Venus now!Terraforming/colonizing: new places to call Home

Magrathean

worldbuilder
Oct 14, 2005
6,987
4
38
Faculty of Science
s1.zetaboards.com
As more than one book about Mars says, the red planet has been the center of attention of sci-fi novels dealing with space travel, colonization and terraforming. But what if, once again, science-fiction is about to drop the 'fiction'? What if history is about to be made? I believe the technology to colonize and indeed begin a(n evidently-long-term) terraforming effort on Mars already exists or will exist in no more than two or three decades. Regrettably, there are very important obstacles: for one, governments don't seem to care much about this and aren't providing organizations like ESA or NASA with enough resources, attention or financial resources; for another, there are heated debates about the political/social/ethical/ethnical/philosophical aspects of terraformation, and it doesn't look like they might be solved soon. Another problem, of course, is that perhaps we are farther away from the necessary technology and resources than we think. But what if it's possible? Nitrogen is abundant in the soil, which would allow genetically-engineered plants to live. The plants would release oxygen, thickening the atmosphere and making it breathable. Martian gravity is .38 of terran gravity, which, i believe (but i'm not quite sure; maybe someone else is able to provide more insight on this), is enough to hold an atmosphere of at least 0.5 bars, which would be inhabitable (think of high-altitude settlements on Earth). There is evidence of (not-necessarily-dead) volcanic and hydrologic activity, and the planet has two moons, which would cause tide. There are still strong winds on Mars (which at first would be a problem because of global dust storms but would eventually become useful). The terrain is very varied and even impressive in more than one way. There is frozen water in polar latitudes, which could be used to turn Vastitas Borealis into an ocean and maybe even Hellas and Argyre basins into big lakes. What if Mars is centuries or even decades away from becoming inhabitable?

If the number of people who believe that Mars can be terraformed and eventually inhabited by humans is lower than i would like it to be, i don't want to begin to wonder about the number of people who believe that Venus is terraformable. With an atmospheric pressure of around 90 bars, an atmosphere consisting almost-entirely of carbon dioxide and a mean surface temperature 450 degrees higher than that of Earth's, it sounds like Hell itself. But what if it's terraformable? There are serious problems, such as the impossibility of landing humans on it and the fact that a day on Venus lasts almost 117 days, but say we built a huge orbital mirror which reflected sunlight and placed it between Venus and the sun for a few years or decades and then tried to land there.

The situation of Venus could be considered similar to the one on Mars in some ways and opposite to it in others, so terraforming Venus would be a challenge to science as interesting as terraforming Mars.

On the other hand, we could try looking a bit closer to home: The moon, or even our own oceans. While the moon might not be terraformable, we might be able to build tented cities or underground settlements there. And, while pressure in the sea increases by one atmosphere with every ten meters we go down, domed submarine cities might be possible in a near future.
 
UndoControl said:
As more than one book about Mars says, the red planet has been the center of attention of sci-fi novels dealing with space travel, colonization and terraforming. But what if, once again, science-fiction is about to drop the 'fiction'? What if history is about to be made? I believe the technology to colonize and indeed begin a(n evidently-long-term) terraforming effort on Mars already exists or will exist in no more than two or three decades. Regrettably, there are very important obstacles: for one, governments don't seem to care much about this and aren't providing organizations like ESA or NASA with enough resources, attention or financial resources; for another, there are heated debates about the political/social/ethical/ethnical/philosophical aspects of terraformation, and it doesn't look like they might be solved soon. Another problem, of course, is that perhaps we are farther away from the necessary technology and resources than we think. But what if it's possible? Nitrogen is abundant in the soil, which would allow genetically-engineered plants to live. The plants would release oxygen, thickening the atmosphere and making it breathable. Martian gravity is .38 of terran gravity, which, i believe (but i'm not quite sure; maybe someone else is able to provide more insight on this), is enough to hold an atmosphere of at least 0.5 bars, which would be inhabitable (think of high-altitude settlements on Earth). There is evidence of (not-necessarily-dead) volcanic and hydrologic activity, and the planet has two moons, which would cause tide. There are still strong winds on Mars (which at first would be a problem because of global dust storms but would eventually become useful). The terrain is very varied and even impressive in more than one way. There is frozen water in polar latitudes, which could be used to turn Vastitas Borealis into an ocean and maybe even Hellas and Argyre basins into big lakes. What if Mars is centuries or even decades away from becoming inhabitable?

Im combining these two threads. This was posted on the MARS Now! thread. I can delete this post, if you wish to post the Mars thread at a later time, thread starter.
 
OK, let's say for a second we do have what it takes to terraform Mars or Venus. The question that I have is : Why?

Shouldn't we first try to have a man to Mars before thinking of colonizing it? It just seems to me that even if we could do it, this would not be a priority project... There are still so much things to be done right here on earth first. And Mars will still be there in a millenium or two.

How much could this possibily cost?
 
speed said:
Im combining these two threads. This was posted on the MARS Now! thread. I can delete this post, if you wish to post the Mars thread at a later time, thread starter.
Please do. Should i remake the Mars thread later or will you unlock it?

Mikobass said:
Because Earth is overpopulated; because it is a chance to form a new society with new rules and actually learn from our past (i.e. Earth); because a lot of science would be developed in the process; because Earth is facing global warming and resource depletion; and because there are resources we can use (and i'm not talking about bringing resources to Earth, but about sending people to Venus/Mars and about the resources being used by them).

Mikobass said:
Shouldn't we first try to have a man to Mars before thinking of colonizing it?
Well, of course. But that could be done tomorrow.

Mikobass said:
this would not be a priority project... There are still so much things to be done right here on earth first.
Do you honestly think it's easy or even possible/plausible to stop global warming (educate everyone to stop polluting, defeat capitalism so we don't have factories and mass production not giving a shit about the environment, begin a global cooperative effort to clean the planet up) or avoid overpopulation/hunger/poverty? And what about the resources/investment going to NASA/ESA/whatever? Should governments disband such organizations because there are "higher-priority projects"?

Mikobass said:
And Mars will still be there in a millenium or two.
But we might not.

Mikobass said:
How much could this possibily cost?
Millions upon millions of dollars. And the revenue would be even bigger.

Seraphim Belial said:
Who the hell would terraform Venus?
I'm sure i would (although i'd rather terraform Mars).

Seraphim Belial said:
Might as well terraform Mercurey
Mercury isn't terraformable for several reasons: it's too close to the sun, because of which a day on Mercury is too hot for anything to live on it; its rotational period is practically the same as its orbital period, because of which the dark side of the planet is cold as hell (again, nothing could possibly live on it); and it has no resources (except metals), because of which there's nothing to feed on. We could set off massive explosions or use very powerful rockets to spin the planet up to a decent rotational period, but i still doubt a day on Mercury wouldn't kill all life on it.
 
I think it will take a catastrophe before such ideas or projects are tenable. The U.S. can no longer support such a undertaking with the political and financial strain such a proposal would bring. Such a proposal is only possible for an totalitarian country like China, or if there is another cold war type situation.
 
Do I detect something of the "stop the world, I want to get off" mentality?

It may well be possible to stop the global warming, but the solution is unlikely to appeal to humanitarians.

I've been told that introducing blue-green algae would go a long way to terraforming Venus. What do you say?

On the other hand, it has been a product of my over-active (?) imagination that it may one day happen that people are encouraged to travel en mass to a supposedly terraformed alternative planet - while never (reliably) being heard of ever again. Ie. they were in fact killed.

Just a few thoughts.
 
speed said:
The U.S. can no longer support such a undertaking with the political and financial strain such a proposal would bring.
May i ask why not? Also, i don't think USA has that much longer to go, but that's a story for another thread.

Norsemaiden said:
It may well be possible to stop the global warming, but the solution is unlikely to appeal to humanitarians.
I don't get your point (sorry).

Norsemaiden said:
I've been told that introducing blue-green algae would go a long way to terraforming Venus. What do you say?
I say they'd be burned/crushed instantly. Then again, bacteria are formidable in their survival abilities. Genetically-modified bacteria? Sure, why not?
 
"Watch out NASA. British inventor Andrew Pike is aiming to terraform Venus. Pike has applied for a patent on a space probe which carries tanks full of a watery nutrient jelly containing blue-green algae, carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and plant seeds (GB 2356382). The idea is that the seeds grow in the nutrient jelly on the hostile Venusian surface while tough algae feed on the gases. The algae supply the plants with nutrients once the jelly has run out, and the photosynthesising plants produce carbohydrate for the algae and release oxygen into the atmosphere. But Pike's patent may not be granted: the Patent Office is checking if his idea was pre-empted by an earlier article in the Journal of the Interplanetary Society."

From issue 2300 of New Scientist magazine, 21 July 2001, page 27

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17123003.800.html
 
Goodie! Now we'll have something else to do after we destroy earth: Destroy Venus!!
 
Thanks for starting this thread, I find this topic very interesting. First, many people are asking "why?" Well, it is perhaps the only way of moving forward without bringing in the (in my view) appalling suggestion of eugenics. We WILL have to leave this planet some time in the future so instead of asking why, why NOT start now? Second, if the US lacks the financial means perhaps a multi-national cooperative effort would be in order. I could really see a project like this having huge potential for world peace as well as changing the views of certain people on this forum.:)
 
UndoControl said:
Because Earth is overpopulated; because it is a chance to form a new society with new rules and actually learn from our past (i.e. Earth);

I don't feel Earth is overpopulated, it's population and ressources (natural but also social, material and wealth) are just not spread efficiently. This is a political and social issue. A new planet would not remotely start to help solve this problem.

UndoControl said:
Do you honestly think it's easy or even possible/plausible to stop global warming (educate everyone to stop polluting, defeat capitalism so we don't have factories and mass production not giving a shit about the environment, begin a global cooperative effort to clean the planet up) or avoid overpopulation/hunger/poverty? And what about the resources/investment going to NASA/ESA/whatever? Should governments disband such organizations because there are "higher-priority projects"?

Well at the moment, it just seems more plausible (and logical) to me to stop the global warming here on earth then to start terraforming planets.

UndoControl said:
But we might not. --> be there in a few millenium

Then Terraforming would be useless if we are not there in a few millenium, because it is my understanding that Terraforming would be quite long...

UndoControl said:
(On How much would it cost...) Millions upon millions of dollars. And the revenue would be even bigger.

Don't expect people to do this for money!! I don't know anyone who would invest any money knowing that he would not see any return in his lifetime.

hibernal_dream said:
... First, many people are asking "why?" Well, it is perhaps the only way of moving forward without bringing in the (in my view) appalling suggestion of eugenics. We WILL have to leave this planet some time in the future so instead of asking why, why NOT start now? Second, if the US lacks the financial means perhaps a multi-national cooperative effort would be in order. I could really see a project like this having huge potential for world peace as well as changing the views of certain people on this forum.:)

Again the risk is way too big for the possible return and the project would take way too long. So forget about any help from corporation. Do not forget that wealthy rich mans are ruling corporations (and the planet?) and their only goal is to get even wealthier and rich as fast as they can... You need idealist to run your project. People who care about mankind before themselves. Saddly, there are very few on this earth and they are not usually very rich...

Another big issue that no one talked about yet is religion. Most of those religion fanatics believe God put us here to stay here until he comes back and take "care" of us. (Most of the western and wealthier civilisations are still christians...).

In conclusion, it's a nice dream you got there, but you won't see nothing in your lifetime except maybe in far fetch science fiction movies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally agains't the idea, it just does not seem very plausible to me with our current world situation.
 
Well, I have to disagree with Mikobass, Earth IS highly overpopulated! I never thought I'd nevr hear anyone say that. It's not that natural resources aren't well distributed, it's just that there are fewer and fewer every day!!!

I mean honestly, we're really fucking everything up here. That's why I disapprove of colonizing Mars or any other planet, we should try to fix this one. But that's also the problem, because I don't think that is possible.

Also, we have to think about the fact that we humans are humans, so I wonder if we won't all just kill each other before we colonize Mars or wahtever?

And if it gets colonized, shiiiiit, imagine the political mess... I don't even want to think about it hehe.
 
Overpopulation : Lets look at the facts. First when I mentionned that "Population and Ressources are not spread efficently" (not only the ressources), I meant that there are huge cities like Mexico, Tokyo, New York, etc(...) where there are millions of people living there while there are other vast portions of land where no humans lives. And I'm not even talking about extreme places like Antartica, Sahara or Groenland, but places like Canada. Canada is so big, yet 95% of the population live in like less then 5% of it's surface. As for material ressources, the USA as a greater GDP then the entire continent of Africa. I'll rest my case here.

Also most of Earth ressources are renewable and grow back on it's own given time. So if we can control ourselves, nature will work it's magic on it's own!! We just need to be patient, learn from our mistakes and make more efficient political decisions. Humanity is only in it's teens, wisdom will eventually impose itself on mankind. All good reasons for me to play the optimist again.

Sources :
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/xx.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_resource
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-renewable_resources
 
Your source citation is sloppy and useless -- you're citing topic pages, not particular data points.

Did you know that in India, only 11% of the land remains wild? Extinction threatens not just a thousand species, but several hundred thousand.

Did you know that there is no unparcelled land remaining in the USA? Yes, for animals and plants, there are some spaces, but they are divided by trees and partially covered with human habitation.

We're out of land we can use responsibly -- in fact, we passed that point long ago -- now we're just eating up our future.

Hell yeah humanity is overpopulated. And most of our people are only about 7 IQ points above Chimpanzees (not a racial comment; seems to be worldwide).
 
Well, let's see we already have fucked up Earth. Ya, that's it let's go and destroy Venus and Mars too. Before all the religeous zealots and politicians get there, I'm getting on SEX-SHIP Flight 69-69 to Venus, isn't that the "Planet of Women"? Where I will die happily in the arms of a Venus Goddess.
 
infoterror said:
Your source citation is sloppy and useless -- you're citing topic pages, not particular data points.

Did you know that in India, only 11% of the land remains wild? Extinction threatens not just a thousand species, but several hundred thousand.

Did you know that there is no unparcelled land remaining in the USA? Yes, for animals and plants, there are some spaces, but they are divided by trees and partially covered with human habitation.

We're out of land we can use responsibly -- in fact, we passed that point long ago -- now we're just eating up our future.

Is all this meant to convince us the sky is falling and that we should regress to a primitive lifestyle? All this stuff can be fixed by higher density (much higher) residential housing, which need not be built on habitable land, new food production technologies. No need to act Chicken Little just yet