Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

KarlMarshall_ t1_j8se30b wrote

We could for sure; but only if we were hypothetically capable of it.

15

EarthSolar t1_j8sf2cf wrote

There is nothing in physics that prevents us from piling up enough rock until it turns into a planet, but honestly that would be a really stupid waste of resources

8

svarogteuse t1_j8sfd3o wrote

So hypothetically do we have the knowledge? Yes. Orbital mechanics and the force need to apply to each object are pretty easy math to calculate once we know their mass and current orbit.

However its not a practical exercise.

The entire mass of the asteroid belt is only 3% the mass of the moon. And some 40% of that is Ceres alone with 62% being in the largest 4 asteroids. So you need a lot more mass to make anything approaching a planet. The larger the object the a harder it is for us to move.

It also takes a lot of energy to redirect masses like that, and time for the orbits to coincide and come together in a manner thats not gong to cause catastrophic break ups sending rock where we dont want it. Yes we can minimize the collision force, but that takes more energy. We dont have the technology to manipulate hundreds of thousands of rocks and get them into a single area in any kind of reasonable time scale. Hundreds of years if not longer. Its not just the shear volume its finding a way to apply enough energy to the larger objects to change their orbits significantly in a life time.

7

invasivefiber97 t1_j8sfior wrote

Short answer stupid, considering current technology and knowledge.

long answer- First we need to create a core of metal which rotates and creates a lot of heat and energy which does not cool down rapidly. Too fast or too slow rotation will not support the creation of magnetic field to protect planet from outer radiation and mantle followed by crust where life could be a possibility. Suppose we achieved all those things. Here come a tough part.

Once the crust is created we need to also carefull design how tectonic plates are placed, where we need to give escape vents for lava to disperse as excess energy. Deep valleys for oceans. We need mountains, rivers, valleys etc (no deserts pls). For different types of life. We need to carefully design the axis, speed and tilt of rotation of the planet, for which we need a mechanism which can control core of planet from outside.

A viable atmosphere which can have exact atmospheric pressure, power to block radiations, meteors and other objects.

These things are random and rarest of rare occurrences in universe. so humans cannot create planets. Because to create a planet we need to be capable to creating the very foundation of these things. We need to create a new physics, chemistry and biology for new planet.

2

ChrisARippel t1_j8sft7a wrote

"The total mass of all the asteroids [in main asteroid belt] combined is only 3% that of Earth's Moon.". [Source

Could steal some moons from other planets.

Where would you put your planet?

1

Blackpanther22five t1_j8sg7dw wrote

Nope not because we don't have the technology ,but because we can't work together long enough for something that big

1

EarthExile t1_j8sgq41 wrote

It's not a worthwhile endeavor. If you could harness and assemble the resources it'd take, making a whole planet might be the silliest thing you could possibly use them for. There are plenty of planets and moons we're not using. With a planet's worth of resources you could enlarge and terraform Mars, and still have most of your nickel and iron left over.

3

mikevago t1_j8sim1v wrote

Maybe, but if we were capable of doing such a thing, surely we could just make an existing planet liveable with a lot less effort.

2

thedrakeequator t1_j8sj0xw wrote

Not with the resources on Earth, but the ones in the belt yes..... If you stick enough rocky material together it will form into a sphere, and there is more than enough (but we would probably have to destroy ceres)

Oye Beltalowda sasa ke?

Does making a planet make any sense? No, with that kind of technology, it would be easier to just terraform Venus and Mars. Or mine the Jovian system and turn it into space stations.

1

Cato_theElder t1_j8sj6ge wrote

Lots of folks answering with all the reasons this wouldn't work. Whether or not it's plausible, I think it's a good idea to engage with the hypothetical. What would it take? If it's not realistic, what's in the way? Hypothetically, what would getting around that problem look like?

If you haven't, I'd recommend checking out the "what if" section of xkcd. The author tackles questions like this and gets to some really interesting conclusions.

Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed.

2

space-ModTeam t1_j8sjgeq wrote

Hello u/prof_chaos7, your submission "Hypothetically Can us humans build an artificial planet?" has been removed from r/space because:

  • Such questions should be asked in the "All space questions" thread stickied at the top of the sub.

Please read the rules in the sidebar and check r/space for duplicate submissions before posting. If you have any questions about this removal please message the r/space moderators. Thank you.

1

GonzoRonin t1_j8sk42t wrote

As is with the "admitted" technology all we could do is hollow out asteroids which is a great idea i believe.

1

EarthSolar t1_j8slfws wrote

Replying to thedrakeequator (#1,832,298)

Last I checked like 95% the mass of the moons of Saturn are within Titan. You’re not really getting any benefit slamming the smaller moons, aside from destroying their own wonders and create a slightly bigger moon that’s just about as useless and probably way more boring.

3

prof_chaos7 OP t1_j8sqqx0 wrote

Replying to Cato_theElder (#1,832,262)

What we have to do is build a huge octahedron shape(made of carbon) and launch it in the desired orbit. Define 2 magnetic poles on it and start building a spherical shape around it. The elements that r needed to sustain life will be brought from earth and asteroids.

1

riyehn t1_j8st9ai wrote

The answers to your questions are yes and yes. Yes you could do it, and yes it would be stupid.

To make a planet, all you'd need to do is find enough matter and put it all in one place. You'd get the matter from asteroids and other orbital bodies. You'd put it all in one place by putting some kind of engine on the orbital bodies to change their orbits so that they slam into each other, creating an even bigger body that orbits the sun.

Once the collection of matter is massive enough, its own gravity would eventually turn it into a sphere, at which point it would meet the current definition of a dwarf planet. If your goal is a full-on, non-dwarf planet, it would have to be big enough that its own gravity also eventually pulls in everything else of a similar size that's orbiting the sun nearby.

But here's the thing - we already have a lot of planets. If the reason you want a planet is to make a place for humans to live, it would be a lot easier just to terraform an existing planet like Mars. This is reason #1 why it would be stupid.

Reason #2 why it's be stupid: "planet" is just a matter of definition. Technically, all you need to do to create a planet is add a bit more matter to the most massive non-planet you can find, then wait. It's not as cool as it sounds. You're just making a big thing a little bit bigger so that it fits a definition that humans invented.

Finally, scientists have changed the definition of "planet" before. This is why Pluto is no longer considered a full planet. So technically, scientists could "create a planet" today by changing the definition to label more things as planets.

1