids out there thrown out for the formation of various different planetary systems.

So we're not talking a big rock traveling at km/s in the teens like a asteroid, or in the 50's like a comet.

We're talking about a rock traveling at speeds of ~200 km/s.

If it strikes any continent on earth that landmass is now replaced with a melt pool of lava....

The only chance of survival is about a mile down on the opposite side of the planet where it'll hit.

Even once the lava settles, it'll be a bigger version of Mars.

What I support is establishing colonies on the side of the moon that does not face the earth.

[Seret]

30 years? Invest everything on physics research, and find a way to get that alcubiere drive working.

Alcubiere drive is likely to be a research dead end. The energy required is utterly stupendous, and AIUI it relies on physical phenomena that we've never observed existing (Negative energy? What is that exactly?)

[WestAir]

I feel like any colony (even ones below bedrock) on Earth would be torn to shreds. The video on page 3 to 4 clearly shows the entire crust being lifted PAST low Earth Orbit. Entire continents were thrown into space, some of which became small lunar-esque satellites.

If the entire surface of the Earth is raging at temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun, and the crust is thrown into orbit, what chance does a Fallout style Vault-Tec Vault have even a "mile" down? Two miles? Ten?

[Sochin]

30 years to go, I would say unfortunately tough we dont have the tec to do very much.

[lajoswinkler]

Earth is still the best spot in our solar system. How long would it take for the 'dust to settle down'? Lets assume a decade, terraforming Mars sounds harder than rebuilding Earths biosphere.

Earths protective magnetic field is still around, most of the debris will fall back down and eventually the water vapor would condense into liquid again.

Then over the course of another decade we send down the extremophiles, and other primitive plant and animal forms (starting with those that can live of inorganic materials), etc. Slowly rebuilding our basic Oxigen-Nitrogen-Carbondioxide atmosphere and the most essential of the food chains. Soon evolution will be in overdrive to occupy all those free spots (lots of well-mixed nutricients with free energy (sun light) to do something with).

Of course I'd also try building bunkers with 3 decades of supplies spread across the world. It'll give people hope, and it can't hurt to try.

We're talking about timespans of hundreds of years before the ground cool down low enough so that precipitation makes a touchdown and fills the oceans again.

Earth's atmosphere would be mainly CO2 and nitrogen, and of course water vapor, and there would be no photosynthetic organisms left. It is basically setting back to Hadean.

Lava on the surface, oceans vaporized in the atmosphere. That's worse than Venus.

We're not talking about an asteroid. 250 km is a planetoid. A lava mare would form thousands of kilometres around the point of impact.

Decade after that the only significant change would be the lack of oxygen and no fires and that much dust in atmosphere.

There would be no "soon" in this story. There are no cyanobacteria extremophiles, and extremophiles themselves aren't very useful.

During the geological history of Earth, it took billions of years to oxygenize the atmosphere because the reducing environment was reacting with it. First the iron(II) in oceans, then O2 starts coming out, then rocks on dry land, and after saturation, the great oxygenation event happens.

Granted, the global oceans after planetoid impact would not be that rich in reducers as early Earth's oceans, and neither would the rocks, except the newly formed mare and opened volcanic areas, so oxygen buildup would be faster, but we're still talking about at least few hundreds of millions of years.

Genetically modified organisms would be the way to repair the atmosphere, but we'd still have to wait a lot.

I suppose genetically modified humans would be the future, so that we could utilize less oxygen. You never know, it's a promising technology.

I've seen several posts in this thread talking about the math of if this would melt the surface or break the lithosphere, The thing I think everyone is missing in this math is that there are no free roaming Moho sized rocks left in the solar system, all of that stabilised some 4 billion years ago.

If something that big is going to hit the earth, then it has to be extra solar, there are planetoids out there thrown out for the formation of various different planetary systems.

So we're not talking a big rock traveling at km/s in the teens like a asteroid, or in the 50's like a comet.

We're talking about a rock traveling at speeds of ~200 km/s.

If it strikes any continent on earth that landmass is now replaced with a melt pool of lava....

The only chance of survival is about a mile down on the opposite side of the planet where it'll hit.

Exactly, that object would be a freak object.

Hiding at the opposite side of Earth would be the second worst thing after hiding under the impact point. The stress waves would create a huge mess at the antipode, probably enough to cause a small mare of lava. If digging is the answer, it should be somewhere between the impact point and the antipode, but I really doubt it would work because global tectonic disturbance would occur.

[czokletmuss]

Exactly, that object would be a freak object.

Speaking of which, there is a movie in which extrasolar planet collides with Earth although it has nothing to do with sci-fi or astronomy for that matter:

Very good drama about schizophrenia and depression though. Just saying

[rasheed]

Restart orion and build a mothership powered bu that to make it to Mars.

The concept of money would go....

[NASAFanboy]

Restart orion and build a mothership powered bu that to make it to Mars.

The concept of money would go....

Easier said than done.

Firstly, we don't have near enough plutonium reserves left to power a massive mothership, nor can we make such more in ten years. To get to Mars will take atleast two months, and we're talking on a 10-year timeframe. Secondly, it need not be Mars, the Moon can work. I mean, the dark side of the Moon can work, as it is far away from Earth, and any sharpnel from the explosion would have to go through all that rock.

Personally, I believe if such a thing happened, Earth would be utterly pulverized, making Mars more earth-like than earth itself. Solution?

Stay on the Moon until the show dies down, then quietly move half the colonists to Mars.

[LtHeckard]

In violation of treaties, send nuclear devices to it and try to push it away from earth and time it properly so the moon can pull it away from earth and toss it out into the sun

[impwarhamer]

hypothetically speaking here, would it be possible if you launched at the right moment in the right place to use the crashing planetoid to get a grav assist into orbit as it was smashing into the earth?

[Tygroux]

Alcubiere drive is likely to be a research dead end. The energy required is utterly stupendous, and AIUI it relies on physical phenomena that we've never observed existing (Negative energy? What is that exactly?)

Negative mass. We don't know if antimatter have a positive or negative mass. Since it's -anti- matter... Also we have proof that "something" act like a negative-gravity field in the space beetween galaxies.

Insane power requirement for our fission tech. Not that insane for fusion tech.

Now, we have 30 years of humanity banded together by biggest motivational drive of all, above competition or curiosity: survival instinct.

Might as well go solar farm. Energy not a problem anymore.

Then it's a question to give it enough lateral deltav so it miss us.

If that alcubierre thing end up working (and it's serious enough nasa gives it support), we "just" need to move it sideways.

If not... Giant laser anyone?

[Zaeo]

The dark side of the moon isn't safe.

Chunks that miss the moon could be sent in a sub-orbital path that the gravity of the moon could pull chunks back down theoretically ANYWHERE on the surface of the moon. It is a good foot holder for building a ship fleet capable of getting to mars with as many people as it can, but THEN you have to deal with the falling asteroid phobos*or deimos, I forget which* It is decaying its orbit into the planet, and thats as risk to consider as well for base placement.

Then there is the issue of weight/food/water for tens of hundreds of people for an excess of 50 years, I say 50 years because that is My estimated time needed to crack exo-planet cultivation. There aren't any animals to hunt, so protein is a big concern.

Then the Psychological toll on the survivors. Get one to crack and go on a killing spree, goodbye humanity. This is why you send multiple small ships rather than one large ship. Increases survival rate significantly.

Then there is the Boredom aspect. When ones nerves allow one to be bored. Stir-craziness could result in a lack of attention, which could result in mistakes, some may be catastrophic.

However, not all is bad. We don't even need to build anything on mars, as far is infrastructure goes. There are ancient lava tubes that litter its suface, we can build starting from there, and be shielded from cosmic rays in the process.

Not only that, but because of mars's currently thin atmosphere and lower gravity, we can get off of the planet easier once we re-attain spaceflight. Not sure how well the engineering will cope with a different atmosphere as far as thrust goes, but Who knows?

[NASAFanboy]

The dark side of the moon isn't safe.

Chunks that miss the moon could be sent in a sub-orbital path that the gravity of the moon could pull chunks back down theoretically ANYWHERE on the surface of the moon. It is a good foot holder for building a ship fleet capable of getting to mars with as many people as it can, but THEN you have to deal with the falling asteroid phobos*or deimos, I forget which* It is decaying its orbit into the planet, and thats as risk to consider as well for base placement.

Then there is the issue of weight/food/water for tens of hundreds of people for an excess of 50 years, I say 50 years because that is My estimated time needed to crack exo-planet cultivation. There aren't any animals to hunt, so protein is a big concern.

Then the Psychological toll on the survivors. Get one to crack and go on a killing spree, goodbye humanity. This is why you send multiple small ships rather than one large ship. Increases survival rate significantly.

Then there is the Boredom aspect. When ones nerves allow one to be bored. Stir-craziness could result in a lack of attention, which could result in mistakes, some may be catastrophic.

However, not all is bad. We don't even need to build anything on mars, as far is infrastructure goes. There are ancient lava tubes that litter its suface, we can build starting from there, and be shielded from cosmic rays in the process.

Not only that, but because of mars's currently thin atmosphere and lower gravity, we can get off of the planet easier once we re-attain spaceflight. Not sure how well the engineering will cope with a different atmosphere as far as thrust goes, but Who knows?

Phobos and Deiminos?

These little rock's ain't going nowhere for millions of years.

I support building a large city/colony on the base equatoral farside of the Mun. That'll give us the thickest rock cover.

And sure, some rocks might reach us, but that's a extremely low chance, and they will likely be detected and destroyed-if they do reach us. Also, just to be safe, we should spread the "seeds" of mankind across the moon in several colonies. And also, we don't need meat. Beans, nuts, they provide protein as good as any steak-no animals required or the food to sustain them. Protein is not near as any type of concern.

For the oxygen, I'm imaging large greenhouses that'll grow food and oxygen. We don't need meat in space. In the greenhouses, we could also grow algae.

The food won't be good. Algae crisps, no meat-but it'll keep us alive.

We don't need to stay on the Moon. To lessen the load, I support sending ships to Mars once the sharpnel is clear (Around an estimated five years)

[Seret]

I support building a large city/colony on the base equatoral farside of the Mun.

On the what?

[NASAFanboy]

On the what?

I don't even know how to say it.

Build bases/cities on the far side of the moon, and scatter them in an "cross shape". That's means along the equator and along that little polar line.

[czokletmuss]

I support building a large city/colony on the base equatoral farside of the Mun.

So far, we've sent there 12 human beings for a couple of days. And it was 30 years ago. Colonies on Moon? Space station above Mars? Why not Disneyland on Titan? It's just impossible. You probably've heard about the prisoner dilemma - the incoming 250km rock with 200km/s speed changes the rule so that it's pointless to play with a long term in mind since there is no long term. There is no tomorrow - what's the point of even trying? Why shouldn't we just party or start a war? Imagine you know you'll die in 5 days. What would you do during these last days? Behave like a good person, try to save money, obey the rules? Or just be painfully honest, punch a few people you really hate, steal and in general do what you want, no matter the cost? Now imagine this on a global scale. There simply wouldn't be any cooperation on a scale needed to create colony (not to mention that this is pure fantasy). BTW, there is of course trope for that.

I suggest read "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy if you want to know how the society could behave when the end is inevitable

[NASAFanboy]

So far, we've sent there 12 human beings for a couple of days. And it was 30 years ago. Colonies on Moon? Space station above Mars? Why not Disneyland on Titan? It's just impossible. You probably've heard about the prisoner dilemma - the incoming 250km rock with 200km/s speed changes the rule so that it's pointless to play with a long term in mind since there is no long term. There is no tomorrow - what's the point of even trying? Why shouldn't we just party or start a war? Imagine you know you'll die in 5 days. What would you do during these last days? Behave like a good person, try to save money, obey the rules? Or just be painfully honest, punch a few people you really hate, steal and in general do what you want, no matter the cost? Now imagine this on a global scale. There simply wouldn't be any cooperation on a scale needed to create colony (not to mention that this is pure fantasy). BTW, there is of course trope for that.

I suggest read "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy if you want to know how the society could behave when the end is inevitable

It need not be that.

Ten years? That's good enough. Most people are short-sighted. Most people will just think that the rock will just get blown up, and NASA could try to supress information. After all, most people are scientifically indept, and won't be a obstacle to progress until the colonies are almost done. After that, there's always martial law and shooting people that are trying to cause disorder-effectively a military dictatorship, but for the good of humanity.

Yes, it was 40 years ago. But think of what has happened in the last 40 years. Our technology has skyrocketed, and we have tools and ways taht NASA could only DREAM of in the 1970's. It's not like everyone is still stuck in the 1970's.

By the way...Disney on Titan? Good idea, I'll forward it as a serious proposal to the CEO.

[Tarrow]

Y'know, depending on how much we want it to miss by, 30 years is plenty of notice to nudge something like that off course enough to avoid collision. 1mm/s of lateral velocity applied now would be sufficient for it to clear us by nearly 1000km. It'd still be brown trousers time, but maybe not the end of everything. Tidal effects would be interesting to say the least.

(warning my maths may be off, I'll recheck it tomorrow whilst more awake)

Depending on rock density aren't we only taking an energy requirement in the 2x10^16 to 1x10^17 Joule range to put 1mm/s of velocity on deathrock? The lower boundary translates to the output of a 5Mt nuclear warhead and a fairly light asteroid, the upper boundary a 25Mt (for an asteroid denser than iron). Hitting deathrock directly with a nuke probably woudn't do much, but a handfull of massively overpowered orion-style nuclear shaped charges alongside it to nudge it sideways may be enough to do it. How close would be "better" than a direct hit?

Deathrock radius: 125,000m

Deathrock volume: 8.1812 x 10^15 m3

Density (light rock): 2700kg/m3

Deathrock mass: 2.209 x 10^19 kg

Required deltav = 0.001 m/s

Required energy to achieve 0.001 m/s = 2.209 x 10^16 joules (is this part right?)

nucear detonation: 1Mt equivalent of TNT = 4.184 x 10^15 J

nuclear detonation Mt required = 22.09/4.184 = 5.27 Mt TNT equivalent

Edited November 4, 2013 by Tarrow

[czokletmuss]

Y'know, depending on how much we want it to miss by, 30 years is plenty of notice to nudge something like that off course enough to avoid collision.

But how are you going to deliver any equipment there?

Here's a simple exercise - use HyperEdit to add a spacecraft on a highly eccentric and/or inclined orbit with apoapsis far beyond Eeloo's orbit, kinda like this:

And than try to rendez-vous with it.

Good luck

Most people are short-sighted. Most people will just think that the rock will just get blown up, and NASA could try to supress information. After all, most people are scientifically indept, and won't be a obstacle to progress until the colonies are almost done. After that, there's always martial law and shooting people that are trying to cause disorder-effectively a military dictatorship, but for the good of humanity.

Don't you think that End Of The World As We Know It would get a lot of media covarage?

And I'm sorry but are you sugesting shooting to rioting people, martial law and dictatorship? Damn, and I thought I'm the pessimist...

Yes, it was 40 years ago. But think of what has happened in the last 40 years. Our technology has skyrocketed, and we have tools and ways taht NASA could only DREAM of in the 1970's. It's not like everyone is still stuck in the 1970's.

Nothing happened. Nobody was beyond LEO. We can't sustain few people on ISS without constant deliveries from Earth and you're suggesting colonies on the Moon after the apocalypse. I mean, come on

Edited November 4, 2013 by czokletmuss

[NASAFanboy]

But how are you going to deliver any equipment there?

Here's a simple exercise - use HyperEdit to add a spacecraft on a highly eccentric and/or inclined orbit with apoapsis far beyond Eeloo's orbit, kinda like this:

And than try to rendez-vous with it.

Good luck

Don't you think that End Of The World As We Know It would get a lot of media covarage?

And I'm sorry but are you sugesting shooting to rioting people, martial law and dictatorship? Damn, and I thought I'm the pessimist...

Nothing happened. Nobody was beyond LEO. We can't sustain few people on ISS without constant deliveries from Earth and you're suggesting colonies on the Moon after the apocalypse. I mean, come on

Why haven't we advanced?

Money. Funding. If it hadn't been for that, I would be posting this on the lunar surface as ships powered by VASMIR and solar sails are zipping around colonies in the solar system. We have the technology, but not the money to put them into space. However, the idea of an "end of the world" would be enough to push the politicans of the world to push for a crash-research/colonization project.

By the way, in terms of that...

If I was a dictator of the world, and I was in this situation, that is exactly what I would do.

Perform a crash-colonization program and shoot peopleon sight if they oppose the colonization efforts or rebel, along with fortifying the space centers into a literal fortress (To protect the researchers from terriosts). Here's a joke that my friends have said about me.

"Freedom of Speech applies to anyone in America, except for anywhere within earshot from me. Because once I'm in earshot, you can't criticize space exploration without risking atleast one attempt to give you a loody nose"

Sure, we can't sustain the ISS, but it was an station that was built with funds that kept being cut, political pressures, and 1990's tech.