James R. Cunningham wrote:
>
> The article is a much misinterpreted take on what NASA was talking
> about.  Forget piddly environmental global warming.  The sun itself is
> heating up and enlarging steadily.   Although it will remain on the main
> sequence for about another 5 billion years, the earth will only be
> habitible for about another billion -- maybe less before the oceans
> evaporate away.  These guys were talking about placing a 160 Km asteroid
> or comet in solar orbit at 1 A.U., leading the earth-moon system.  This
> would gradually shift the earth and moon outward with respect to the
> sun.  About once every 6000 years the asteroid would have to be swung
> around Jupiter to replenish its energy in order to continue the
> process.  This procedure would make the earth habitible for perhaps an
> extra 4 billion years for whatever species it may harbor at the time.  I
> see nothing wrong with long-range planning even if we aren't going to be
> here to benefit.


Well really, considering the current rate of
technological advancement and the renewed interest
in space travel I think we should be VERY capable of
interstellar travel within 100 or 200 years, so this
really is not a problem.

So in 20 years when the next genius discovers that
0.999 (repeating) is NOT equal to 1.0 and uses that
new math to develop the anitgravity/hyperlightspeed
drive we can have a good laugh about the dying Sun and
get ready to relocate.

More seriously, you say "the Earth will only be
habitable for the next billion years", really do you
think we WON'T have interstellar transport within
a billion years from now??
:o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads