Could we build a new planet that is habitable by humans in orbit around a new star to try and preserve life?

Question

This is a theoretical question.

Answer 1

absolutely yes. in the far distant future.

Answer 2

it would not be a planet as we have come to learn, know, and love today.  i can not tell you what it would be because that costs money, daddy'o. ;-)

Garon Whited --

it is not theoretically possible to reach other suns. it is fact'ah'mus do able. all give a major thank you to albert!

sadly, not in our lives. and, not for a good while.

"the human race as a whole isn't convinced that it -has- to be done" the human race is not sure of anything. if you rely on them you are as good as dead. only a pitiful small few will provide the needed technologies and advancments over the years (and the past) to make it happen. the people of the world, are basically worthless. sad fact.

Answer 3

We can't even take care of this planet....I think it's folly to think that we could sustain life on two planets.

Answer 4

maybe if we developed the correct living environments and produce enough budget for it.

Answer 5

No.

Answer 6

as it is a theoretical question then theoretically, yes we can.

but not with the present technology we have right now

, of course

Answer 7

In theory?  Yes.

If we postulate sufficient time and money...

It is theoretically possible to reach another star.

(Addendum:  This means it can be reached.  This does not require traveling faster than the speed of light.  A generation ship could do so in a thousand years--or longer!--but again, we postulate sufficient time.)

It is also possible, given enough time, to either terraform an existing planet, or to gradually add mass to a planetoid (perhaps from a handy asteroid belt and a few ring systems) until it achieves a stable gravitational equilibrium and a surface acceleration similar to Earth.  If we also are lucky enough to have our starting planetoid in the habitable zone around the hypothetical star, then we can begin terraforming it.

The major drawback to the theoretical ideas are the postulates:  Sufficient time and money.

Neither of these is likely.  Star travel is still only theoretical, and hideously expensive even in theory.  Likewise, planetary engineering projects involve masses several orders of magnitude greater than the largest terrestrial engineering project to date.

-Could- it be done?  Yes.  But with the present state of the art in space travel, that's like asking "Theoretically, could we send a man to the Moon and bring him back safely?"... in 1940.  The necessary technology was, at best, in its infancy, and often no more than someone's dream.  But it could have been done much sooner than we did it... if someone had shown us that we -needed- to do it.  

The same applies here.  The necessary technologies are, at best, in their infancies... and the human race as a whole isn't convinced that it -has- to be done.

Answer 8

The question isn't whether we can but why would we.  The necessary raw materials would require that any attempt to construct a planet would require destruction of at least part of another planet.  It would be much easier and more likely to terraforming an existing planet.

Now, your question does bring up one interesting theory posed by Freeman Dyson back in 1959.  This is known as a Dyson Sphere (or Dyson Shell).  The idea is that if we had sufficient technology, the most efficient structure we could construct to live on was a sphere or shell that completely surrounds a star at a sufficient distance to sustain life, on the inside.  Such a sphere would provide more surface area than millions of planets and take much less raw material.  It would also capture ALL of the energy of the sun.  This structure would be a much more interesting thing to "build" instead of a planet.

Answer 9

no.

we can't even build a Stanford torus colony ship......

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

how could we build a planet?

well, I guess it could be possible, but if we got enough matter collected in a ball, it would start to heat, develop a core, develop a mantle, by adding more matter. but then the surface would start to heat and shift and continue to "grow" like a normal planet would, with lava and shtuff like that.

the process would take just as long as it takes a planet to form. about 2 billion years. even if we cut that time frame down to 70% it would still give us 1,400,000,000 years to completion.

I don't think its a feasible idea.

Answer 10

Why travel to France for pate when it's at your gourmet deli 2 blocks down?  Why travel to another star when astronomers have discovered over 160 moons in our own backyard, the solar system?

All NASA has to do is insert a Superconducting Ring into these planet and moons to create a magnetic field to shield out cosmic rays.  This "dynamo" will also protect any water from being photo-dissociated by solar uv.

Then it's just a matter of bringing up a bunch of furry creatures (squirrels, hamsters, lorises, lemurs, weasels, etc.) to bioform the planet since all creatures which respire aerobically, give off water vapor, methane and CO2.   All 3 are potent greenhouse gases which can build a rich and thick atmosphere over time.