https://www.rt.com/news/155208-mars-water-flowing-space/
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1999792,00.html
The reason they can't sustain life now is because Venus's atmosphere is too thick, and Maria's too thin. So, let's start transporting millions of tons of CO2 from Venus to mars, to cool off venus and warm up mars. We can also send little rock eating fungi to break down the rocks there and emit oxygen. With 3 habitable planets we would have solved overpopulation.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
We will still have a lot of excess carbon dioxide, but that's good! Have it eaten up by microbes to oroduce oxygen, on both planets, then take a bunch of hydrogen from Jupiter, and burn it in those planets, this will mix with the excess oxygen in the air and produce the water we need to sustain life on venus and mars.
How would we go about transporting CO2 to Venus? Specifically? This idea is so stupid it has got to be a joke.
To mars from Venus. We will be doing this like 200 years from now do it's safe to assume we have more advanced technology. So we open a wormhole on mars connecting to venus. The law of diffusion- and the atmospheres will come to be the same.
Ah the classic something for nothing.
Harry Truman,
So where will they get the ice to cool down Venus? Besides, it spins backwards. People will lose their balance or something.
Well perfect. So we will magically be able to transmit millions of tons to Venus safely and cost effectively.
I'm talking 100 yearsfr now, so what we will do is open up a wormhole on Venus and mars. The CO2 will fly from Venus to Mars. When we evenly distribute it, we dump bacteria's from underwater volcano's or black flames on venus and other microbes and rock eating algaes to turn the CO2 onto oxygen. Then we take hydrogen from Jupiter, dump it on both Venus and mars, light it up, and thus cause a chemical reaction creating water. Then we start producing ozone and nitrogen, and pump those into Venus and mars. Afterward, we dig to near their centers, and bury a giant self-sufficieny electro magnet to crate a magnetic feild for them. We then start planting plants. Oh yes, and we will have to dig down to magma with mars and dump meteors there. And on the surface, before any of this can happen there.
After all that, we transport animals then humans and build colonies.
Is this before you after you get high?
What evidence do you have that this will be possible in 100 years or 1000 years or 1 million years??
Sounds great except for the colonies. The colonists will hate to pay taxes to their home world and then they will get uppity and want to start their own government and religion. It happens all the time.
MCD,
Haven't you ever heard of a pipeline? We can build it with American steel. That's what they do in the Gloxpau solar system. Works like a charm.
With American steel using American coal dug by American workers. Can I get an amen?
Fuck that, humanity is a planetary poison. Until we display the ability to keep our planet healthy, we don't deserve two more.
I would agree, but that would probably doom human kind.
@ Harry
more money world over is pent on the military than scientific research. infant the difference is overkill.
Maybe if we could double NASA @ ISROs budget or maybe triple it we would get there faster.
NASA could start, but most of the changes will be done by private businesses. Think of all the iron on mars.
There's plenty of iron right here on earth. In fact we've never got close to exhausting any important natural resource. If something gets scarce, the price goes up, making exploration more profitable. Then new deposits and extraction methods are discovered and the price goes down again. There's also recycling. And all the time people are coming up with new and better materials. The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stone.
That's a great quote.
And your right of course. A quick calculation shows it would take about 3600 kWh to remove a kg of material from Mars. In terms we can relate to: that is an extra $425 on your power bill (where I live anyway), per kilo. Scrap iron sells for about $0.10 a kilo.
Among other resources- I was just saying it would be profitable and therefore not just a waste of money. Either way the ultimate objective would be to spread life to other planets.
@Harry
What have you been smoking? Let us know so we can stay away from it. Why would we want to terraform a planet that is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius)? Then there is Mars a lifeless world, why would we want the spin to money to terraform it? We could mine it's minerals using robots and a small human supervising and repair team. Both planets would cost to much money to terraform, even in the near future of say 100 years. In a 100 years the Earth might be an over heated wasteland.
Funny how you think that Private business would pick up the tab. In all of human history, only governments have paid for exploration. The King of Spain paid for Columbus so on and so forth. Even though Elon Musk is desperately trying hard to finance space exploration among other notable endeavors, he will at some point have to get financing from a government.
The idea of transporting CO2 from Venus to Mars is just crazy, to say the least. It might not be impossible but it is entirely impractical. It would be faster and more economical just to change each planet's atmosphere with its own resources. Create oxygen on Venus and create CO2 on Mars.
Plus there is the whole gravity thing. Mars and Venus have different gravities than the Earth. Their overall temperatures are different. Gravity, temperature, magnetic fields, rotational speeds, all very different than Earth and major factors for sustained colonization. Besides if we were to transport raw material from one celestial planet to another, we would be mining the moons (not just our own). If we could move that much CO2 that far, we would be moving raw material all over the place.
No, Harry, that is a pipe dream you have there.
Yes, but if we want to move humans there, and infrastructure, private businesses are best. Either way, I'm talking centuries from now. We have an obligation to ensure life spreads around and isn't extinguished. Were one asteroid from extinction.
Harry very smart scientist and geniuses at the Brookings Institute have pondered planetary colonization for years now. They have all said the same thing. To colonize the expedition would have to develop resources that are at the destination that they land at. Every hard rock planet usually has everything we need to sustain life. It is a matter of mining it and making it into something useful. Even the moon has everything we need to include oxygen and water. It's locked up into rocks but can be extracted. Mars and Venus are no different, just more challenging. There is no need to create more expense and more billions, trillions of tons of material millions of miles from one planet to another. Just lifting off of one planet would be expensive and difficult, not accounting for landing it intact on the other planet. It's hard enough with just a few tons. Can you imagine how long it would take to move say a trillion tons of CO2? Maybe a million years or so.
Yes, but I'm talking far into the future. Our population is exploding, and we need to start expanding outward eventually. We have a lot if space still, we can build upward, like with NY, then outward, but sooner or later we are going to run out of space. Adam Smith actually described the dilemma in his book, though not with regards to space travel. He was referring to colonixation- in essence, eventually a given area runs out of space, and those who own the land, the rich, will thus rule over those who do not own land, since they are dependant on them. The masses do not like living as serfs, and the rich don't want their property stolen, so they expand outward and create colonies. This was with regards to Greece, and in relation to the British colonies, but it applies no less.
The methods used will be determined by the technology of the time. If wormholes or teleportation are available by the time we need to colonise, then transferring atmosphere would be easier. If not, then using microbes to produce a thicker atmosphere will be better. However, mars has 1/7 the water of earth, and Venus has none- so we might need to crash comets into them, or just Ceres.
@Harry Truman: "Our population is exploding, and we need to start expanding outward eventually."
Our population won't expand forever. Rising living standards, the shift of women into the paid work force, better education, and the abandonment of religion all apply the brakes to population growth. Japan's population is already shrinking. Other Asian countries also have very low birth rates. China is a special case because of the one-child policy, but the result is the same. Populations are getting older rather than bigger.
In a few generations, the Catholic church, Islam, and other primitive baby factory cults will die, and we'll have a smaller, stable population maintained by a low birth rate. If the entire population of the world was living in modest three-person households on about 300 square meters of land each, we'd all fit into the US Midwest. We don't need more planets. We just need more intelligence and less sky-daddy nonsense.
Yes, but I'm talking far into the future. Our population is exploding, and we need to start expanding outward eventually. We have a lot if space still, we can build upward, like with NY, then outward, but sooner or later we are going to run out of space. Adam Smith actually described the dilemma in his book, though not with regards to space travel. He was referring to colonixation- in essence, eventually a given area runs out of space, and those who own the land, the rich, will thus rule over those who do not own land, since they are dependant on them. The masses do not like living as serfs, and the rich don't want their property stolen, so they expand outward and create colonies. This was with regards to Greece, and in relation to the British colonies, but it applies no less.
The methods used will be determined by the technology of the time. If wormholes or teleportation are available by the time we need to colonise, then transferring atmosphere would be easier. If not, then using microbes to produce a thicker atmosphere will be better. However, mars has 1/7 the water of earth, and Venus has none- so we might need to crash comets into them, or just Ceres.
Just for laughs: what happens to the momentum of an object that gets "wormholed" or "teleported" from one location to another?
An asteroid could hit the planet an wipeout humanity, but it wouldn't kill all life on planet. So the chimps and bonobos rise up to replace us. As for private business picking up the tab, all they would want a profit. Private business needs government over site or they take advantage of their workforce to make a profit.
EDIT
If a giant asteroid wipes out humanity, the apes will die too. However, life will live on in the form of plants, microbes, water bears, and maybe some fish deep in the ocean.
If I'm correct the astroid that killed the dinosaurs, didn't kill all the land life. That is why mammals rose up to replace the dinosaurs.
Pages