Using Black Holes for Terraforming?

[fenderzilla]

Okay so, pretty crazy idea, but one I’ve had for a while.

Far in the future, if humans ever terraform other planets, a major problem will be the low gravity. The only planet with significantly similar gravity to Earth’s is Venus, which gives us one single planet. People living on the moon, mars, mercury, or any gas giant moons would suffer serious health problems from living so long in a low G environment.

And then there’s the problem that you can’t actually terraform them at all. If you tried to terraform, say, the moon, all the air would bleed quickly into space without enough gravity to hold it in place. Even water wouldn’t act normally. Everyone would be choking will trying to drink cups of water Jell-O, which they couldn’t lift up to their mouths because their muscles had atrophied.

So yeah, not good.

If you really wanted to terraform, or even colonize a planet or moon practically, you’d really have to increase its gravity. How, you might ask? Well I had an absolutely crazy idea.

If you made a really small black hole, surrounded it by some sort of indestructible Adamantium-Mithril Alloy matter shield, and put it in the center of the planet/moon, could that work to increase its gravity?

Yeah, the matter shield would have to be utterly, insanely strong – like strong enough to hold up a whole planet, but suspend your disbelief.

Would there be any side effects to having a black hole miles under your feet? Would there be no way of keeping it from sucking up the planet/moon, or would there be any danger of that happening at all? How big would the black hole have to be, for you to feel a whole 1G from the planet/moon’s surface? Am I, once again, just ignorantly talking out of my derriere?

I eagerly await your answers.

[ZedNova]

I think small black holes dissipate really quickly.

[xcorps]

I'm thinking that if you could manufacture a black hole AND manufacture material strong enough to resist a black hole then making gravity generators would be small fries.

[K^2]

Black hole to generate Earth's gravity on the surface of the Moon would weigh six times as much as the Moon.

[Kevon87]

If you have the energy to 1. Create a black hole 2. get it to the center of said moon/planetoid, and 3.Build a structure strong enough to contain it, why not just use that energy to create your own planet (like the genesis project).

[Awaras]

Also, we still have no idea about the effects of low gravity on human health. ZERO gravity is bad, yes, but there has been NO research on long term exposure to low gravity. What is the minimum gravity to keep a human healthy? No clue. It might be 1g, it also might be much less.

[Nuke]

it would be a relatively trivial engineering project to build large city sized centrifuges on the moon.

i would build them under ground in circular tubes drilled out by tunnel boring machines. they would ride on maglev tracks at an angle such that the the natural gravity would complement the centrifugal gravity for 1g acceleration. this would require non planar deck space on larger modules.

black holes are just overkill. you are talking a type one or two civilization to pull that off. survival on other planets/moons for an extended period of time is strictly a type zero problem, elementary for a type one.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Nuke

[Seret]

It might be somewhat easier to simply modify the humans living in reduced gravity so that they were better adapted to the conditions. We're malleable, planets aren't.

[K^2]

it would be a relatively trivial engineering project to build large city sized centrifuges on the moon.

If you mean "relatively trivial" compared to making black holes for artificial gravity, then sure. But it's not a trivial task compared to what we've managed to build or put into space so far.

I know you're aware of it, but a lot of people don't seem to realize how large the centrifuges need to be to guarantee no ill effects from long term habitation.

[N_las]

It will be far more practical to find a medical solution to the negative effects of low gravity.

[lajoswinkler]

You'd have similar problems as with torus habitats. It's not the strength of the field that matters only, but the distribution of it, too. Black holes are "sharp", if you know what I mean. Buildings would not be able to go very high. Coriolis would be a big issue, too.

If... you find the solution to make/haul a black hole and then stabilize it in the center. That's the whole warp drive problem - it's fantasy all over again.

[Nuke]

If you mean "relatively trivial" compared to making black holes for artificial gravity, then sure. But it's not a trivial task compared to what we've managed to build or put into space so far.

I know you're aware of it, but a lot of people don't seem to realize how large the centrifuges need to be to guarantee no ill effects from long term habitation.

humans aren't totally ignorant to the concept of mega projects. probibly not one on this order of magnitude just yet, not to mention the 'on the moon' part. i just wanted to point out that mega construction is easier than moving or creating black holes. by the time we have the know how to do the latter, we would have already done the former (on the moon and other low gravity bodies).

low gravity environments are actually the perfect place to do this kind of heavy construction. i dont expect to see this kind of stuff in my lifetime but i do expect that eventually we expand our capacity for permanent habitation of the solar system.

[K^2]

I agree. The only question is, if you are going to build a giant centrifuge for gravity, why build on a planet/moon at all? Just build it in orbit, and mag-rail processed materials from surface. Presumably, workers would have to leave centrifugal habitats and work in low-G either way, and shuttling them back and forward is easy/cheap enough if there is no atmo to get in the way.

[Rdivine]

what are black holes made of? (i mean what types of matter? solid? liquid? gas? plasma?)

[lajoswinkler]

what are black holes made of? (i mean what types of matter? solid? liquid? gas? plasma?)

They're made of nothing.

[K^2]

Solid, liquid, gas, et cetera are states of matter. Black hole is another state of matter distinct from all of the above. So technically, the type of matter of which black hole consists is black hole.

[TJPrime]

Also, we still have no idea about the effects of low gravity on human health. ZERO gravity is bad, yes, but there has been NO research on long term exposure to low gravity. What is the minimum gravity to keep a human healthy? No clue. It might be 1g, it also might be much less.

I'm thinking the moons gravity would be enough.

They're made of nothing.

They're made of unknown material. Something infinitely small, but still there.

You could be right by saying it's made of nothing, but nothing allows for loopholes. One example of a loophole: the universe expanding faster than the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than light, nothing being empty space. What if black holes are made of space itself?

Edited July 26, 2014 by TJPrime

[xcorps]

the universe expanding faster

I've never been real comfortable with that. Expanding into what? If the universe has boundaries, then it's not a universe.

[ZetaX]

Nowhere did he use the word "into". Just read it up on Wikipedia or any other semi-reliable source.

Also, the limit on the speed is a local one, not a global one.

[Seret]

I've never been real comfortable with that. Expanding into what? If the universe has boundaries, then it's not a universe.

It's not expanding into anything. It's just that every point in the universe is getting farther apart. This isn't some weird theoretical idea, it's been measured.

Some parts of space are expanding away from us greater than the speed light. Their local expansion is much slower, but because all the space between here and there is expanding to our speed relative to them is greater than light speed. We can never know what's in those parts of the universe.

[xcorps]

It's not expanding into anything. .

I didn't say it was expanding. Someone else did.

This isn't some weird theoretical idea, it's been measured.

I'm not doubting motion. I'm doubting expansion. Of the universe

.

Some parts of space are expanding away from us

Not was I was talking about. I was responding to "expansion of the universe".

[RogueMason]

Well, if you're planning on drilling to the centre of the Moon to put a black hole there, I'm going to have to check that you don't have pointy ears, a big scary ship, and a vendetta against the Federation.

Besides, planting a black hole that generates 1G of gravity on the Moon would likely cause serious problems on and around Earth; the tides, for one, would be much more destructive, with regular (by regular, I mean regular intervals) tidal surges that flood low-lying land consistently. The tides would then retreat as the Moon moved along it's new-found binary orbit with Earth, and retreating tides could cause havoc for cargo ships. In space, spacecraft would have their orbits drastically altered, and I imagine geosynchronous orbit would no longer be geosynchronous. It would be messy, to say the least.

This is applicable to every planet/moon you'd do this on, although initial conditions will dictate the result and it may not be so bad for some places, but it hinges on you actually being able to create a black hole fit for purpose in the first place. It's a different, interesting idea, but whether you're a revenge-seeking extraterrestrial or just trying to help human colonies, bad things will most likely happen with this approach

[ZetaX]

xcorps: I already told you to read it up. You are just making assumptions because you do not understand it.

[lajoswinkler]

They're made of unknown material. Something infinitely small, but still there.

You could be right by saying it's made of nothing, but nothing allows for loopholes. One example of a loophole: the universe expanding faster than the speed of light. Nothing can travel faster than light, nothing being empty space. What if black holes are made of space itself?

Actually, according to our current knowledge, they're made out of nothing. It's the best we can do now.

[xcorps]

xcorps: I already told you to read it up. You are just making assumptions because you do not understand it.

I'm not making assumptions about anything. The definition of the Universe is quite clear. All of spacetime and everything in it, including the gaps between matter. If the universe is going to expand, it must expand FROM somewhere TO somewhere.

If the definition of the universe is the accepted definition, then it cannot expand because there is nowhere outside the universe to expand to but the universe by definition cannot be limited. You might say that the observable portion of the universe is in motion from a central point, but you cannot say that the universe is expanding, because that implies that the universe is contained, that it has boundaries, and that there exists a medium other than matter and energy in which the universe must reside if it is to actually expand.

I accept that there was an accretion point of matter that caused a huge explosion that sent all observable matter and energy into a velocity from that point.

I do not accept that this created THE UNIVERSE. I reject the idea that THE UNIVERSE is expanding, because there is zero evidence to support this. There is only evidence that the observable portion of the universe is in motion relative to a central place.

That is not the same thing as "The Universe is Expanding".