/sci/ - Science & Math

>take some tree seeds to Neptune

>>3434038

srsly

>Implying terraforming will be possible within the next 1000 years

>yfw kinematic self-replicators terraform Mars by building gigantic solar sails and launching them in in-situ built mass drivers to reflect sunlight onto the polar caps and initiate the planet's metamorphosis

>>3434049

What are the main reasons why it will take that long?

hunger solved forever

Yeah!, let's terraform antarctica, the sahara and the bottom of the ocean

Oh wait, this thread is for nerds with life in space fantasies

Carry on

Think about terraforming uninhabitable places on Earth before thinking about Mars or Venus or my asshole, you stupid fucking dreamers.

You cannot terraform Mars because the planet itself lacks enough of a magnetic field to generate a proper magnetosphere to deflect, capture, and prevent the solar wind from bleeding off the atmosphere. Until you can fix that problem first, there is no use in terraforming other than using the planet as a potential gravitational stop for resources and a base station for mining the asteroids for fissionables to replace AND conserve dwindling fossil fuel stocks for better things like making materials, plastics, or medicines.

>>3434356
bullshit, you just START DA REACTORS!!!

>>3434356
wow that last was a long sentence.

>>3434066
If we can't even change a slight overabundance of CO2 on our planet, forget about forging an atmosphere and climate vastly different from what exists on a distant planet.

It will be a while before you terraform planets. We'll be masters at geoengineering Earth by that point.

>>3434319
This. Antarctica, the Gobi desert, and the bottom of the ocean are all far more hospitable than any place we can reach outside of Earth.

>>3434356
Superconductors

>>3434356
At what point does the solar wind no longer matter? doesn't it fall off as r^2?

>Drill through Mars' crust
>Launch and detonate the most powerful nukes ever made inside the mantle
>Heat up and stir that molten rock
>Instant magnets
>Begin colonizing Mars without worrying about there being no magnetosphere

>>3434412
far far far far far too much mass to ever heat up with mere nuclear weapons.

>>3434389

No shit.

>>3434412
>magically increase the boiling point of a drop of water to a billion degrees
>heat magic drop of water to a billion degrees
>place said drop in the ocean

Nothing would happen.

>>3434417
Howsabout hijacking some asteroids and launching them at the surface of Mars at a specific angle to get the crust spinning faster than the core and mantle.
The heat from the collision(s) will heat up the mantle and core, and the crust spinning faster will cause the mantle and core to also start spinning (friction).
With your Magnetosphere back in shape and some Ice caps melted from the initial collision, no need to worry about anything.

>>3434441
superconductors with no or an extremely high current limit which are then used, or put in orbit or something to generate an 'artificial' B field to push away the solar wind is 10000x more likely

>>3434444
What's we gunna do 'bout them moons, Phobos and Deimos?
Those things are disasters waiting to happen.

>>3434417
microwaves, then. my microwave makes my potatoes explode

>>3434455
Crash them into mars.

Duh.

>>3434441
> the crust spinning faster than the core and mantle.
That's going to be surface heating, while the mantle/core are all solid.

You need a molten CORE, or at least, a molten shell around the core.

But once we get to megaprojects like this, there may be a better way to set up a planetary magnetic field.

Kinda like this, maybe:
>>3434444

I vote me move mars 40% towards venus, then venus 90% towards mars. Over 1000 years they will pull into each other and form the perfect planet, in the perfect distance from the sun.

>>3434465
That's a fuckton of energy required.

>>3434465
Wouldn't the coalescence of those two affect the orbit of earth?
Besides, the outcome of that collision would probably result in a planet that would be uninhabitable for a looooong time.
Also, most of the greenhouse gases from Venus would be there on the product planet.

>>3434491
I thought the greenhouse gases were what mars needed, also the two planets together would make a good size I thought. I don't know what It would do to earths orbit, maybe if timed properly it could orbit at the same speed as earth on opposite ends of the sun.

>>3434502
>I thought the greenhouse gases were what mars needed, also the two planets together would make a good size I thought. I don't know what It would do to earths orbit, maybe if timed properly it could orbit at the same speed as earth on opposite ends of the sun.
I'd have to check the math, but this may not be stable.

>>3434502
I don't like the sound of it, but maybe if a moon was also created in the collision then I guess it would have a relatively amiable mass similar to Earth's.
The whole orbital path thing would be the major concern. UNLESS you get the Earth and the new planet to orbit at opposite ends of the sun, that shit's eventually gonna crash into us.
If the greenhouse gases stayed with the collision between Mars and Venus, and the product planet moved further away from the sun but into a stable orbit, that would work out just nicely for everybody.

>implying Mars is more habitable than Venus

>>3434532
>implying it's not
I'll take cold, thin CO2 atmosphere over lead-melting sulfuric-acid-rain any day.

ITT: fuck tonnes of energy required.

>>3434573
Problem solved.

>>3434595
love this

>>3434595
I remember thinking something like this when I was a little kid. And I'd have daydreams that I used a device like this to power a plane and beat up all the bullies.

>>3434548

>baby's first science

At certain points in Venus' atmosphere, floating cities become realistically possible with balloons filled with air from Earth.

You have to think about what's going to happen sooner, the overpopulation of Earth to the extent that the majority of the population starts to die due to lack of resources and the ecosystem becomes permanently damaged (which is already starting to happen), or the glorious fantasy of thousands of years from now terraforming Mars.

At the very least, a small civilization of capable and intelligent people on Venus can save the human race while the rest die out on Earth. When they return to Earth, they will have the knowledge of the past on our side, and will be able to plan out the future of the species.

The reality of the effort that would be needed to terraform is the final nail in the coffin of organic sapience. The time needed to terraform would see evolutionary change in the species performing it, quite possibly in a new, contrary direction. Or just to meet the current, partly-terraformed state of the planet (and likely thus make the already-set-in-place continuing future change undesirable).

Why change mars to suit these frail forms, when it is so much easier, practically unavoidable, to change the forms instead? To fit a far wider variety of environments, even the void itself?

>>3434641
its stupid shit like that which makes me mad (yes i am mad) just because your mother whips your ass does not mean your "smart"people from Venus" are going to save the planet you fucking retard why spend billions to make a flying fucking city which would take an immense amount of resources and years of technological growth in energy when half the world (oceans) are simply left there for no use by the time we have flying city's on Venus we can have entire nations under water

>>3434929
wipes

>>3434838

>Why change mars to suit these frail forms, when it is so much easier, practically unavoidable, to change the forms instead?

>implying species can change forms and evolve at will

Also, who determines that terraforming a new planet is a limit on organic sapience?

>>3434929

And what about when all of our oceans and deserts and Antarctica all have been exhausted as habitable resources, and this thought of Mars possibly being terraformed turns out to not be possible for another 500 years? Do we watch ourselves as a species die out because we've destroyed the biosphere? Or do we preserve and plan for the future.

>yfw im planning on sending rockets with different types of bacteria to seed mars

>>3434970

You're assuming that building colonies underwater would ruin the local ecosystem when all of the available evidence shows that it actually benefits local organisms. This is counterintuitive but makes plain sense when given thought; Internal combustion engines won't work underwater so all undersea vehicles and machinery are electric with no local emissions, power is most effectively generated from OTEC and turbines in the gulf stream thereby providing reliable 24/7 baseload power from zero emission sources, and structures are prefabricated on land and then sunk into water without disturbing the local landscape as land development does. On top of all of this all structures we put into the water become artificial reefs which serve as homes for countless reef creatures.

It is a uniquely clean way of living, not by intention but as a consequence of the technologies used.

>>3434641
Earth will never overpopulate.

We will hit a peak mid century (2030-2060), and afterward the two most populous nations on this planet will go into a steady decline.

Scientists approximate that we'll hit something like 9 billion people, which is hardly overpopulation.

>>3435054

>he thinks the Earth will never overpopulate

Use nuclear bombs to flatten the western mountains of Mexico, turning it tropic.

Use giant haulers and perhaps many many nuclear bombs to create either a river channel system into Africa (with possible forced pumping with solar cells/turbines), or with the nuclear bombs, riddle Africa with over9000 potholes, which eventually fill with water and increase liquid turnover until there's enough plants to stabilize evaporation via energy storage.

Destroy those western US mountains while we're at it, fuck dustbowl country.

Make non-genetically energineered grass seeds illegal since we have ones which can run on like 5x less water and are more drought resistant and grow slower

Invest in banana engineering, they already are starch and sugar laden, why not find some way to make them protein or oil laden then plant them everywhere to stop deforestation and shit? Not really terraforming but more anti anti-terraforming.

>Terraforming
1) Terraforimg thakes hundreds of years if not hundred thousands.
2) Even a worst scenario environmentally devastated Earth is still immeasurably more habitable than any planet, moon or anything else in our solar system.

So how about instead of thinking about terraforming mars we first find a way to clean our own planet or build habitats in deserts, on or under the ocean, in arctic regions, etc... Its far more feasible and could yield substantial tangible returns withing our lifetime.

>>3435183
>We must have instant gratification. If it takes a few hundred yeras, or thousands of years, it's not worth it.
>"Fixing" the Earth will surely be something we can do in five to eight years, not hundreds or thousands, right?
>Surely, terraforming another planet won't teach us anything that will help us keep the Earth habitable, right?

I love the false dichotomy between learning things in space and learning things on Earth, as if there is never any overlap.

>>3435183

>>build habitats in deserts, on or under the ocean, in arctic regions

Well, antarctic. No land in the arctic. But yes these are the three frontiers that mankind will have to colonize and industrialize in the near future in order to stustain our present standard of living in spite of dwindling resources. If we make wiser use of these new frontiers, they may represent a lasting solution to our problems. If not, harvesting resources from space will become a hard necessity rather than just an ambition.

>>3435229
I'm not saying that terraforming mars or floating colonies on venus are not possible or worthy goals. In fact I think this is plain fucking awesome and would love to do it. However this is not a viable solution to our problems at the present we do not have the technology and even if we did it would be far far easier to "terraform" earth back into a more habitable state than to terraform mars into anything resembling a habitable planet. Eventually yes we will have to find a way to spread to other planets and other stars to improve our chances of preserving our species but these are not solutions to our current predicament as some people seem to think.

>>3435016
why not power th undersea homes with hydrogen generated by removing the O from H2O

>>3434077

Next stop fatassery

>>3435176
BIODIVERSITY MOTHA FUCKA DO YOU KNOW IT

>>3435249
Because hydrogen is not an energy source it is an energy carrier. You would still need to generate power somehow to crack the water and get h to burn.

>>3435265
We'll just make something new, or the FAR MORE PRACTICAL SOLUTION:

Growing shit underground. In Arizona or Nevada many years back, a drug cartel grew marijuana underground. It had double the production of marijuana grown above ground.

In fact, all studies on plants grown underground has shown substantial improvements in growth and production rates, from a combination of using light optimal to growth, using precise amounts of nutrients, controlling all exposure to light, regulating atmospheric gases and temperature, and preventing contamination from outside life forms.

We can easily prevent 97% of plant pests if we grew shit underground, and even then, we could quarantine, destroy fucking everything, then start over. Not that hard.

Also, the above land can be used for solar cells and wind turbines which can power the entire facility and then some. It's doable, and it has even been done by DRUG LORDS I MEAN COME ON.

On top of all that, we can grow genetically variable strains which wouldn't be able to contaminate the outside vegetation, if appropriate measures are in order (air locks, clean suits, etc)

>>3435279
Or you know we could build hydroponic towers which would have all the same benefits but you wouldn't have to use all that energy to provide artificial light.

>>3435288
>implying you'd be able to efficiently harvest towers of plants
>implying you couldn't do that underground anyways for even more benefits
>implying natural sunlight will ever come close to the production of light specific to make the plant grow faster
>implying your hydroponic shit won't get contaminated by outside sources, or clouded out

>>3435316
>implying you'd be able to efficiently harvest towers of plants
What? Its essentially just a multilevel greenhouse its easier to harvest than traditional methods.
>implying you couldn't do that underground anyways for even more benefits
What exactly are these nebulous "benefits" you speak of
>implying natural sunlight will ever come close to the production of light specific to make the plant grow faster
Now you are just being retarded
>implying your hydroponic shit won't get contaminated by outside sources, or clouded out
And somehow putting everything underground makes it impossible to contaminate? In any case there is no need for uber secure environmental sealing its not like the atmosphere is filled with substances that dissolve plants on contact. As for clouded out well in your system you are always "100% clouded out" so tell me whats worse occasionally having to use a bit of electricity or having to use massive amounts of electricity to grow anything at all.

>>3435176

Whatcha gonna do about that radiaton?