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

[imported_Sasha]

Venus is too hot because its a lot closer to the sun and has a natural greenhouse condition holding heat in. Mars is farther away with little atmosphere and can't hold in what little heat it can get from the sun.

Should we as humans on an epoch scale try to terraform Mars or Venus? Let's assume that it is with human intuition to devise and carry a plan, but which plan would you go for, what would your plan go for, and for what benefits?

 

[Cogman]

Mars, though we could bring some off the gases from Venus to mars (Venus is mostly C02 correct?) But currently Venus will melt most metals at the surface, too hot.

 

[TuxDave]

Definitely Mars... because we can actually land things on it without it melting.

 

[DrPizza]

I thought there were valleys where it may be cool enough for liquid water on venus... I may be mistaken...

edit: I'm mistaken... it's Mercury where they've detected what they believe to be ice.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system isn't it? It'd be way harder terraform Venus then mars. Atleast with mars you could build domes to stage your plans from.

 

[imported_Sasha]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Mars, though we could bring some off the gases from Venus to mars (Venus is mostly C02 correct?) But currently Venus will melt most metals at the surface, too hot.

Yes, Venus is hot. In fact, its hot enough to melt lead. But that's the proposition, right? You would strive to cool Venus. I thought I remembered watching or reading something about how we could introduce algea or bacteria into the atmosphere of Venus to remove particles and thus thin the atmosphere (low the greenhouse condition) and allow it to cool.

I think Venus' atmosphere might contain water vapor, which is a bad thing ni terms of greenhouse conditioning. And since the plan is long-term (hundreds, maybe even a thousand years) the end result would be a planet in the rough, but one that could be cultivated for other things.

Mars be further out and having insufficient means of energy (internal and from the sun) would have to fight for warm in which to grow in. I'm trying to remember a book where they blew apart one of the outer planets' satellites in order to send hugh chunks of ice to both planets as Earth was in the process of benig destroyed.

 

[everman]

With sufficiant technology I think it would probably end up being easier to terraform mars into something more friendly. Supposedly there is evidence that water once flowed there, so I think bringing back a feature of the planet that once existed would be logical.

If there are sufficiant quantities of Hydrogen(ice caps?), we have no problem with energy either (once we get better at using hydrogen as our main energy source).

 

[thelordemperor]

Heating mars would probably be easier, think how experienced we will be with global warming by then?

 

[Falloutboy]

mars would actually be quite easy to teraform. denonate a couple mega ton nukea at the poles to melt the water and C02 forzen thier and get it into the atmosphere. once the planet reached a proper tempeture use a type of algae to start getting oxegen into the atmoshere. would proubly take 500+ years but its doable

 

[gsellis]

IIRC, besides too hot, Venus' atmosphere is also highly corrosive.

I prefer the lazy man's approach. Terraform Earth.

 

[imported_Sasha]

I guess the question comes down to how much moisture can you get into vapor form in order for form a stronger atmosphere, and what planetary conditions are needed to hold that created atmosphere around the planet.

Keep in mind that Mars has a fundamental problem in that it has a difficult time holding any atmosphere. Also, saying that Venus is hot, or its the hottest planet is an initial condition. Many factors go into that heat problem would would be removed through proper terraforming.

If you could create a condition in which 7/8 of the greenhouse heat and allowed to escape into space (radiational cooling) I suspect it would cool down nicely. Building domes on Mars would only be good as a launching platform, but creating and atmosphere that isn't there to begin with is difficult.

I personally think it would be easier to change a pre-existing atmosphere that try to create & keep an atmosphere. I also suspect we'd need to lok at the planets to see what they offer. But keep in mind the further you go from the sun your energy must come from somewhere.

 

[imported_Sasha]

Originally posted by: gsellis
IIRC, besides too hot, Venus' atmosphere is also highly corrosive.

I prefer the lazy man's approach. Terraform Earth.

Yes, its hot, but why is everyone stuck on the initial conditions so much? Initial terraforming does not preclude that it be hospitable to human co-existence. Chemistry is how you would change the acidity of an atmosphere, or did you miss that point at the start?

Initial stages of terraforming should not require human on-planet occupation. If anything, an orbiting platform from which to monitor the changes, introduce period changes, etc. is a lot easier.

 

[gsellis]

Depends on the method. You have to put equipment into place to do it. There is no Genesis effect. There is probably no biological solution either, so it would take some sort of device. That device has to survive the environment.

 

[imported_Sasha]

Originally posted by: gsellis
Depends on the method. You have to put equipment into place to do it. There is no Genesis effect. There is probably no biological solution either, so it would take some sort of device. That device has to survive the environment.

I find your reply surprising since there have already been proposals, including from Carl Sagan regarding dropping organic compounds and complex molecules directly into Venus' atmosphere. I do not know what makes you think that high-altitide disposable delivery platforms for atmospheric deployment beyond human intuition, but we've been doing that on Earth.

And keep in mind I already proposed this wouldn't be an 'overnight' endeavor, but on the human epoch scale (several hundred to a thousand years at the minimum) and within human intuition to devise methods for seccessful terraforming. I think many thought I was asking which is most likely to be successful, but actually I was trying to ask which would be better to terraform for post-terraform expansion of the human race.

 

[DrPizza]

Sasha's correct about Mars having a hard time hanging onto its atmosphere...
It's no so simple as "get an atmosphere conducive to human habitat to form."

Unlike Earth, Mars doesn't have a magnetic field... The earth's atmosphere is shielded from the solar wind. Mar's atmosphere is not. Thus, its atmosphere will be constantly (and has been) eroded by the solar wind.

Also, our magnetosphere protects us (as does our atmosphere)
Remember how solar flares can cause havoc on earth (especially with the power grids)
That's with protection. Mars offers no such protection. Particulate radiation (charged protons) from the sun, especially solar flares, would be a huge problem.

I'm sure everyone's aware that Mars *does* have an atmosphere.. But, the density of the Mars air is about the same as the density of air on earth at an altitude of 70,000 feet. (think of the climbers on Mt Everest who need oxygen bottles) If we wanted to be able to go outside on Mars without space suits... we're going to need a lot of air. A lot. A whole hell of a lot.

I think that 500 to 1000 years is an extremely low estimate of the necessary amount of time required to produce an atmosphere that's dense enough for us - but that's based on today's technology.

My personal feelings are that space exploration is great... Sure, go ahead and try to answer the questions about "are we alone" by looking for life on Mars. But, I see no point in attempting to start a project of this magnitude on Mars any time in the near future (on the human scale). There should be more emphasis on improving the technology for what we're already kinda good at, but not great...

We can already launch satellites, but still, we miss fairly often. Check out space elevators. That's a new area that could vastly improve our current very near earth technologies. (and can be extended later to improve our ability to reach elsewhere in the solar system) We're still not great at orbitting the earth (space shuttle disasters x2 now) Get good at that before taking the next step. One doesn't learn to play Beethoven's symphonies before one masters playing scales.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Sasha

Originally posted by: Cogman
Mars, though we could bring some off the gases from Venus to mars (Venus is mostly C02 correct?) But currently Venus will melt most metals at the surface, too hot.

Yes, Venus is hot. In fact, its hot enough to melt lead. But that's the proposition, right? You would strive to cool Venus. I thought I remembered watching or reading something about how we could introduce algea or bacteria into the atmosphere of Venus to remove particles and thus thin the atmosphere (low the greenhouse condition) and allow it to cool.

I think Venus' atmosphere might contain water vapor, which is a bad thing ni terms of greenhouse conditioning. And since the plan is long-term (hundreds, maybe even a thousand years) the end result would be a planet in the rough, but one that could be cultivated for other things.

Mars be further out and having insufficient means of energy (internal and from the sun) would have to fight for warm in which to grow in. I'm trying to remember a book where they blew apart one of the outer planets' satellites in order to send hugh chunks of ice to both planets as Earth was in the process of benig destroyed.

I don't think that Venus would be a good idea. Think about a hot summer's day here. Venus - man, toasty. And of course, one other thing I just thought of - a day on Venus is something like 243 Earth days. Sun goes up, and it'll be hot. Really really hot for a long time, even without the CO2.
Mars is likely to be a better option - places on it are at least around room temperature, at least during summer, and close to the ground. But it'll need a lot of resources - hydrogen, CO2, oxygen, ozone, water, etc. It'd take a LOT of time and energy to accomplish.

mars would actually be quite easy to teraform. denonate a couple mega ton nukea at the poles to melt the water and C02 forzen thier and get it into the atmosphere. once the planet reached a proper tempeture use a type of algae to start getting oxegen into the atmoshere. would proubly take 500+ years but its doable

Even so, I don't think that'd be enough gas to do it. The pressure on Mars is a lot less than that of Earth - something like 1/100th. And it's smaller - that's a LOT less air. One other thing - what's to stop all that (now radioactive) CO2 from just refreezing again?
Either way, terraforming another planet would be a massive undertaking. Probably could be done - maybe a mining operation to get hydrogen from Jupiter, and other resources from the asteroid belt. Burn hydrogen for energy and water production. Burn other compounds for CO2 production, and maybe nitrogen retrieval. Orbiting stations that use solar power to send large sparks through oxygen to produce ozone molecules.

 

[sao123]

What would it take to create and maintain an artificial magnetic field similar to the earths on Mars?
a Large electro magnet at the each pole powered by some nuclear power plants?

 

[imported_Sasha]

Originally posted by: sao123
What would it take to create and maintain an artificial magnetic field similar to the earths on Mars?
a Large electro magnet at the each pole powered by some nuclear power plants?

Well, first you would need to liquify the core of the planet, provided there is some iron at its core. That's a good starting point.

Jeff, I proposed a long-term period for which the process would take and exampled what I meant as a long time. Of course, if it takes us 50,000 to develop the technology to work within that timeframe then so be it. Again, this is why I references in human epoch scales, which should be interpreted as within the next 250,000 years.

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.

 

[jolancer]

i believe exploration in any dircetion or field of science is good... but for what your talking about, i hope your talking strictly in theory or in a recreated model type experiment. if anyone is out there who is seriouse about actually atempting something like this, even just for experimental perposess, i'd have to say it sounds like another one of those thing's were ppl have put or wasted a hole lota energy in the rong place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
besides, it would be a trillion times cheaper and easyer, to make a space station such as the Death Star from Star wars, then it would be to terraform a planet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
after comp technology gets far enough, teriforming experiments would prolly beable to work them self's out ona computer simulation, anyway.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: jolancer
i believe exploration in any dircetion or field of science is good... but for what your talking about, i hope your talking strictly in theory or in a recreated model type experiment. if anyone is out there who is seriouse about actually atempting something like this, even just for experimental perposess, i'd have to say it sounds like another one of those thing's were ppl have put or wasted a hole lota energy in the rong place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
besides, it would be a trillion times cheaper and easyer, to make a space station such as the Death Star from Star wars, then it would be to terraform a planet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
after comp technology gets far enough, teriforming experiments would prolly beable to work them self's out ona computer simulation, anyway.

how so? if it worked it would almost double the possible living area for us

 

[silverpig]

Dyson sphere is the way to go yo.

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

 

[Falloutboy]

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

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

dyson spere would rock but man I tihnk were many thousands of years from having the ability to do that.

 

[imported_Sasha]

Originally posted by: jolancer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
besides, it would be a trillion times cheaper and easyer, to make a space station such as the Death Star from Star wars, then it would be to terraform a planet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A trillion times? Are you sure it couldn't be just a hundred-billion times? Also, the Death Star would require a substantial amount of material, both raw and manufactured, in order to build. Would this Death Star, that costs one-trillionth the $$$ that it would take to terraform (into a rough diamond to begin colonization, or mine, etc.) a small planet, be the size of ping-pong ball?

Had you played the devil's advocate you should have said something like its easier to spend the money and energy on terraforming the moon. But, then again the moon has certain problems maintaining an atmosphere, too.

I think you are letting 21st century human-culture in the way of allowing your creative side from seeing the potential. And as I said before, its not the process, but the choice between the two planets. One answer on picking a planet for post-terraformed use the heart of this post. I already presumed we'd be able to terraform either one, but I want to know why one would be chosen over the other.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: Sasha

Originally posted by: jolancer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
besides, it would be a trillion times cheaper and easyer, to make a space station such as the Death Star from Star wars, then it would be to terraform a planet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A trillion times? Are you sure it couldn't be just a hundred-billion times? Also, the Death Star would require a substantial amount of material, both raw and manufactured, in order to build. Would this Death Star, that costs one-trillionth the $$$ that it would take to terraform (into a rough diamond to begin colonization, or mine, etc.) a small planet, be the size of ping-pong ball?

Had you played the devil's advocate you should have said something like its easier to spend the money and energy on terraforming the moon. But, then again the moon has certain problems maintaining an atmosphere, too.

I think you are letting 21st century human-culture in the way of allowing your creative side from seeing the potential. And as I said before, its not the process, but the choice between the two planets. One answer on picking a planet for post-terraformed use the heart of this post. I already presumed we'd be able to terraform either one, but I want to know why one would be chosen over the other.

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)

 

[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.