Which should be done: Warm Up or Cool Down (a planet)

[wacki]

useless. Even if the gas could be transfered, it is a dead planet. There aren't nuclear reactions in the center of the planet.

 

[jolancer]

i thought u already knew, objects such as the moon dont have enough mass to produce a protective magnectic field
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a station such as the Death star is as big as the moon(i dont remember exactly that movie is old) but it would have much more space to house humans, cause ona planet u can only populate the circomference, on a station your populating the internal area.

besides there is no guessing involved with building a station, there are prolly a trillion less variables(less problems and less pobablitys for problems) it doesnt need to be built at once, it can be like a snow ball efect, if it needs to be larger, u make it larger.
--------------------------------------------------------------
im not saying either is a good idea, but i am saying a space station is a much better idea.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: wacki
useless. Even if the gas could be transfered, it is a dead planet. There aren't nuclear reactions in the center of the planet.

Sure there are. Mars has just as many radioactive elements as the earth has. And nuclear reactions don't do that much for a planet anyways.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: wacki
useless. Even if the gas could be transfered, it is a dead planet. There aren't nuclear reactions in the center of the planet.

thier aren't any nuclear reactions in the earth either. is all geo thermic energy.

 

[Falloutboy]

and even if the atmosphere is temporary it would still last thousads of years and with the level of change you could build machienes to maintain it

 

[imported_Sasha]

Originally posted by: jolancer
Falloutboy quote- "how so? if it worked it would almost double the possible living area for us"

adapting plants and animals to live ona different planet... doing a chemistry experiment on a global scale with to many variables to factor in... creating a magnetic field large and strong enough to encompase mars, or reactivating its self sustaining multon core and praying it doesnt die again... creating a selfsustaining atmospher is prolly much more difficault then creating a temporary one... just launching something into space cost's billions of $, funding for programs and experiments cost billions of $, and even far far into the future teraforming would still just be an experiment and not a solution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
arnt there more then enough problems here on earth were energy and money could be much better spent... or at least with that kind of money, every human on earth could be provided free medical care and food, or at least the ones who need it.

Exactly how do you know? Have you been to the future? I bet 500 years ago they would have laughed you off the face of the flat planet if you suggested you could fly, let alone get to the moon. Who is to say where the human race might get in 50,000 years--provided we don't kill one-another.

Originally posted by: wacki
useless. Even if the gas could be transfered, it is a dead planet. There aren't nuclear reactions in the center of the planet.

What planet is currently conducting nuclear reactions? And chemistry doesn't deal in nuclear reactions (that's physics).

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: wacki
useless. Even if the gas could be transfered, it is a dead planet. There aren't nuclear reactions in the center of the planet.

Sure there are. Mars has just as many radioactive elements as the earth has. And nuclear reactions don't do that much for a planet anyways.

I do not think he was talking about atomic decay. If he was, why wouldn't he just say radioisotope decay instead of nuclear reactions? Most reading 'nuclear reactions' are thinking either a-bombs or nuclear power, LOL. Neither of which is a requirement to produce chemical reactions.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

How about get several large bodies (asteroid to moon sized) and make them do a head on collision with mars. Find some rich in iron. they could probably reactivate techtonic movements by moltenizing the core also introducing more gravity to the planet so it can hold an atmosphere better.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Dyson sphere is the way to go yo.

We gonna need a whole ton of stuff for it though.

Yeah, we'll need to advance about 10,000 years in energy, material, flight, and engine technology.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
How about get several large bodies (asteroid to moon sized) and make them do a head on collision with mars. Find some rich in iron. they could probably reactivate techtonic movements by moltenizing the core also introducing more gravity to the planet so it can hold an atmosphere better.

Good plan but too long term would take millions of years to get the place to settle down enough for life

 

[icarus4586]

Aside from the 243 earthday day on Venus, it's definitely the more viable option. Its existing atmosphere could be modified by introducing certain bacteria, along with some chemical reactions. This would make the atmosphere more conducive to human life.
The problem with both planets is heat. On Mars there's not enough. On Venus there's too much. Even given an earth-like atmosphere, the long days and the proximity to the Sun would make human life there nearly impossible.
In my belief, God put us on earth for a reason.

 

[tinyabs]

Originally posted by: wacki
useless. Even if the gas could be transfered, it is a dead planet. There aren't nuclear reactions in the center of the planet.

Robotic techology might be very useful on Mars, rather then us living there (doing nothing). I suppose the things we can do on Mars are mining metal/minerals, space research, prisons and dumping radioactive wastes.

 

[GimpyOne]

An interesting read might be this link:

http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm

In it, they talk about the surface of venus possibly being similar in temperature and pressure to the bottom of the ocean. There, bacteria live near 400C and feed off of hydrogen sulfide. So processing Venus' atmosphere might not be as difficult as everyone thinks. You just need to worry about getting everything through the giant cloud layer of sulfuric acid! (not difficult really, most ceramic materials have the temperature and corrosion resisitance necessary for this type of thing...metals are for too inferior)

The upper atmosphere would be even easier to introduc life to as it is at a much lower temperature and pressure. The acidity isn't too big of an issue either as there are a number of bacteria used in acidic solutions to breakdown solids in waste sludges.

The big question is what to do about the pressure. At the surface, venus has an air pressure an order of magnitude greater then that of earth...so do we try to burn some off somehow? Or, how will that change as the CO2 level is lowered and replaced by O2.

And as this conversion takes place, there will also be a corresponding temperature drop as the clouds disappear. But would it be enough? Not sure, but it does look like Venus isn't as dead as everyone assumes.

 

[Jeff7]

And humans need not step foot on either planet to begin any viable process. Heat is a form of energy, which under certain frameworks can be used for chemical and bilogical processes one is looking to push forth. This cannot be the case (heat energy) on Mars.

Not quite sure what you mean here - there is not enough heat energy on Mars right now. But with sufficient amounts of carbon dioxide, and maybe some water vapor (and a lot of artificially created dust storms to act as a temporary catalyst), there could be enough heat energy retained on the surface to be usable for whatever means.

moon is too small to hold an atmoshpere. Mars is barely big enough which is proubly on of the reasons its already died. eventually earth will suffer a simlar fate when our atmosphere escapes (altough from what I read it will take about the same time for the sun to burn out so we will have bigger problems then)

Mars is 4,222 miles wide.

Saturn's moon Titan is 3200 miles wide, and it has an atmosphere thicker than Earth's, which also is rich in organic compounds.

What planet is currently conducting nuclear reactions? And chemistry doesn't deal in nuclear reactions (that's physics).

Jupiter, maybe. I remember reading somewhere that Jupiter emits more energy than it receives. Link. Something's providing an internal heat source. Saturn also possesses this quality.

Ok, scratch that. Apparently it's not because of fusion or any nuclear reaction. It's just still cooling down from its formation.

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: silverpig
Dyson sphere is the way to go yo.

We gonna need a whole ton of stuff for it though.

Yeah, we'll need to advance about 10,000 years in energy, material, flight, and engine technology.

Well, the original poster did allocate anywhere from 50,000 to 250,000 years for this project.
So heck with it, use all the planets and asteroids themselves to create a Dyson sphere. Though I'd think another star would be a better idea, like a newly formed white dwarf. Its smaller size would mean that a much smaller sphere could be built (fewer materials) and the star itself would last a lot longer. 10 billion years is the expected lifespan for a star like our sun (5 billion left for ours though) in its current state. White dwarf stars also have a lifespan of a few billion years, before they sizzle down to a brown dwarf. Benefits there - no red giant stage, which nicely wipes out the Dyson Sphere. And you're left with a damn big diamond to do with as you please.