How to dismantle a planet

[luizopiloto]

With a pick-Axe... voxel by voxel... [IMG]http://static-cdn.jtvnw.net/jtv_user_pictures/chansub-global-emoticon-ddc6e3a8732cb50f-25x28.png[/IMG]

[kerbiloid]

Schroedinger Earth always exists in both states: destroyed and undestroyed.
You would just change you observation point.

[technion]

Self replicating bots taking out planets. That's basically how the universe ended in the series Lexx.

[IMG]http://www.sadgeezer.com/Legacy/lexx/lex-20g.jpg[/IMG]

[Shpaget]

That's a recurring theme in fiction.
Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Star Trek (if you consider the Borg to be bots)...

[magnemoe]

[quote name='EdFred']If the nano-bots eat from the outside in, there won't be any pressures to withstand when they get near the core. You'll also want atmosphere consuming nanobots if the planet has one.[/QUOTE]
Your problem is that your bots will get problems getting deep, as you will have an mile deep layer of bots, this will insulate frying the lower bots even if the planet was cold all the way trough.
Technically you could build an bunch of mass drivers trowing away stuff continuing until the planet was gone.

[EdFred]

[quote name='magnemoe']Your problem is that your bots will get problems getting deep, as you will have an mile deep layer of bots, this will insulate frying the lower bots even if the planet was cold all the way trough.
Technically you could build an bunch of mass drivers trowing away stuff continuing until the planet was gone.[/QUOTE]

Self replicating magnetic bots. The first wave of bots consume the atmosphere eliminating all friction from the atmosphere. Then as the planet is consumed, the nanobots pulse rail-gun style, firing off nanobots that have consumed their portion of the planet. No need to build another mass driver. :D

[tomf]

Co-incidentaly The energy you could get from fusing all the hydrogen in the earths oceans is remarkably close to the energy required to completely disassemble the planet.

[Shpaget]

How did you get the energy requirements for disassembly?
Also, how do you define complete disassembly?

[kiwi1960]

[quote name='Shpaget']Why would it explode?
Also, the Sun contains 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Even if Jupiter with its moons just disappeared, it would have negligible effect on the rest of the system.

BTW, does the goo come in neon green?[/QUOTE]

Because the molten core, without the mass of the planet, would become unstable and explode.

As for the gravity question, its not a simple case of the sun holding it all in place, ALL the planets have an effect on the other planets .... take one out, and the equations change... even a minute change is still a change.... but take out the Earth.... what happens to the Moon.... and so on.

[Shpaget]

[quote name='kiwi1960']Because the molten core, without the mass of the planet, would become unstable and explode. [/QUOTE]

A molten core is not going to spontaneously explode.
Here's a video of it not exploding.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntQ7qGilqZE[/url]

[quote name='kiwi1960']
As for the gravity question, its not a simple case of the sun holding it all in place, ALL the planets have an effect on the other planets .... take one out, and the equations change... even a minute change is still a change.... but take out the Earth.... what happens to the Moon.... and so on.[/QUOTE]


The Sun holds almost 99.9% of the mass of the Solar system. Aside from Jupiter, rest is negligible.
Taking one planet out, even Jupiter, would [I]reduce[/I] perturbation or others, not increase it.

[*Aqua*]

Jupiter is the main reason for reduced pertubations. All that's left in our solar system is those stuff which bowed to Jupiter's gravitational forces and are now hold unter it's control in (semi)stable orbits. Everything else already crashed into something or was catapulted out of the system.
If you remove Jupiter everything will break out of it's current orbit. This will happen slow but eventually there'll be chaos everywhere until the next heaviest planet (Saturn) gets everything unter control.

[peadar1987]

[quote name='kiwi1960']Because the molten core, without the mass of the planet, would become unstable and explode.

As for the gravity question, its not a simple case of the sun holding it all in place, ALL the planets have an effect on the other planets .... take one out, and the equations change... even a minute change is still a change.... but take out the Earth.... what happens to the Moon.... and so on.[/QUOTE]

It would be okay, actually. There is a lot of heat and pressure stored down there, but it is kept together by its own gravity. If you suddenly removed all of the rock and metal above it, the core would probably rebound quite violently, even shedding some of its top layers in a semi-explosive fashion, but it would reach equilibrium pretty quickly and pull all the material back to its surface.

[Shpaget]

[quote name='*Aqua*']Jupiter is the main reason for reduced pertubations. All that's left in our solar system is those stuff which bowed to Jupiter's gravitational forces and are now hold unter it's control in (semi)stable orbits.[/QUOTE]
No, it's more or less stable [I]despite[/I] Jupiter's influence; not thanks to it.

[quote name='*Aqua*']Everything else already crashed into something or was catapulted out of the system.[/QUOTE]
Everything else crashed into something or got ejected [I]because[/I] of Jupiter.

Without big massive objects to cause significant perturbations, orbits of the small ones follow almost perfect elliptical paths. They don't wander off unexpectedly.

[*Aqua*]

The existence of matter will influence other matter because gravitation doesn't have a maximum range. If you remove Mercury even Pluto will be influenced by that.

[QUOTE]Everything else crashed into something or got ejected [I]because[/I] of Jupiter.[/QUOTE]And everything else is still here [I]because[/I] of Jupiter.

[peadar1987]

Things like Jupiter trojans and asteroids in orbital resonance with Jupiter would indeed be perturbed if Jupiter were to disappear, because other gravitational interactions would then be stronger, and they would try and settle into new orbits or resonances.

[PB666]

[quote name='Vanamonde']Is there enough chemical energy in the planet components to, when converted into self-destructing nanobots, overcome escape velocity and expel matter from the location of the planet? Because if not, you'll have a big boom and then all the mass will settle down into a ball again. Whether in the form of rock, bots, or debris, mass is mass and will exert the same intensity of gravity.[/QUOTE]

No, since most of the planet is iron the are no differentials. You would have to begin dumping large amounts of nuetrons into the core in hopes of converting them to iron, a very stable isotope, into something that undergoes fission, and then hope you can do that fast enough so that the entire core goes prompt critical. The problem is that there are few isotopes or fission pairs that combined energy is less than iron. It means you would have to add more energy in nuetrons than you would get out of that blast.

Their is an easier way that does not require going to the core, just find a nuetron star and open a wormhole that points to the core and the nuetron star.

[More Boosters]

[quote name='PB666']No, since most of the planet is iron the are no differentials. You would have to begin dumping large amounts of nuetrons into the core in hopes of converting them to iron, a very stable isotope, into something that undergoes fission, and then hope you can do that fast enough so that the entire core goes prompt critical. The problem is that there are few isotopes or fission pairs that combined energy is less than iron. It means you would have to add more energy in nuetrons than you would get out of that blast.

Their is an easier way that does not require going to the core, just find a nuetron star and open a wormhole that points to the core and the nuetron star.[/QUOTE]

You know something is not easy when an easier solution would be to open a wormhole between it an a neutron star that is light years away.

[Silver_Swift]

[quote name='PB666']The problem is that there are few isotopes or fission pairs that combined energy is less than iron.[/QUOTE]
Aren't there literally zero of those? I thought iron-56 was the most stable isotope in the periodic table.