From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun May 25 2003 - 23:50:31 MDT
On Sun, 25 May 2003, Spike wrote:
> >OK, scrap Pluto.
>
> No, dont scrap it. We will need that thing later.
Actually Spike, most of the outer planets seem likely to be
materials that condense at very low temperatures -- the
water, ammonia, argon, neon, etc. aren't worth much.
The methane, carbon monoxide & carbon dioxide may be
much more useful but they are only a fraction of the
composition of the outer planets.
> [snip] Reduce the existing ones [ie asteroids or
> planets I believe Spike is referencing] into usably small
> pieces, perhaps a few milligrams each.
Nope a few mg is probably too small unless you are using
an architecture (and thinking about problems) best suited
for "distributed network computing". In terms of optimal
computational throughput Eric has set the height of the bar.
Its a 1 cm^3 computer that radiates 100,000 W and has to
harvests probably somewhat more than that depending on
power sources and power conversion efficiencies.
That is more than a few mg.
You can change that but you have to specify *why* you
are reducing the computational density.
> >we save this planet from accidental collision...
>
> That will not be an issue if we use our little bit of
> matter in interplanetary space correctly.
Its an issue up until the time we use the matter in this
space correctly -- as Daniel has recently pointed out.
One doesn't typically care about earthquakes (however
improbable) until they ruin your whole day.
> Remember we have very little material to work with,
> perhaps ~1E28 kg of metals (at best) in the solar
> system. We can't waste anything.
1E28 kg is probably high if one assumes one only has the
planets. Its a bit low if one assumes star-lifting and
turning the sun off (and/or being able to breed metals
from the H/He). But the point still will always stand --
as Extropians we shouldn't waste anything.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 00:00:33 MDT