Terraforming Planet?

[Anonymous No.9913068]

So, /sci/, in your most humble opinion. Which Planet will humanity be terraforming first? Mars or Venus?

[Anonymous No.9913069]

Earth

[Anonymous No.9913074]

>>9913068
None. Ever.

[Anonymous No.9913085]

>>9913069
>>9913074
Don't be like that. Which sounds cooler? Martian, Venetian or Lunarian??

[Anonymous No.9913086]

>>9913069
>>9913074
Don't be like that. Which sounds cooler? Martian, Venusian or Lunarian??

[Anonymous No.9913107]

>>9913074

This or mars

[Anonymous No.9913114]

>>9913068
Mars, because it's been a meme for decades and it's pretty close.
So it's a good planet to practice on.

[Anonymous No.9913159]

>>9913068
Bioforming > terraforming

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nZn3gMHPxg

[Anonymous No.9913270]

>>9913069
This, probably by the time we have the technological and political capacity to do terraforming, we've polluted the planet enough that it counts as a hostile environment.

[Anonymous No.9913352]

>>9913107
>>9913086
>mars

Good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.9913372]

I vaguely recall an article that came out a few days ago about how terraforming Mars is well beyond our abilities and might even be impossible.
You'd need to add a big fat pile of gas to create a greenhouse effect on Mars, and IIRC even if we evaporate all the water on Mars somehow (like in the poles) we wouldn't even get 10% of Earth's atmospheric density in Mars.

[Anonymous No.9913389]

>>9913372
>What is pollution

[Anonymous No.9913393]

Why would we even bother with terraforming mars? Can't we just put up a barrier that doesn't let gasses through around our future colonies and let technology regulate the environment inside? We can keep people on space stations, why would it be a problem on mars?

[Anonymous No.9913395]

>>9913068

neither, because building huge rotating space stations will become feasible long before terraforming does

and once you have billions of people living in space, living on planets will be viewed as backwards/obsolete, and even as a destruction of a pristine natural environment

[Anonymous No.9913423]

>>9913068
> The planet that's just a dessert without breathable air
Or
>The hellscape with clouds of sulfuric acid
Tuff choice isn't it?

[Anonymous No.9913433]

>>9913352
That pic is so fucking retarded, holy shit.

[Anonymous No.9913435]

>>9913433
That is the entire purpose of the pic. To show marsfags just how fucktarded the prospect of terraforming Mars is. It simply can't be done by humans.

[Anonymous No.9913443]

>>9913068
Mars can't be terraformed with current technology:
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-mars-terraforming-present-day-technology.html
TL; DR not enough extractable CO2
The technology we would need is so far off that we can't even consider terraforming Mars at this point.

[Anonymous No.9913444]

>>9913372
That study found that pumping in greenhouse gases was simply not enough to practically create an atmosphere with earth pressure on mars

[Anonymous No.9913457]

>>9913352
>>9913372
>>9913395
>>9913423
>>9913435
Soon.

[Anonymous No.9913462]

>>9913443
>>9913444

Musk and Zubrin disagree.

https://www.inverse.com/article/47642-elon-musk-wants-to-terraform-mars-and-he-s-refusing-to-back-down

[Anonymous No.9913467]

>>9913457
>all dat pretend water
>on mars

[Anonymous No.9913469]

>>9913393
I know it's incredible but some people like going outside, anon.

[Anonymous No.9913539]

How the fuck does Venus enter the conversation?

[Anonymous No.9913558]

>>9913352
Won't the increased mass of Mars cause the planet to spiral inwards towards the sun?

[Anonymous No.9913572]

>>9913068
>terraforming
Easily the worst popsci cancer after killer AIs. The sheer timespan, enery and effort makes considering this approach completely pointless. It'll be infinitely easier to slap several meters thick rock radiation shield around you and live on a space habitat.

[Anonymous No.9913591]

>>9913068
We'll probably never terraform another celestial body you brainlet.
By the time we have the technology and resources to do that it'd be infinitely easier and cheaper to build space colonies instead.
IF it ever happens, it wouldn't be out of necessity or for scientific purposes, but just for status or fun. I can see some rich fucks thousands of years from now wanting their own terraformed moons/planets just to say they have one.

[Anonymous No.9913602]

>>9913539
Venus is the holy graal of terraforming. Similar earth gravity and size. If not for it's terrible atmosphere, it would be perfect. Maybe if there's some kind of chain reaction to precipitate the atmosphere it would be feasible.

[Anonymous No.9913639]

>>9913086
>Venusian
>not Cytherean
You're not even trying.

[Anonymous No.9913653]

Its possible to partially terraform Mars. It wouldn't be suited to human life but microbes and plants might take root if we tweek it a little.

If we cool down Venus we would be able to land on the surface, and then further terraforming may be possible.

[Anonymous No.9913680]

>>9913352
>151100 - 502500 years
Somebody does not understand error bars.

[Anonymous No.9913687]

>>9913462
>https://www.inverse.com/article/47642-elon-musk-wants-to-terraform-mars-and-he-s-refusing-to-back-down
>Mars only holds enough carbon dioxide to create around 15 millibars of atmospheric pressure. Destroying Martian sedimentary rocks would only release around 12 millibars. For comparison, Earth’s atmosphere reaches 1,000 millibars at sea level.

What, do they want an atmosphere that is 100 percent CO2??

[Anonymous No.9913692]

>>9913457
Why exactly is the northern half of mars below average height? What weird ass geologic process does that?

>>9913469
Nothing stopping you from putting on a suit and going for a stroll through the lively martian desert.

[Anonymous No.9913714]

>>9913372
there's plenty of ice in the solar system you know, it would be a bitch to get to mars but nothing is impossible.

[Anonymous No.9914098]

Would someone mind explaining why Mars would be at all a better option than the Moon? There's the difference in gravity, but that's between a third and a sixth, it's hardly worth arguing over if we're worrying about muscle and bone decay - and any other long-term adverse effects are yet to be proven. The Moon has no radiation-shielding envelope, but Mars hardly does either. Mars may have sources of water. But on the other hand, the Moon has large amounts of profitable helium-3, which could be used as fuel iirc. And, with lower escape velocity, and no atmospheric drag (Mars' atmosphere is useless to us anyway) having a space program run from the Moon would save lots of expenses. There's also the fact that the Moon is on our astronomical doorstep, and thus trade between Earth and colony is vastly less difficult, and emergency response is far faster.

If we're talking long term, then sure, maybe Mars would be better to terraform. But we do not have the kind of technology to reshape a planet in a reasonable timeframe, nor maintain it as such. I believe the Moon is a better option for immediate colonies, and Mars is being passed on just as a meme.

On another note, I also recall that Venus has a cloud layer at which it's appox. 1 bar pressure and 30-50 C, although as standard it's full of carbon dioxide and rains sulfuric acid. Still, that's hydrogen and oxygen to process, and solar radiance (correct me if I'm wrong, but I do know the intensity will be significantly brighter at Venus, and although the scale height of the atmosphere is larger, it's 1 bar). I'd expect we'd be colonizing Venus - which available hydrogen and oxygen, and Earth-like gravity and temperature, before Mars, in terms of technology.

>>9913639
Absolutely based, love you Anon.

>>9913462
He can certainly put some people on Mars in the next few decades, but unless he becomes the robot and lives another few hundred years at least he's not going to """terraform""" Mars. Publicity stunt.

[Anonymous No.9914112]

>>9913372
Some experts think they can do it with modified species of moss and nanotech within 100 years

[Anonymous No.9914118]

>>9913068
I bet this ones a favourite with the amen fags.

[Anonymous No.9914125]

I think it's worth noting that Mars' atmospheric retention would hold onto oxygen and nitrogen, but water vapour would escape. And even for the gases that don't escape, if Mars' current atmosphere is telling of anything - the other gases would be blasted by solar radiation, although I'm not sure if that'd be on a timescale we'd be concerned with.

How would you deal with water escaping? Even assuming Mars reached a temperature and pressure suited to support liquid water, gaseous water would escape it's gravity.

[Anonymous No.9914162]

we won't need to terraform mars when we become robots

[Anonymous No.9914267]

>>9914098
>On another note, I also recall that Venus has a cloud layer at which it's appox. 1 bar pressure and 30-50 C,
Cloud cities. Instead of terraforming Venus, we would make Cloud cities

[Anonymous No.9914274]

>>9914162
This
It's easier to make humans that can survive in Mars than to make a Mars where humans can survive

[Anonymous No.9914277]

>>9914267
Hell yeah. Carbon dioxide's molecular weight is much heavier than many gases we could gather on Venus or transport to Venus. Cloud cities nigga.

I think in terms of habitation, although cloud cities would be harder to pull off, it's still technologically feasible in spans of time we could easily imagine, and likely better habitation than a Mars colony for reasons already above.

[Anonymous No.9914302]

>>9913692
>Why exactly is the northern half of mars below average height? What weird ass geologic process does that?
It perhaps used to be an oceanic plate in a more geologically active period of Mars, some kind of sea floor. Or a big fucking impact crater that's been worn by billions of years of atmospheric interference.

[Anonymous No.9914351]

>>9914098
We might find the difference between one third and one sixth gravity makes a big difference. Also lunar he3 is a meme, the energy requirements for processing the amount if regolith is totally unreasonable, gas giants are the only viable he3 source.

[Anonymous No.9914376]

>>9914351
And how do you get it out of the gravity well of Jupiter without the same unreasonable energy requirements?

[Anonymous No.9914377]

>>9914376
It's a lot easier to send it out of a gravity well than to process hundreds of square kilometers of regolith.

[Anonymous No.9914383]

>>9913068

Won't be terraforming shit.

Humans and genetic material are more malleable than fucking planets. Most flexible of all are machines.

Please stop being faggots and believing SF plotlines. Future reality will be far stranger.

[Anonymous No.9914445]

>>9913069
this is correct. earth is destined to be a garden planet that has all its parameters precisely controlled. venus and mars will serve as forge worlds where we do whatever we want.

oneill cylinders are as close as we're going to come to offworld colonization. the moons of mars would make good candidates.

[Anonymous No.9914531]

>>9913068
We ain't ever leaving this System.

[Anonymous No.9914688]

>>9913372
>>9913714
the idea for terraforming mars is to send asteroids into unstable or highly elliptical orbits that put them on a collision course with mars. this can be done with a fairly small amount of energy, since you simply have to fly a bomb or rocket booster up to the asteroid belt, knock it slightly out of orbit (but precisely) and let it fall into mars

there are plenty of icy asteroids.

of course after you got all your asteroids to hit into mars (this alone would take decades), it would be many years (hundreds even) before the martian atmosphere would become habitable for life (it needs to "settle down" for a while after all the huge impacts) and then it would take another couple of hundred of years for the various forms of algae and worms and stuff would make it possible for plants, and another hundred or so years for the plants to make the atmosphere habitable to humans

anyhow until we conclusively say "there is no life on mars" (unless we've already contaminated it with earth life) nobody will support a massive program to smash mars with asteroids

[Anonymous No.9914796]

All we really got to do to terraform venus is put a big umbrella to block the sun so the carbon dioxide freezes and falls like snow. Then we can just remove it with a shovel, separate the oxygen and release that, and add some nitrogen from ebay and we got us a planet. The umbrella would also prevent the new atmosphere from being stripped away by solar wind.

[Miniature Spacecraft No.9914807]

>>9913068

It is easier to heat a planet (Mars) than to cool a planet (Venus)

[Anonymous No.9914824]

Colonizing the ocean is underrated. Where are those threads? Its probably a fuck lot less complicating to modify humans with gills than to change the entire magnetosphere of a planet. It not only supports life but as far as we know, is the origin of life.

[Anonymous No.9914826]

>>9914688
>fairly small amount of energy
Wrong. These things are still very massive. And even if wait for millions of years for the process to be complete, grsvity will still be a problem

[Anonymous No.9914827]

>>9914807
To cool something you just have to put it in a shadow. To heat it up, you have to get a second sun.

[Anonymous No.9914828]

>>9914531
Keep your retarded opinions to yourself, plebian.

[Anonymous No.9914831]

>>9914807
Just build a sunshade and block out the sun, Venus should cool itself.

[Anonymous No.9914833]

>>9914828
FTL is fantasy anon. Even if it was possible, Gaia is killing us off long before we can do it.

[Anonymous No.9914835]

>>9914833
This guy gets it

[Anonymous No.9914845]

>>9914824
Shame its full of plastic though. And this will certainly not improve when we live there as well.

[Anonymous No.9914886]

>>9914845
Once we solve the pajeet question, it won't be a big deal.

[Anonymous No.9914893]

>>9913068
Neither, terraforming Luna is far easier, faster and cheaper than terraforming other planets

[Anonymous No.9914895]

>>9913467
There's enough water in the polar ice caps to form 5-10 meter oceans on Mars

[Anonymous No.9914897]

>>9914893
Wouldn't any atmosphere just float away into space or be blasted away by the sun?

[Anonymous No.9914900]

>>9913639
>Cytherean
>not Venereal

[Anonymous No.9914905]

>>9914845
Nobody said we had to colonise Earth's oceans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

[Anonymous No.9914907]

>>9914897
Yes but aforementioned atmosphere would take approximately 50 000 years to blow away(according to wikipedia)

[Anonymous No.9914909]

>>9914833
>implying we need FTL to colonise other systems

[Anonymous No.9914910]

>>9914905
Why don't we just terraform Earth?

[Anonymous No.9914913]

>>9914907
And it wouldn't just float away because of the low gravity?

[Anonymous No.9914920]

>>9914905
This but unironically, modern nuclear submarines can stay underwater almost indefinitely, all we'd have to do is land on Europa, drill through the ice layer, launch a nuclear submarine capable of producing food and whatnot and then spend the rest of our time fighting all the Lovecraftian sea monsters that have probably evolved in Europa's oceans

[Anonymous No.9914923]

>>9914913
See >>9914905

Other moons like Europa have liquid-water oceans

[Anonymous No.9914929]

>>9914923
Fair enough. Colonising moons is way more fun than colonising planets anyway.

[Anonymous No.9914933]

>>9914900
>wanting to get bullied about having venereal disease

[Anonymous No.9914935]

>>9914933
thatsthejoke.jpeg

[Anonymous No.9914936]

>>9914905
>>9914923
>>9914929
>Making an Ocean world.
I would sooner accept the Southern States as part of America than do that.

[Anonymous No.9914939]

>>9914936
Why not make a /b/ world? By the time we have a dyson sphere, there'd prolly be so many NEETs they could pick a small moon and bombard it with their piss bottles to create a sea, assuming it was protected from solar wind to keep it from blowing off.

[Anonymous No.9914945]

>>9914936
Europa is essentially already terraformed tho, there'd be no real benefit to melting the ice-crust since it protects the interior ocean from Jupiter's radiation

[Anonymous No.9914947]

>>9913352
This picture is fucking retarded, much better methods have been suggested already, assuming mars gravity is suitable for humans.

>b-but you don't know that!!

Of course, just like you don't know it's not suitable. That's why you research it and if you find it suitable then boom, mars terraforming is not so bad anymore. Still not instant of course, but you can do partial terraforming in one or two hundred years rather than geological eras.

[Anonymous No.9914950]

>>9914945
I thought water was more dense than ice. If we did pull it off, would we die?

[Anonymous No.9914953]

>>9914950
>If we did pull it off, would we die?
Pic related

[Anonymous No.9914957]

>>9914383
But without terraforming all the other planets are boring shitholes. It's not good being able to walk around in hard vacuum if there's nothing to do there but kick sand around.

[Anonymous No.9914982]

>>9914383
Yeah this. Why live in a vibrant ecosystem when you can program yourself to believe your living in a vibrant ecosystem? You won't even know it's all fake because you'll be programmed not to.

[Anonymous No.9915177]

When will Humanity take to the Stars?

[Anonymous No.9915630]

>>9913074
/thread

[Anonymous No.9915646]

>>9914383
you forget the one key point though
Humans are not soulless automatons doing only the most efficient things
humans can and frequently do things purely for shits and giggles
Making habitats is far better than terraforming, but I believe we will terraform some places purely so someone can say that they did and dickwave about it

[Anonymous No.9915650]

>>9915177
in 2-4 years
no really, that soon
ready your education and your shekels hombre, and you can become a spaceman in your lifetime

[Anonymous No.9916417]

>>9913068
>Terraforming Moon
Are humans this delusional? You can't even terraforming the Sahara desert, the middle East, or Australia. What makes you think you can terraform a dead planet

[Anonymous No.9916484]

>>9913068
Neither of them, it requires too much energy and resources. You're also never going to be uploaded onto a VHS tape so you can live forever. Faggot.

[Anonymous No.9916605]

>>9913068
Space habitats consisting of massive rotating cylinders is a better option.

[Anonymous No.9916642]

>>9913352
This is the same guy that mentions gravity when discussing terraforming.

i.e. a fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.9917115]

>>9915646
Yes, someone with too much money could also launch a golden Ball into space and brag about it. But noone will, because it would be waste of billions of dollars (much like „terraforming“). People usually value their money more than their ego

[Anonymous No.9917121]

Why the fuck would we waste resources pumping trillions of tons of atmospheric elements into a dead planet when we could just build a seed ship and send it to the nearest habitable planet. THINK .

[Anonymous No.9917127]

>>9913086
Venus is eternally fucked because of it's slow rotation

[Anonymous No.9917130]

>>9913692
It seems less bizarre if you add polar ice.

[Anonymous No.9917136]

>>9913714
Yeah, just slam Europa into mars and you’ve got an ocean

[Anonymous No.9917408]

>>9917121
>build a seed ship and send it to the nearest habitable planet.
Much like terraforming this is also very unlikely to happen

[Anonymous No.9917535]

>>9916417
The meek shall inherit the Earth.

The rest of us shall go to the stars.

[Anonymous No.9917538]

>>9913068
The better question is, why to terraform anything?In few years we will be able to geneticaly modify our ofspring, future humans will be able to live on mars without need of terraformation.

[Anonymous No.9917821]

>>9917538
Are you suggesting that a complex lifeform like humans can be radically modified down to the cellular level to be able to generate energy through another metabolic pathway as there's almost no oxygen on Mars? How would you deal with water boiling off at such low pressures? You people give genetic engineering too much credit.

[Anonymous No.9918265]

>>9913068
>Which Planet will humanity be terraforming first? Mars or Venus?
LOLLLLL everyone knows venus is like a 10,000 year job while mars is a 100 year to water and pressure, 1000 year to breathable environment, why even ask that

[Anonymous No.9918267]

>>9913558
>Won't the increased mass of Mars cause the planet to spiral inwards towards the sun?
the dude you're responding to is retarded but also NOOOOOOOO that's not how fucking gravity works

[Anonymous No.9918729]

>>9916417
>You can't even terraforming the Sahara desert, the middle East
That is not a technical issue, those regions are full of terrorists.

[Anonymous No.9918916]

>>9914845

They recently discovered bacteria that eats plastic.

[Anonymous No.9918925]

>>9914982

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

[Anonymous No.9918947]

>>9913352
This 10,000%. Thread is full of top tier brainlets that don't understand anything. Humanity can't and never will terraform anything to completion.

[Anonymous No.9919306]

>>9918947

Pessimists never accomplish anything.

[Anonymous No.9919350]

>>9913068
space is fake

[Anonymous No.9919494]

>>9913068

The sheer amount of ships, power, and technology you need to do either is mind boggling. But Venus could be terraformed in 3 "easy" steps.

1. Some sort of solar shield/mirror to completely reduce the amount of incoming solar radiation to zero. I'm not sure how long it would take the planet to cool to the desired range, but eventually the atmosphere would freeze and precipitate from the atmosphere. Undesired elements could then be gathered and mined/buried, so that they're no longer present to re-enter the atmosphere when it's reconstituted.

2. Completely Drain Europa and bring its ocean to Venus to provide water for the oceans of Venus. Not sure how much water is required, but kuptier belt/comets could also be mined if necessary water requirements are not met.

3. Siphon atmosphereic nitrogen from outer solar system giants to mimics the atmosophereic composition of Earth. While not the gas of majority, by any means, of the gas giants their enormous size mean you could probably recover significant enough quantities to provide the relatively thin amosphereic nitrogen blanket (relative to the size of a gas giant) you need on a terrestrial planet.

Once terraforming is complete, said solar shield/mirror system can then be utilized to mimic, to an extent, a functional day/night cycle since planetary rotation on Venus is so slow.

All of this, of course, requires an absolutely insane space-lift capacity with ships capable of storing millions/billions of barrels of gas/liquid from the outer to inner solar system and doing so for *math* knows how long.

In other words, the terraforming of Venus could be done; but it would take a long time and could be done using technology that's not "science fantasy".

[Anonymous No.9919526]

>>9919494

Turns out that there's more water on Europa, than on Earth, so it would be completely conceivable that you could provide the necessary amounts of water to terraform Venus with its water.... but it would take along time to move it even if you have a huge fleet (thousands-tens of thousands) of tanker spaceships to move the water enmasse.

If humanity ever develops any sort of "space gate" technology, a more interesting technique would simply to be lower said gates into Europas oceans and open portals to Venus; allowing the water pressure to do all the work for you, and saving you alot of work on space logistics and transit time.

[Anonymous No.9919680]

>>9913069
This.
Imagine if the sahara, the murican wild West, the patagonia, Australia or whatever fucking wasteland could be made green, lush and human friendly. It would essentialy mean a whole new planet for humankind at least food resource wise.
It would need massive improvements on water desalinization, darpa meme tier weather control and soil enrichment.
Also be able to deal with the possible major fuckup of modifying the entire world 's climate/biome

[Anonymous No.9919704]

>>9914098
Until we invent "antigravitation" or easily controlable "quantum locking" Venus is out of any chance. Also it would need domes with special protection against the Elephant foot tier radiation coming from the closer sun. Imagine how bad you can sunburn on a sunny day on fucking London, then imagine Venus.
The only good point of Venus is that it has massive deposits of sulfur, existing extremophillic sulfur leaching anoxigenic bacteria like Sulfuricaulis could be modified to better resist radiation and feed on sulfur

Mars is better since
a) asteroids/underground water is nearby
b) bioleaching bacteria could be used to extract the oxygen and Iron from the massive deposits of FeOx.
c) Mars can (or was able) to handle an atmosphere. I would imagine Mars cities Cowboy Bebop-esque, close to atmosphere generators.

[Anonymous No.9919785]

>terraforming
We can't even control our own climate.

[Anonymous No.9919824]

Terraforming will only need to be done out of necessity, aka taming a hostile environment.
Thus, it will only be done on hostile environments. Our current search for where extraterrestrial life may exist and where humans can colonise relies on finding non-hostile environments.

With that noted, it can easily be concluded that Mars would be the first terraforming target, and it’d likely take thousands upon thousands of years if we can’t find some sort of ridiculously overpowered method to do it. We’ll likely rely on detonating nukes in orbit to create an ionosphere, burning imported or synthesised O3 into the atmosphere for an Ozone Layer, and deorbitting asteroids of very specific compositions from the not-too-distant asteroid ring to both bring important chemicals to the planet as well as slightly heat it up.
My brief rebuttals to Venus, the Moon, and other places like moons of Saturn or Jupiter rely on the note I first made in this post: Lack of a necessity to. More likely than not, the Moon will not need to host life on it’s own, and to the fullest will likely just be used as a base for missions training, launching craft easier, and harvesting He3 for fusion reactors. Venus will likely have it’s upper atmosphere colonised, as its currently believed to be already ideal in composition and temperature and wouldn’t even need terraforming to host life. As for the latter mentioned moons and perhaps other celestial bodies like exoplanets or extrasolar planets, we’ll be looking for areas that can already host life-- areas that just simply won’t need terraformed, similar to Venus.

[Anonymous No.9920162]

>>9917821
Yeah your kind of right, but then again, how long would it take to terraform a planet?By many estemations around 100+ years, 100 years is a lot, im just saying that, we have to look for cheapest and most productive way, of colonising, sollar bodies, mybie we will teraform it and change planet OR we will change ourselves.

[Anonymous No.9920180]

>>9920162
100+ is good.

[Anonymous No.9920185]

>>9920162
Do you even recycle?

[Anonymous No.9920187]

>>9920185
No, I don't. Because unlike you, I don't believe in every little lie they tell us.

[Anonymous No.9920189]

>>9920187
>expects to terraform a planet in a hundred years
>can't even sort trash
Thank you for participating in this survey

[Anonymous No.9920192]

>>9920189
Climate change ain't real.

[Anonymous No.9920218]

>>9920162
Well, then why not live in self-contained habitats? That seems to be the most efficient way to colonize Mars by far within a 100 years timeframe at the very least. With atmosphere and nutrition problems being taken care off, you'd only have to worry about relatively minor issues in comparison like microgravity, lack of sunlight and radiation dosage. Two of which can be mitigated with genetic engineering, which would be much more reasonable than the previous scenario.

[Anonymous No.9920223]

>>9920192
Neither are landfills apparently?

[Anonymous No.9920236]

Venus actually has the gravity to hold an atmosphere, it is just a matter of figuring out a way to use the sun's energy to change its composition, as microbes did on early earth.

Though to be honest it is pointless to terraform if for humans when it is feasible to use machines and create more resilient forms of life. We can already edit DNA, it is only a matter of time before nanotechnology reaches similar complexity to cellular biology and we create self-replicating artificial lifeforms that are not dependent on carbon-based chemical reactions in a solution of water.

[Anonymous No.9920605]

>>9913068
cgi has come so far

[Anonymous No.9920842]

>>9920236
You could place a giant screen in the Lagrange point between the sun and Venus and reduce the incoming heat dramatically.

[Anonymous No.9920930]

>>9913602
There is actually a few ways to do so that are within the realm of possibility.
>genetically engineered airborne photosynthetic bacteria
>capture in carbonates
>introduction of hydrogen
And I'm sure there are a few more ways to go about making Venus not a hell hole.

[Anonymous No.9920975]

>>9919704
No Mars its not better. That low gravity will keep embryos and fetuses from developing properly and will often lead to their deaths. And if any births managed to happen, that child will be crushed if he/she stepped foot on Earth or in an O'Neil Cylinder. Not to mention whatever atmosphere we pump in will just float back out. As for the problem with magnetic fields, sure, its possible to set up multiple stations around the planet but unless we can change a planet's gravity, Mars isn't worth colonizing.

[Anonymous No.9921079]

>>9917821
>Are you suggesting that a complex lifeform like humans can be radically modified down to the cellular level to be able to generate energy through another metabolic pathway as there's almost no oxygen on Mars?

>breathing
>how quaint

[Anonymous No.9921451]

>>9920975
Reminder that we still do not actually know what low gravity does to fetal development
All we know is 0g, 1g and >1g
NASA seems to be refusing to do any tests regarding it, even though all you'd need are hamsters in a centrifuge drum

[Anonymous No.9922060]

>>9913539
Just add water and we might have something workable

[Anonymous No.9922130]

>>9913068
Both are a fool's gambit right now. Mars is fucking dead and it doesn't even have as much water as the Great Lakes. You're not going to support billions of people there. It's better to just preside on Earth and keep it livable, with however many outposts we can afford to build on other planets and moons (again: outposts, not colonies). As the sun expands, transition to other worlds in the solar system as the habitable zone shifts outward. Don't colonize inward, it's a waste of resources. If you're dead set on terraforming a planet, Mars is a better investment of resources than Venus. But I'd argue that the Jovian and Saturnian moons are a better investment than any other planet than Earth.

[Anonymous No.9922140]

>>9913602
How is it the holy grail of terraforming? It has nineteen times more atmospheric pressure than Earth. If you stood on the surface of Venus, you'd be crushed like a soda can. If you're talking about living on Venus, it's going to be on a floating city. Excavating the surface of Venus with machines and siphoning those materials to pathetic Zeppelin metropolises would be more expensive than just harvesting asteroids from the Kuiper belt and bringing those minerals to a vapor farm on Mars, and talking about terraforming Mars already makes me want to blow a gasket.

[Anonymous No.9922168]

What's up with venus not having a magnetic field?

[Anonymous No.9922192]

>>9922168
200+ Earth day rotation period.

[Anonymous No.9922200]

Will we so much as set foot on Mars by the year 2100?

[Anonymous No.9922572]

>>9922200
No.

[Anonymous No.9922668]

>>9913393
This. Just put up a fucking dome and be done with it.

[Anonymous No.9922692]

>>9922140
>Inb4 the cloud city balloon fuckers descend upon this commen

[Anonymous No.9922933]

>>9922572
>some gooks actually masturbate to this

lmao

[Anonymous No.9922960]

>>9913068
>Which Planet will humanity be terraforming first?

>/sci/
>always sneers at "popsci"
>always falls for shitty space opera memes

We'll never "terraform" shit. We'll convert matter to computronium for the benefit of virtual beings, starting with the asteroids and moon and working our way up to larger bodies from there.

[Anonymous No.9923133]

Venus:
>move most of the co2 into a ring orbiting the planet and use it for fuel
>people live in enclosed areas with artificial magnetic fields
>possibly invent bacteria or other methods of oxygen conversion

Mars:
>smash asteroids and moons into it and/or forcibly compact it somehow
>people still live in enclosed areas with artificial magnetic fields
>possibly ship atmosphere in from somewhere else

as shitty as Venus is, the atmosphere problems are magnitudes easier to fix than the gravity problem
brainlets think Mars is better because it's relatively better as it is now

[Anonymous No.9923137]

>>9913068

The truth is that we are stuck in our little Earth, rapidly consuming our resources until we deplete them, which will end civilization and destroy everything we built. Theres no escape, earthlings.

[Anonymous No.9923142]

>>9923137
What about loading up our minds to long term storage hard drives and launching those hard drives into deep space orbit?

[Anonymous No.9923149]

>>9913074
This.

[Anonymous No.9923153]

>>9923142
does it scan nearby planets and add them to the map options or is it just so we can feel good knowing we're living in space?

[Anonymous No.9923164]

>>9923142
We could do that but, if we have the tech to upload our minds into some sort of matrix, our energy consumption would decrease dramatically, as we only need the minimum energy for our body to survive and to power all the electronics, if we combine this with controlled birth rates, we dont need to escape for resources, hell, we probably could live off solar energy and shitpost all day in our virtual utopia, physical world is overrated.

[Anonymous No.9923204]

>>9923142
Been reading "Accelerando"?

[Anonymous No.9923228]

>>9923204
no, just played SOMA a while back and was really impacted by it

[Anonymous No.9923499]

>>9923142
>What about loading up our minds

Just find a wizard to do that for you.

[Anonymous No.9923510]

>Venus
>India: The planet
Venus is literally hell.

[Anonymous No.9924146]

>>9923510
its a fixer upper.

[Anonymous No.9924165]

>>9913068
mars is closer so probably that one

[Anonymous No.9924310]

>>9913639
>cytherean

[Anonymous No.9924406]

>>9923133
when people think of Venus, they remember the lead melting high temperatures and perpetual sulfuric acid hellstorms and feel that Venus would not be the best place to visit and colonize
Mars by comparison is just a barren desert doing fuck all, and looks easier to work with and manipulate

[Anonymous No.9924421]

>>9917115
there comes point where there's nothing else to do with that money other than fun, and being remembered forever is a very common goal for passionate men
Terraforming a planet is something that will immortalize you into history, so starting a company that has that as a goal is sure to make that dream a reality

if they were uncreative, uninspired, or unwilling to throw the dice, they would have never gotten rich in the first place

[Anonymous No.9924606]

>>9924406
There is also the crushing atmospheric pressure.

And finally we all remember that this is the symbol of femininity.

[Anonymous No.9925629]

>>9924606
Not after we are done with it

[Anonymous No.9925634]

>>9917115
>People usually value their money more than their ego

[Anonymous No.9925677]

How much will mars' atmospheric pressure increase if we split all the iron oxide into iron and oxygen? Plus all the CO2 that frozen right now.

If it even were like 1/3 earths pressure we could live there.

[Rick No.9925703]

>>9913068
earth hopefully. shit is leaking out the analogous airlock, full of holes and falling apart.

[Anonymous No.9925772]

>>9922668
Actually the best way might be to just keep building domes as needed, until one day the whole planet is domed over.

[Anonymous No.9925781]

People tend to forget that the sun is throwing out millions of tones of superheated matter every year. If you capture all that matter and funnel it into Mars' core, it with both add mass and heat up the planet enough that it can produce a decent magnetosphere. That same solar matter can be transmuted into gasses for a thicker atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9926648]

>>9925781
>millions of tones of superheated matter
...most of which is useless helium.

[Anonymous No.9927219]

>>9914824
>Colonizing the ocean is underrated.
Trouble is, it gets pretty dark just 10 metres down.

[Anonymous No.9927407]

>>9926648
Helium isn't useless. It's potentially a fusion fuel. It could become beryllium. Also you vastly under estimate how many tones of metal is amongst the solar matter. The sun spits out more metal than earth produces ever year by thousands of times.

[Anonymous No.9927412]

>>9927219
Oh no, an absence of natural light! Whatever shall we do?

[Anonymous No.9927420]

Neither.
If we have the technology to terraform mars or any other planet then we will just fix our own planet.

[Anonymous No.9927429]

>>9924606
>>9925629
as the power of The Patriarchy has done in the past, it will strip Venus of its hostile and toxic natural state and turn it into a docile and fertile environment, optimized for our use and enjoyment

[Anonymous No.9927432]

>>9927407
>than earth produces
lolwut

[Anonymous No.9927436]

>>9927420
I'd bet a scientist with no vision or drive to explore like you is majoring in something boring

[Anonymous No.9927446]

>>9927432
I'm referring to how much of each metal is produced industrially on earth, per annum.

[Anonymous No.9927464]

>>9913068
why spend quadrillion dollars and million years trying to do something that is unlikely to succeed when you can just build cool domed scifi cities instead

[Anonymous No.9927482]

>>9927446
that's not a very good comparison, we're talking about enough matter to change a planet's gravity

[Anonymous No.9927486]

>>9927482
Yes, we are.

[Anonymous No.9927488]

>>9927486
great post

[Anonymous No.9928061]

>>9927482
Adding a single grain of sand to Mars would change its gravity.

[Anonymous No.9928080]

>>9928061
A single question from you would render everyone braindead, as you're so retarded its actually deadly infectious.

[Anonymous No.9928226]

>>9928080
The sun loses around one billion kilograms per second via ejected matter alone. That's 2.50000000E+15 grains of sand. So yeah, it is a gravity changing amount of mass for Mars if you can get even a single percent of that much sand to stay on it. You can suck my pecker now.

[Anonymous No.9928266]

>>9927464
At best it's a century or two before it's terraform

[Anonymous No.9928585]

>>9928226
OK, please do the maths:
- what fraction of this can you capture? The Martian cross section is tiny.
- what fraction is not helium that will be lost?
- hop much will gravity increase by given the remaining amount?
- how much will you disturb the orbital parameters by when you receive this thrust? After all, one megaton per second at 800 km/s is pretty awesome.

[Anonymous No.9928650]

>>9928585
nigga, you wouldn't be sending it in a steam directly to mars
You'd be collecting it on site and sending it over in controlled shipments

[Anonymous No.9928924]

>>9928650
>You'd be collecting it on site
Where is that, the surface of the sun?

[Anonymous No.9928934]

>>9928924
in space? you don't have to build everything on a surface, just go into an orbit around the sun and start building there
not that I agree with catching extremely diffuse solar wind(for what)

[Anonymous No.9929094]

>>9916417
This is a good post, until we can alter the climate in Antarctica which is the most alien place on our surface we better give up on trying to terraform an entire planet.

[Anonymous No.9929178]

>>9928924
It's called starlifting. You use orbital structures and magnetic fields to encourage and direct solar wind into containment. Or just let it shoot off the poles if you wish to make the star lose mass faster, which is handy for extending the life of the star.

[Anonymous No.9929270]

>>9929178
>starlifting
That is a tech level way outside the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.9929394]

>>9929270
no designs have been drawn up for it, so whether or not we can do it is unknown
we can't say we can't if we don't even know if we can't

[Anonymous No.9929454]

>>9929394
You also have to work out the theory and design for handling that much momentum transfer, it is all senses of the word astronomical in magnitude.

[Anonymous No.9929491]

>>9929454
an engineering project for the fucking ages, but potentially not impossible for us to do right now with our technology level
just really, really fucking hard, and requiring a far greater industrial capacity

[Anonymous No.9929614]

>>9913068
Titan first

then maybe venus


no point in terraforming mars unless we're gonna build domes over the whole planet

[Anonymous No.9929618]

>>9913457
even if we could add that much water and an atmosphere to mars there is no magnetic field to stop the atmosphere from blowing off (like it did the first time)

[Anonymous No.9929684]

>>9929618
Just nuke the core, it would restart the magnetosphere

[Anonymous No.9929950]

>>9929618
Some say it's best to just get a big magnetron in the L1 Lagrange point of Mars and have it act as a shield in lue of a full magnetosphere on Mars itself. The only problem is powering it. Maybe fusion tech could help with that. Fusion would be a massive game changer for power sources, if it can be made to work in an energy surplus state.

[Anonymous No.9929957]

>>9928266
nice meme but in reality nobody has any idea if it's even possible and whether it would take thousand or million years

100 or 200 years sounds ridiculous

[Anonymous No.9929964]

>https://www.livescience.com/63297-hydrogen-wall-glowing-interstellar-space.html
>NASA Spotted a Vast, Glowing 'Hydrogen Wall' at the Edge of Our Solar System

>Which planet teraform first?
Nibiru, or planet X. being sandwiched between the ort cloud (inexhaustible source of water) and the hydrogen wall (inexhaustible source of deuterium/tritium/nuclear fuel) it's the most resource rich place in the solar system. Just wait for it's orbit to swing into the inner solar system and you'll have a chance to land on it, then ride it back out to the outer edge of the solar system.

[Anonymous No.9929973]

>>9929964
The hydrogen wall is probably interstellar gas that's balancing between the sun's gravity and the sun's solar wind. It would be far too diffuse to use though. You'd be better off transforming gas from Jupiter to one of its ice moons and then moving the moon into a volcanic orbit.

[Anonymous No.9930009]

>>9929973
what if they used a bussard ramjet?

[Anonymous No.9930133]

>>9930009
The engine that sucks in hydrogen from interstellar space, fuses it through unexplained means, then spits out the reactants behind it? The engine that upon examination was shown to actually work as a decelerator rather than a means of propulsion?

How's that going to do anything?

[Anonymous No.9930136]

>>9913068
Earth.

[Anonymous No.9930643]

>>9929614
Terraforming Titan will be very, very impressive. Radiation from Saturn is significant as is radiation from space. Heat from Sun is insignificant. How do you even propose to do it?

[Anonymous No.9930680]

>>9930643

>Radiation from Saturn is significant as is radiation from space.

Not on the surface, under the protection of thick Titan atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9930911]

>>9929950
such a mashine would tear itself apart. The size of a magnetic field depends on its strength.

[Anonymous No.9931158]

>>9913069
FPBP /thread

Human kind will first attempt to build a permanent residence beyond Earth on Mars, though.
They will probably use greenhouses rather than terraforming at first.

[Anonymous No.9931370]

>>9930680
I must have mixed up with Jupiter, indeed you are correct.

We are still left with the problem of cryogenic grade climate, even though methane is a climate gas.

[Anonymous No.9932487]

>>9913068
probably mars, but its going to be a domed colony

[Anonymous No.9932500]

>>9932487
Why would it be domes only? Of course it will start out as some pods and domes, but eventually people are going to try something more with the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9932517]

>>9932500
When we have the technology, but right now, its only going to be a dome colony.

[Anonymous No.9933028]

>>9932487
>>9932500
>>9932517
>Domes
rads will fuck everyone up
it's gonna be underground

[Anonymous No.9933495]

>>9933028
Why not lead glass?

[Anonymous No.9933904]

>>9913068
Earth. The first planet to be terraformed will be earth.

[Anonymous No.9934101]

>>9933904
Read the thread before you try to make a witty post. Odds are it has been done 5 times already.

[Anonymous No.9934562]

>>9913074
This.

[Anonymous No.9934708]

>>9913068
The only acceptable answer is BOTH. Push Venus out just past earth, crash Mars into it to remelt the core and increase the rotation rate. Then drop a water / hydrogen moon from Jupiter or Saturn to add all the hydrogen that Venus lost to make water. Finally, drop chlorophyll algae into the newly formed oceans to crack the new water into oxygen, and start to adsorb the massive amounts of CO2 left over from Venus.

So who knows how to push Venus out past Earth?

[Anonymous No.9935040]

>>9934708
As a primer for this, I'm well aware there's much more nuance to solar radiation, greenhouse affect, albedo, etc. I'm out of my depth and likely to make mistakes. I did want to get some discussion going though, and see if people corrected me, because it would be interesting.

I'm working "base" temperature out here using:
>255/(a/L^0.5)^0.5
Where 'a' is the semimajor axis and L is stellar luminosity. For ease here I just measured in AU and solar luminosities.

In Venus' current orbit, at 0.72 AU, using above I figured out it would have a "base" temperature of 300 K (27 C), in comparison to Earth's 255 K (-18 C).

Now I'd add for a greenhouse effect. Earth's greenhouse affect is about 33 K. I could say the same for Venus, if it had an Earth-like atmosphere, but I assume it would be larger as the observed luminosity would be brighter.
So, using square cube, I figured it would be 93% brighter. So, I gave a greenhouse of 64 K (approx. 33 * 1.93). Adding to the 300 K base, that would give Venus with Earth's atmosphere something like 364 K average on the surface (91 C).

I'm aware albedo, rotation period, and atmosphere mass will probably play into it more, but this is an estimate, feel free to add to it.

With trial and error, I also found a place for Venus where with it's present atmosphere it may have Earth like temperatures, using much the same means as before. At 2 AU, it would have it's "base" temperature of about 180 K. Normally with a temperature of 300 K, and a greenhouse effect of 437 K, it reaches 737 K (464 C). At 2 AU, with the square cube law I can assume that the solar luminosity appears 4 times dimmer. So, with 180 K, I'll add 109 K as the greenhouse effect for its atmosphere (437 / 4). That would give us 289 K (16 C).

Both are thoroughly implausible, and not even very useful for habitation/terraforming, but I thought the info might be useful. If I'm wrong or pulling methods out my ass, let me know.

[Anonymous No.9935041]

>>9934708
Moving a planet out or in isn't complicated, it just takes lots of effort and time. Doing it fast enough to make Venus go beyond Earth without affecting our orbit or crashing into us would require way too much effort.

But since you want to know how it's done, let's pretend we want move earth away from the sun to fix global warming. When the moon is between earth and the sun, detonate a nuke on the dark side. When the earth is between the sun and moon, nuke the light side. This application of force will slightly shift the gravitational centre of the earth/moon system further away from the sun, while keeping earth and the moon the same distance from each other. Repeat many millions of times to start moving away, at a very very very slow pace.

[Anonymous No.9935043]

>>9934708
>>9935040
On a side note, I was looking for an image for my post and found this. Thought it may be of interest, even though still what it speaks about seems far beyond approachable right now.
>terraforming.wikia.com/wiki/Venus

[Anonymous No.9935050]

>>9935040
Even if you moved Venus to its goldilocks zone, it would still take ages for it to cool down. The planet has a lot of heat trapped on it.

[Anonymous No.9935054]

>>9935050
How long would you guess it would take that kind of heat to dissipate? I'm aware that would be done pretty much solely through radiating heat.

[Anonymous No.9935066]

>>9935054
My guess is in the centuries department, minimum. A global average temp of 462 degrees Celsius isn't going to cool down overnight.

[Anonymous No.9935072]

Well if you're moving planets out of their orbits, I suppose snapping your fingers and having it cool overnight isnt that ridiculous of a proposition.

[Anonymous No.9935077]

I think at this point this thread has already rambled enough that basically any available terraforming method is far to difficult to presently carry out, and not at all worth it.

So, in that case, what would be the most efficient terraforming method of all of them?

[Anonymous No.9935086]

>>9935077
What do you mean, "in that case"? Are you asking what is currently feasible or what is the best option if we had unlimited resources?

[Anonymous No.9935096]

>>9935086
What's the most efficient, with the assumption we "can" do it - with resources at our disposal, what would be most resource-efficient. Right now it doesn't seem like we can do any of it.

[Anonymous No.9935129]

>>9935077
Domes/Underground habitats are the least outlandish propositions by far.

[Anonymous No.9935150]

>>9913069
Yeah but the only thing left is craters and nuclear wastelands

[Anonymous No.9935169]

>>9935096
Well we can technically do almost anything. We just don't because it's not economically feasible, rather than technologically. Issac Arthur has a few videos on terraphorming that explain how lot of these kinds of projects are comparible to modern projects in the same way building a wall from some rocks and building the great wall of china are comparable. It's the same thing, just on a larger scale. Everything needed for a Mars colony has been developed on Earth already.

[Anonymous No.9935170]

>>9934708
>>9935040
>>9935041
>>9935050
The problem with Venus is that it lost ALL it's hydrogen. I remember it has something to do with a weak magnetic field (non-liquid core) and no oxygen in the atmosphere to scavenge free hydrogen and keep it trapped as water. Now, all that oxygen that WAS water is now carbon dioxide, which has caused the runaway greenhouse effect. Mars also has lost ALL it's hydrogen because it has an even weaker magnetic field.

That's why I said you have to remelt the core and add a source of hydrogen after moving it out past earth. And you have to add photosynthetic life to create free oxygen to keep the hydrogen in water from disassociating and slowly escaping the planet.

>>9935054
>>9935066
>>9935072
I think it would not take long at all to dissipate that heat. it's all in the atmosphere, and only the first few meters of the surface. Heat in the core will linger for billions of years, but near the surface less than a few decades. Adding water would help a lot as the heat turns it to steam which rises and radiates higher in the atmosphere.

Lastly, my point about moving planets if that if we could create pure fusion, up to iron then we would only need a few percent of a planet's mass to move it anywhere in the solar system.

[Anonymous No.9935335]

>>9935170
Woah, woah bro, hold up. I had a totally mind-blowing idea.
What if we, like, we smashed Mars and Venus into one another? That would solve all the problems.

[Anonymous No.9935339]

>>9934708
>the newly formed oceans
Crashing Venus with Mars will liquefy both. The oceans will sure take a long time to form from the newly formed lava planet.

[Anonymous No.9935441]

>>9934708
>push Venus
Impossible the force it would take to move a planet a km would annihilate its crust which would then take 2 billion years to recool back into a solid.

[Anonymous No.9935444]

>>9913068
Venus is the simplest.

We're interested in Mars because of the possibility of life. We forget that Venus is the easier planet to live on.

[Anonymous No.9935449]

>>9935444
Venus rotates too slowly the heat from the sun would kill us even if we removed most of its atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9935452]

>>9935335
yeah. I mean we'd have to wait like a billion years for it to cool down, but it would solve all our problems.

[Anonymous No.9935454]

Terraforming is a meme until you can directly modify a planet's gravity, it would be better if we just tried to find an extrasolar planet like ours to live on instead.

[Anonymous No.9935490]

>>9913687
Earth like pressure would means a lot cheaper structures, much easier to build.
You would need breathers outside domes, but not spacesuits.

[Anonymous No.9935531]

>>9935441
>the only way to move an object is with a violent shove
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.9935534]

>>9935490
>sulfuric acid hellstorms 24/7 at 50°C
Yes you would need a suit

[Anonymous No.9935905]

>>9928080
technically it would but by a tiny, immeasurable amount so hardly worth it.

[Anonymous No.9936286]

>>9935170
>I think it would not take long at all to dissipate that heat. it's all in the atmosphere, and only the first few meters of the surface. Heat in the core will linger for billions of years, but near the surface less than a few decades

No.

[Anonymous No.9936791]

>>9935454
The gravity problem could be easily solved by wearing a ton of heavy shit constantly. clothes filled with lead shot would give us earth-like attraction to the ground and protect us from radiation at the same time.

[Anonymous No.9936802]

>>9936791
It wouldn't fix the heart muscle atrophy. Weighted clothes don't make your blood heavier.

[Anonymous No.9936804]

>>9936791
But what would work is spinning bowl cities.

[Anonymous No.9936819]

>>9936791
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-GpM1NGB-8
Thanks doc

[Anonymous No.9937071]

>>9936791
Danke herr Doktor!

[Anonymous No.9937226]

>>9935454
It's easier to collect/manipulate resources and build in space. If we're already going interplanetary, I don't get why sending the mass majority of the population down to whether inhospitable climates would be preferable to constructing space habitats and mining asteroids. There's a lot of material and space out there, and you're not getting through an atmosphere whenever you want to go somewhere.

[Anonymous No.9937233]

>>9913086
Bruh a terraformed Moon would be absolutely gorgeous to look at. Imagine seeing another blue marble up there at night.

[Anonymous No.9937238]

>>9919526
A little off the thread topic but this always pisses me off in ayy lmao movies where they're "here for our water" but no mention is made of them making a pitstop to strip mine Enceladus or Europa first.

[Anonymous No.9937927]

>>9937233
>gorgeous
Absolutely.

Another important question is, if we got a second moon in orbit around Earth, would that make life twice as romantic?

[Anonymous No.9938123]

>>9937233
Terraforming the moon is impossible. It cannot hold an atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9938179]

>>9938123
>give up
>never speculate, contemplate, or imagine
>be a worthless uninspired nobody instead
no, fuck off back to wherever the fuck you came from, shitcunt

[Anonymous No.9938181]

>>9938179
>>9937233
>thinking the beautiful Moon would be better covered by a nasty-ass ocean
p l e b i a n

[Anonymous No.9938303]

>>9938123
It probably could for awhile, like a couple thousand years. But yeah it would need constant replenishing or it would eventually bleed off into space.

>>9938181
Imagine sitting on a hillside on the outskirts of your hometown late at night listening to Clair De Lune and looking up at pic related and tell me that's not a beautiful thought.

Fully admit that the Moon is gorgeous as is tho, I just wish I could have my cake and eat it too.

[Anonymous No.9938572]

>>9938303
>t probably could for awhile,
It is extremely unlikely that Man could put atmosphere on the Moon fast enough to give it a survivable atmosphere at all, and before we'd run out of source gasses.

[Anonymous No.9938762]

>>9913069
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.9938839]

>>9935170
>create pure fusion, up to iron then we would only need a few percent of a planet's mass to move it anywhere in the solar system
Yeah and then were gonn build a death star and blow it up. Stop posting here brainlet, educate yourself how much energy you would need to „push a planet“.

[Anonymous No.9939568]

>>9937233
It would look beautiful but it would be weird for people who were used to its old look, a younger generation would probably appreciate it better

[Anonymous No.9939724]

>>9917821
We can radically modify simple plants to super speed their cycles, turn CO2 to O2 and proliferate the entire planet.

[Anonymous No.9939889]

>>9935441
we make an artificial moon like the death star and have it hover next to Venus, pulling it with gravitational force

[Anonymous No.9939963]

>>9938839
>a number is big
>therefore never ever never ever
No, You are the brainlet

[Anonymous No.9939965]

>>9939568
Considering any terraforming would be gradual and take millennia, there won't be a soul that remembers the old look

[Anonymous No.9939987]

>>9913074
/thread

[Anonymous No.9939998]

>>9939987
>>9927436

[Anonymous No.9940011]

>>9913068
Terraforming anything is so retarded that building generation ships that fly across the galaxy to colonize perfect-for-humans planets seems like a quick and easy alternative.

[Anonymous No.9940021]

>>9940011
yeah but if it's 100k lightyears away we can't have good communication and commerce

[Anonymous No.9940028]

>>9940021
In terms of survivability of the species that's a good thing, because you will also most likely never have wars with each other that could destroy the species. A mars-earth-war could destroy humanity.

[Anonymous No.9940320]

>>9914950
The crystalline structure of the ice offers more stability. Perhaps more importantly, it'd serve as an insulator to keep the oceans underneath liquid.

[Anonymous No.9940332]

>>9923204
Would you recommend reading it?

[Anonymous No.9940367]

>>9940028
>A mars-earth-war could destroy humanity.
not going to be a huge threat since we aren't going to be sending any religious zealots to mars.

[Anonymous No.9940425]

>>9940367
Mars would be curbstomped fairly quickly, anyway. Most fictional Earth Mars war stories have to come up with some bullshit to explain why Earth's humongous industrial, population, and academic advantages are non existent in the conflict.

[Anonymous No.9940439]

>>9922168
Obviously no magnets on Venus

[Anonymous No.9940447]

>>9940439
Venus has a magnetic field that is generated by the ionisation of the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.9940482]

>>9940367
>> Religion causes the most death in the modern world
Only if Marxism is a religion.

[Anonymous No.9940529]

>>9940482
You mean Islam.

[Anonymous No.9940643]

>>9913086
Lunatic

[Anonymous No.9940648]

>>9940367
They might become up there.

[Anonymous No.9940660]

>>9940482
>Marxism is a religion.
It is

[Anonymous No.9940876]

>>9913068
>None solutions on magnetic field proposed
>Everybody talking about the atmosphere

mfw /sci/ can´t science

[Anonymous No.9940968]

>>9940876
It's the most brainlet board on 4chan, even /b/ is smarter

[Anonymous No.9941147]

>>9940028
Not if they agree to only fight in a designated area and never invade each other's planets.

[Anonymous No.9941240]

>>9914796
ah yes a planet sized umbrella, shouldnt be too hard to make now should it! we would need an octodecillion sheep's wool to even attempt to cover the whole planet, and millions of people working 24/7 to shovel up all the carbon dioxide, and nitrogen isnt free.

[Anonymous No.9941513]

>>9940332
Sure. It is like mainlining on Slashdot back in the days and a lot of Big Ideas to swallow but it is mostly a fun ride.

[Anonymous No.9941707]

>>9923204
>Been reading "Accelerando"?
The one on sad panda?

[Anonymous No.9941939]

>>9941707
Nope. This one (it is free):
https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando.html

[Anonymous No.9941943]

If you think the Human race will ever meaningfully exist anywhere other than Earth, you're naive.

[Anonymous No.9942038]

>>9913086
Lunarian sounds patrician as fuck

[Anonymous No.9942868]

>>9941943
>If you think the Human race will ever meaningfully exist anywhere other than Earth, you're exceedingly optimistic.
FTFY

It's not naive, just extremely unlikely.
Unfortunately.
What seems likely is that we will send out intelligent probes that can reproduce to conquer the galaxy, though.
"von Neumann probes" or something like that. There is no way that could possibly go wrong, right?
More than looking for ways to get off Earth, we should look into ways to lower entropy on Earth (obviously while raising it elsewhere, so we don't violate the laws of thermodynamics). That could keep us alive for a while.

[Anonymous No.9942896]

>>9939998
i've talked to many people who work for ESA and no one believes in colonising another planet

[Anonymous No.9942932]

>>9942868
>>9942896

See >>9917535

[Anonymous No.9942936]

Would a civilization fully capable of harnessing fusion power be able to move Teratons of material around the Solar System for these terraforming projects?

[Anonymous No.9942954]

>>9917535
>>9942932
The meek shall inherit the Earth.

The rest of us shall keep looking for a place better fit than the place we have been adjusting to over the course of millions of years.
There is no place better fit to humans than Earth. We are literally the interim result of supercomputer Earth. We are the 42 of real-life.
We can live away from Earth, and I hope it will eventually happen - if only to preserve human kind -, but if you think it could be better than on Earth, then you are sorely mistaken.

[Anonymous No.9943087]

>>9942954
That is a n impressive conclusion drawn from zero evidence. For instance the human Circadian rhythm is closer to 24 hours and 11 minutes. So a planet with slightly slower rotation would be an improvement.

[Anonymous No.9943286]

>>9941943
Well I mean morality is the only reason we dont send astronauts to die on Mars or the Moon because we can, but I feel as though in the future we will become more amoral thus not give a shit about killing thousands of people just to see if people can live in space. I mean they got cancer but at least we got to see actual results instead of speculation. Once we see what happens we can then improve on it until we get a result that works. It would require reworking our biology just to survive in the vacuum though as specializing for any planet is fucking retarded. If you can live in a vacuum you can live anywhere in our solar system except the gas giants since the winds will kill you.

[Anonymous No.9943748]

>>9943286
>I feel as though in the future we will become more amoral
Why?

[Anonymous No.9945164]

>>9943748
Not him but I would say look at the world over the past 100 years

[Anonymous No.9945313]

>>9913069
probably this once we fuck up the environment enough that our only way of surviving is to geoengineering the planet

>>9913074
also this humanity will be functionally exist within 200 years barring technological marvel within the next 20 years.

[Anonymous No.9945344]

>>9925781
What

[Anonymous No.9945643]

>>9942954
>implying an O'Neil cylinder wouldn't be vastly superior
You can't beat something you can precision tailor from the ground up
if you want Bahamas beach resort 24/7, you can make it so
seasons never going above or below temperatures you don't like? done
want absolutely no pollution on your hab and instead have the cleanest air imaginable? done
want to have particular animals, without others you don't like? done
want to live a life without fucking mosquitoes? you can bet your ass that's done

space habitats will be the future home of humanity, not planets, for planets can't hope to beat habitats in making the perfect environment

[Anonymous No.9945911]

>>9940367
I would destroy Africa and its people (spread over the world) though.

[Anonymous No.9946003]

>>9945643
>You can't beat something you can precision tailor from the ground up
I disagree. Isn't one of the nice things about Earth that while we are almost perfectly adjusted to it, it still continues to surprise us?
That wouldn't happen with something "precision tailored from the ground up".

[Anonymous No.9946090]

>>9914920
I like the way you think

[Anonymous No.9946121]

>>9917115
>People usually value their money more than their ego
Boomers, maybe. Thankfully they'll soon all be dead or killed.

[Anonymous No.9946466]

>>9943286
Gen Z is our last best hope.

[Anonymous No.9946810]

>>9946003
not really, when that new surprising thing is a hurricane or new super virus

[Anonymous No.9946868]

>>9946466
Don't worry we will save everything after our fortnite matches

[Aus Cunt No.9946879]

>>9913074
This. But Mars for shits and gigs after becoming a solid civ. If you have the technology to terraform a entire planet in a reasonable time scale your better of using your resources to building custom orbital habitats than living on some dirt slice.

[Anonymous No.9948074]

Wouldn't the first human colonies in mars be built in caves for cost-effectiveness?

[Anonymous No.9948091]

>>9948074
Not just cost-effectiveness. It provides excellent radiation shielding too. However, I think it is less likely to be actual caves, and more man-made tunnels/structures that are partially buried.

[Anonymous No.9948273]

>>9913074
This

[Anonymous No.9948300]

>>9919680
I think focusing on preventing the destruction of tropical rainforest would be more rewarding than trying to green the sahara.

[Anonymous No.9948315]

>>9945643
How about salvaging all the iron and nickle from mars into a bunch of these guys? Sounds so much easier than everything else.

[Anonymous No.9948338]

>>9925772
The final terraforming redpill: an atmosphere is actually just one enormous habitation dome

[Anonymous No.9948460]

>>9913068
mars. I anticipate the water under the crust will go a long way.

[Anonymous No.9948514]

>>9945164
You mean the last 100 years where crime rates per capita and wars have been decreasing, even as we've discovered increasingly effective ways to kill each other?

[Anonymous No.9948535]

>>9916417
>>9919680
>>9919785
>>9929094
Large-scale Terraforming of other planets is easier than Earth. There's no complex system interaction. If we fuck up on Earth we risk fucking with the entire system. Everyone always brings beings up greening the Sahara as if its an obvious first attempt. But if we green the Sahara, the Amazon dies. Shit like this has consequences and they are not all readily apparent.
But on Mars or wherever its all broad brush stuff. There's no need to balance a global ecosystem, it'd be very difficult to make things worse, and no extant populations that need to be protected from the change.

[Anonymous No.9948827]

>>9923142

Only real people count, anon. Not computer simulations of people.

[Anonymous No.9948860]

>>9948827
>Not computer simulations of people.

I'd watch out with your definition of "real people".
What makes you so sure, you aren't a computer?
Can you do anything a computer can even in theory not do?

[Anonymous No.9949464]

Can't wait till earth makes it to the space stage then we can start terraforming planets to T3

[Anonymous No.9949529]

>>9948315
mining planets is probably going to be far long in the future
You'd need heavy duty orbital rings and space elevators to make the energy costs worth it, instead of just mining asteroids and smaller moons for it and flinging it over via mass driver