When do you think will the humans terraform the planet for first time? And what planet it will be? Mars or Venus? Venus is almost as big as earth but is rotating too slow, so it will be necessary to speed up it's rotation. (maybe with guided asteroid or comet bombardment). And of course changing the atmosphere probably with use of genetically modiefied organism. Mars is smaller, has low gravity and is cold, but the only one thing that needs to be created is atmosphere.

I have seen the same idea on a fre of my fav sci-fi shows and all ways thought it would be a great way fix a world up for us humans.We cant realy fix the world where on at the moment let alone a distant one but we can live in hope cant we.

Terraforming either of them would be extremely difficult, but Venus is the only one with any comparable atmosphere and thus the only one you could ever really hope to terraform. There are no geologic processes on Mars to create an atmosphere, and no real materials on mars to create an atmosphere either.

I suppose you could sacrifice Europa to provide water to Mars that would be broken into Water//2H2+02 for the planet...you're still lacking the most important of nutrients, Nitrogen.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Terraforming either of them would be extremely difficult, but Venus is the only one with any comparable atmosphere and thus the only one you could ever really hope to terraform. There are no geologic processes on Mars to create an atmosphere, and no real materials on mars to create an atmosphere either.

I suppose you could sacrifice Europa to provide water to Mars that would be broken into Water//2H2+02 for the planet...you're still lacking the most important of nutrients, Nitrogen.

There is a lot of water on mars, and oxygen can be created from the water. There is also so called "dry ice" (don't know if it is proper in English - simply frozen CO2) and from CO2 can be also created oxygen (the plants on earth are doing it daily). The oxygen could be also produced from the rocks. There are many methods how to do it - temonuclear reactors producing oxygen from ice (just in 50 years you have breathable atmosphere in case they are producing 10 000 times more energy than today's earth powerplants), or genetically modified plants able to survive in mars condition (higher radiation, low temperatures, thin CO2 atmosphere) - in this case it could be done in 500-1000 years.

Nitrogen is not necessary to have a breathable atmosphere. It is an innert gas necessary for some reactions but not for breathing. Or at least not 70% of nitrogen. The Mars atmosphere could be thinner with more % of oxygen and argon (like on earth mountains). The people could adapt to it.

To the Venus terraforming : I read a book about it and the main problem is the slow rotation. The day on Venus lasts almost one year so during the day the surface is too hot and during "night" too cold. Atmosphere is deadly but it is very similar to the old earth atmosphere before 3 billion years, so the similar process like that one on earth could be started with the help of plants. But the rotation needs to be corected and the best way how to do it is to guide some close comets or asteroids on the planet surface. Not only will the guided meteorits speed up it's rotation, they will also release much of it's dense atmosphere into the space.

[edit on 15-6-2004 by longbow]

longbow you're full of misconceptions but I'll be glad to educate you

First off there WAS a lot of water on mars...it is now all locked in rocks and minerals, a small bit remains as water-vapor and as ice in the northern cap but it is a very minor amount compared to what you are hoping for.

The CO2 in the ice caps melt every Martian Season, releasing more atmosphere such that the atmosphere literally bounces "back and forth".

When the caps freeze in the south the air all flows southward to fill the pressure drop, and when the caps freeze in the north the air rushes back that way.

So the idea that melting the dry ice will cause more atmosphere to be generated is one of the most common misconceptions, the CO2 ice caps melt annually and so it is obvious how much atmosphere would be generated by that event.

It seems there may be water deep in Mars's crust, but there seems to be no evidence of that.

Even so, if you could find so much water, the lack of geological activity means the lack of a magnetic field or any way of maintaining that atmosphere.

In some other post I went through more in depth the insurmountable problems with terraforming Mars. Venus is the best bet, and its slower rotational period won't matter.

I likened it to going out in the cold, you bundle up because it is easier to take clothes off then to put on clothes you don't have.

Same with atmosphere, it's easier to take off so much atmosphere on Venus, than it is to add atmosphere to Mars.

To the Venus terraforming : I read a book about it and the main problem is the slow rotation. The day on Venus lasts almost one year so during the day the surface is too hot and during "night" too cold.

Longbow, that's Mercury, Mercury's day is 89 days long and its year is 88 days long.

Venus has a moderate but backwards rotation towards the west (we rotate east) so the sun would rise in the west and so on...

Nitrogen is necessary for plant growth and if you are going to live somewhere you need to grow food.

Notice though those links are not really "Scientific" there is a difference between writing about something and doing something. NASA is more than happy to let people think they can terraform Mars, after all who is facinated by the nice dead world known as the Moon?

The reality is Mars is the Moon...with a small atmosphere some former hydrological activity and some moderate wind-erosional effects and some volcanism probably due to a vast meteoric impact ages ago.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Longbow, that's Mercury, Mercury's day is 89 days long and its year is 88 days long.

Venus rotation period is 243 days. It is more than it's year (0.62 of earth's year). That means one day on Venus lasts 243 earth days. If the Venus had normal atmosphere the temperature during it's day time would be simply too high too live.

Hmm last time I work off assumptions (not) but good work on putting me in my place . Thanks though, didn't know that...better to learn it now than later

So Venus isn't even as homely as I figured it might be...blah whatever it's a simple to fix problem though.

Really...ahh the genius of nature.

Even if we reduced Venus's atmosphere to that of Earth's, its temperature globablly would remain moderate even though one side will be in darkness for about 122 days.

Because obviously, atmosphere is a heat-sink, if it's cold in one area there are prevailing winds to fill the pressure changes, a convection current if you will. The change in density causes a reaction to balance it.

Venus would have some good fierce easterlies (as opposed to our westerlies? ) but I don't think it would be like Mercury, where one side is in the shade for 40 days and thus 40 days of -200 degrees.

The problem would be living in such conditions, I'd imagine most life forms would have to be fungi or animals, with various lichens being the "base" food source instead of photo-synthesizing plants.

But no, the temperature wouldn't be too high to live, it'd be hotter oh hell yeah...but not unbearable. Hmm the introduction of a lot of water might help too. It'd be tricky that's for sure but I'm saying using the forces of nature we could cause a global heat-exchange that would keep things fairly balanced and breezy

I was thinking of water because as it evaporated it would help cool down the surfaces in the day and as it froze it would help cool the atmosphere and so a large amount of water would help circulation of that heat even more.

The poles would obviously be the more viable regions ~.~

Anyways, I'll have to think more on that

Excuse me, but it is the "appreciable atmosphere" of Venus that makes it the LEAST likely to be a candidate for terraforming. It's a lot easier to generate an atmosphere than it is to take one away. I'm thinking you haven't looked up all the stats on the Venutian atmosphere yet...WAY more bad ju-ju to overcome there than on Mars. At least we have equipment that will hold up to the current Martian conditions...the same is absolutely untrue for Venus.

Way too high surface pressures.
Way too high surface temperatures.
Way too caustic atmosphere.

In general...it's a really neat place to avoid.

I have read if we will use guided asteroid impacts for speeding up the Venus rotation, with 4 asteroids we could shorten the rotation period from 543 to 50 days. But it will take another 50-60 asteroids to create a "normal earth day".

Originally posted by Valhall
Excuse me, but it is the "appreciable atmosphere" of Venus that makes it the LEAST likely to be a candidate for terraforming. It's a lot easier to generate an atmosphere than it is to take one away. I'm thinking you haven't looked up all the stats on the Venutian atmosphere yet...WAY more bad ju-ju to overcome there than on Mars. At least we have equipment that will hold up to the current Martian conditions...the same is absolutely untrue for Venus.

Way too high surface pressures.
Way too high surface temperatures.
Way too caustic atmosphere.

In general...it's a really neat place to avoid.

Venus atmosphere is actually very similar to the ancient earth atmosphere. And earth was able to create life without help!! The temperatures would sink when the atmosphere is changed because the current high amount of CO2 acts holds the warm in the atmosphere. Also the asteroids used for changing the rotation could simply "throw up" a lot of atmosphere into the space.

Well, first, you haven't got a stitch of evidence to back that the current Venutian atmosphere is "very much" like the ancient Earth atmosphere...so I disregard that as evidence that anything of value could be done with it. In fact, I believe the statement that Venus is "very much" like what the future Earth atmosphere will resemble, if we continue to crap-out our atmosphere, can probably be backed more than the former statement.

Whether

1. asteroids could increase the rotation of Venus, or
2. in case 1 could be achieved, it actually caused any appreciable difference to the atmosphere (you've got to keep in mind that you're further crapping out the atmosphere by throwing chunks of crap at it)

is interesting, but I don't have a very good gut-feel for how effective it would be.

You're talking about a surface temperature of around 460 degrees C; a surface pressure of 90 atmospheres; an atmosphere of around 97% CO2 with around .007% free oxygen - cadmium, lead, tin, and zinc would be molten, and sulfuric acid would be in the liquid form...

it's an ugly place.

Valhall it's impossible to "create" atmosphere, it's possible to remove one however, so Venus is the ONLY possible place to terraform, regardless of the difficulties.

Freemason...

now you're just being silly.

Unfortuantely, we're a long, long, long, LONG way from terraforming anything right now... maybe in 500-1000 years we'll have the technology?

Well, even if you could terraform a planet, at what point does the distance from the Sun become too much to make it feasabile? If we could terraform Venus (which I agree, is not a good candidate; it's the thick atmosphere of methane and sulpher, not just the thick atmosphere, that makes it next to impossible), our Moon and Mars, that would be awesome, but how about some of the moons of Jupiter? Well, Europa and Ganymede would be nice choices, but we have to count out Io for the same reason we counted out Venus... how about Saturn's moons? Are they too far away from the Sun at that point? Titan would be a nice choice there... about the size of Earth, with lots of trapped water, and not in Saturn's rings...

It's a facinating subject. Perhaps one day in the FAR future we'll be able to make these dreams a reality... But certainly not this millenium.