If I wanted to increase or decrease the volume and mass of a

a space shovel

>>8317626
Surface gravity can still be 1G on a larger, more massive planet compared to Earth.

Either way, more rockets than it's worth.

Nuclear bombs greater than 100Mton

>>8317626
>>8317657
would actually be the easiest to just construct a new planet surface leaving a big hollow gap, rather than carting away all the extra mass.

>>8317665
But then it's inhospitable for a long time

>>8317676
like tether large platforms onto the lower portion of a bunch of space elevators, you could position the platform so that it was at earth gravity, and cancel out the weight of the platform with counterweights on the far side of the tether. Its theoretically possible, though would be easier to just build a rotating structure out in space.

>>8317681
Thats not in the first post.

>>8317665
>Nuclear bombs greater than 100Mton

which one do absolutely nothing
the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was over a million times more powerful than that and all it did was leave a cute dimple under the ocean

>>8317626
>increase the mass

Smash it with small asteroids and comets.

>decrease the mass

Smash it with a moon sized celestial body so to eject matter into space. You'd probably need to angle it just right.

>>8317626
A collection of dragonballs.

>>8317665
You'd need orders of magnitude larger than 100 MT.

Otherwise you'd just be blowing off the atmosphere, which while decreasing the mass technically, is probably not what we're looking for.