NationStates Jolt Archive

I do not know the first thing about the science behind terraforming a planet, but I was wondering....(bad thing to do when you don't know much about something....)

It would take a good bit of resources to terraform a planet, right? If so, is it even possible without destroying our world?

I do not know the first thing about the science behind terraforming a planet, but I was wondering....(bad thing to do when you don't know much about something....)

It would take a good bit of resources to terraform a planet, right? If so, is it even possible without destroying our world?

If you're taking local resources from one inhabited world to do the majority of terraforming on another, you're doing it wrong.

I do not know the first thing about the science behind terraforming a planet, but I was wondering....(bad thing to do when you don't know much about something....)

It would take a good bit of resources to terraform a planet, right? If so, is it even possible without destroying our world?

Of course it is. I suspect, however, successful terraforming would require certain technologies, such as nanoforming. And, of course, all such resources used would originate from the planet being terraformed. That's the whole idea.

It would take a good bit of resources to terraform a planet, right? If so, is it even possible without destroying our world?

Depends on how long you are willing to wait. Most of the prelimary steps would involve algea and such to create an atmosphere we can breathe.

I do not know the first thing about the science behind terraforming a planet, but I was wondering....(bad thing to do when you don't know much about something....)

It would take a good bit of resources to terraform a planet, right? If so, is it even possible without destroying our world?

We can't even handle basic planetary maintenance, and you want to build a new one from scratch?!? :p

There are no inherent physical barriers to it, but from a financial standpoint it would be a colossal investment of economic resources that would take a long time to recoup. That's assuming that we'd be using more or less existent technologies and not currently undeveloped or unrealized ones.

Theory 1: Send some algae and nitrogen-fixing bacteria. wait. wait a long time.

Theory 2: send a specialized rocket and crew to set up a massive dome and house an intricate algae environment machine yo filter/transform the native atmosphere into something we can breathe. Gradually build more bubble colonies. After decades of colonizing, begin preparing to release the algae into 'the wild' and see if it takes.

problem: Earth has a complex eco-system. No one is sure how much it can be condensed for terraforming purposes. The nitrogen-fixing bacteria necessary for fertile soil may not survive alien climates, for example. if anything goes wrong, the whole project fails.

Terraforming is entirely possible and quite feasible. It would not necessitate destroying the Earth to do it either. The caveat is that terraforming would be a very long process - by this I mean centuries if not millenia for completion.

The resource investment would be negligible (for a planetary scale) as the majority of the 'work' would be done by biological agents - microorganisms would be developed and seeded onto the new planet to begin making the planet suitable for Earth based life. Once they have started the process, larger organisms would be used to continue the work. There would be some need for larger manufactured facilities in certain cases, but they would still represent a minimal investment.

Earth would be hardly touched to provide the materials for terraforming - simple because lifting materials out of the gravity well would be so costly. Most of the material would likely be sourced locally at whatever planet is being transformed.

The details would depend on the particular planet - Mars would be the first obvious choice, and it would not be that difficult. It has water and a very thin atmosphere, and is likely already supporting life. I'm not talking about little green men, but NASA has discovered new types of bacteria never seen before. Turns out their 'clean' rooms in which they build the rovers and such developed quite a few species of bacteria that adapted to survive in the harshest environments and even use the disinfectants for food. So it is possible the rovers or other probes have deposited bacteria on the surface, some of which may have survived the trip and found a little place to grow.

We can't even handle basic planetary maintenance, and you want to build a new one from scratch?!? :p

Not quite building it from scratch. Rather, remodeling it.

problem: Earth has a complex eco-system. No one is sure how much it can be condensed for terraforming purposes. The nitrogen-fixing bacteria necessary for fertile soil may not survive alien climates, for example. if anything goes wrong, the whole project fails.

That's probably the single biggest challenge; to successfully terraform the planet, you'd need to create a working ecosystem. I imagine you'd have to gradually scale it up to support increasingly complex life, introducing species from Earth as the existing ecosystem becomes strong enough to support it.

the biggest most expensive part of terra forming for Mars and Venus is getting a magnetic field in place in these planets. Mars lacks one because its core has mostly solidified, which meant the atmosphere was not protected from the solar wind, so its atmosphere was striped and blown to away.

Venus also has a very weak magnetic field in this gas strong enough to save the atmosphere but so weak that UV radiation broke hydrogen and water vapor apart cause the hydrogen to leave the gravitational field of Venus. and with out rain Co2 ran rampant in the air (a sort of counter acting to the green house effect as more heat means more rain and less Co2. )

We can't even handle basic planetary maintenance, and you want to build a new one from scratch?!? :p

Well, I guess it is a good idea to have a backup planet to destroy. After all, eventually we will be finished with this one.

We can't even handle basic planetary maintenance, and you want to build a new one from scratch?!? :p

It's like when I tried to build model airplanes when young, at one point each attempt became so fucked up that I started a new model in an endless cycle of thick paint, copious amounts of glue and melting plastic.

Me mam was so very proud.

I do not know the first thing about the science behind terraforming a planet
No one does, actually... today it's an interesting topic for intellectual speculation and that's all.

It would take a good bit of resources to terraform a planet, right? If so, is it even possible without destroying our world?
This is an intelligent question.
I'd say that it would be possible to terraform a planet without destroying our planet. After all, the things you need most to terraform a planet are:
1.energy: available from a nearby star in form of solar power
2.light metals (iron, copper, alluminium) and silicon: likely available on most terrestrial-type planets
3.oxygen, nitrogen and carbon: available almost everywhere. Oxygen is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust and one of the five most abundant elements in space (the others being hydrogen, helium, carbon and nitrogen), so it's not unlikely to find oxygen in planetary crusts: the moon is full of oxygen, mostly bound to titanium, iron and silicon: same goes for nitrogen and carbon.

Generally, the best idea for terraforming a planet (or just to colonise it) is to exploit the local resources, so you have to carry just knowledge, manpower, startup machinery and food supplies.

I assume the approach would be a kind of compressed version of life on earth. Begin by releasing bacteria able to cope with the hostile conditions. Then algae and lichens. Followed by wind pollinated plants. Then badgers. This could all be done remotely before you sent any kind of settler. Would be interesting to hear some time scales from someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

Everything about terraforming seems to be speculations. I read an article in a popular science magazine said it would take a hundred thousand years to terraform Mars and a website that said it would take sixty years. Personally I think it'll take at least a couple millennia build soil, an atmosphere, a magnetic field, ecosystems and so on. We'll also have to figure out how to triple it's gravity.

A quicker way might be to genetically engineer humans and other lifeforms that can live comfortably on Mars.

I do not know the first thing about the science behind terraforming a planet, but I was wondering....(bad thing to do when you don't know much about something....)

It would take a good bit of resources to terraform a planet, right? If so, is it even possible without destroying our world?

the one thing it don't take rocket science to understand, it that terrraforming is pretty much the almost exact opposite of what we've been doing to the one terra we've got.

=^^=
.../\...

You'd need very good reasons to make a planet, then you'd have to figure out a route or orbit around it's sun which doesn't involve smashing into any other planets, amongst many other difficulties it would require a huge amount of knowledge of planets and support from it's sponsors to make it.

Perhaps a planet is a big move to make, i think a few smaller colonies would be a better idea, as a failsafe should earth decide to go into meltdown, of course this would require huge resources sent to make it.
interesting idea, but it's beyond this lifetime and many others after.
I demand the first planet to be made is called Atlantis. that is all.

Read Neal Asher *nods*

Why bother with terraforming? Just set up a couple of bases on the surface with stations in orbit. Stations with gravity rings. Planetside bases should never get too big because the ultimate goal should be to build a Dyson Sphere. I'm not talking about a Dyson Shell, mind you, I mean something more in line with a Dyson Swarm, a series of solar powered satellites and stations that would collect all the light from the sun. You'd need to pull apart all the asteroids, tons of moons, and even a few planets to get all the material and the whole project would take a really long time but it could eventually put mankind in the second level on the Kardashev scale.

Why bother with terraforming? Just set up a couple of bases on the surface with stations in orbit. Stations with gravity rings. Planetside bases should never get too big because the ultimate goal should be to build a Dyson Sphere. I'm not talking about a Dyson Shell, mind you, I mean something more in line with a Dyson Swarm, a series of solar powered satellites and stations that would collect all the light from the sun. You'd need to pull apart all the asteroids, tons of moons, and even a few planets to get all the material and the whole project would take a really long time but it could eventually put mankind in the second level on the Kardashev scale.

My first suggestion would be to make iron mines on Mercury and use that extra resource to make buildings out of metal on the moon.
Make gas stations on other planets that offer the right energy type of gas to add an energy source to help power equipment on this new colony.
Oh and find a way to grow plants on the moon, some sort of genetically modified plantlife would do for starters until we master how to grow plants on the moon normally.
hopefully with further research into the moon and Mars we'd be able to take this information to establish colonies on other planets.
And we'd have to have a faster more efficient method of travel through space.
And we'd have to have eradicated all forms of warfare on earth, to encourage enough production of resources into maintianing earth and other colonies, until these colonies (or outposts) are self-sufficient.
a development of military technology which would work in space, and tactics for space battles would also be required.
damn this planet, we're still miles behind schedule!

Send some algae and nitrogen-fixing bacteria. wait. wait a long time.
I believe the current plan for Mars starts with lichen alone rather than algae and bacteria, but the principle is the same.

My first suggestion would be to make iron mines on Mercury and use that extra resource to make buildings out of metal on the moon.
Make gas stations on other planets that offer the right energy type of gas to add an energy source to help power equipment on this new colony.
Oh and find a way to grow plants on the moon, some sort of genetically modified plantlife would do for starters until we master how to grow plants on the moon normally.
hopefully with further research into the moon and Mars we'd be able to take this information to establish colonies on other planets.
And we'd have to have a faster more efficient method of travel through space.
And we'd have to have eradicated all forms of warfare on earth, to encourage enough production of resources into maintianing earth and other colonies, until these colonies (or outposts) are self-sufficient.
a development of military technology which would work in space, and tactics for space battles would also be required.
damn this planet, we're still miles behind schedule!
Why? Why bother with the establishing colonies on other planets if you're just going to tear them apart for material for the Dyson Sphere? There are already more efficient and more powerful methods of space travel, NERVA and NPR. And there are already tactics for space combat, nerds with time on their hands have even figured out how to use CRT-based beta rays to capture enemy ships (though not the crews) and how to defend against such weapons. And why would an end to war be needed?

Really, not a lack of knowledge, just a lack of application.

My first suggestion would be to make iron mines on Mercury and use that extra resource to make buildings out of metal on the moon.
That would be hugely energy intensive. Do you know how hard it would be to move resources out from that deep inside the gravitational well?

Why? Why bother with the establishing colonies on other planets if you're just going to tear them apart for material for the Dyson Sphere? There are already more efficient and more powerful methods of space travel, NERVA and NPR. And there are already tactics for space combat, nerds with time on their hands have even figured out how to use CRT-based beta rays to capture enemy ships (though not the crews) and how to defend against such weapons. And why would an end to war be needed?

Really, not a lack of knowledge, just a lack of application.
You'd need a minimum of warfare on earth, should a large war occur while some space operation is underway it could hamper any gains made. Therefore it's a good idea to sort out issues here first.
Again because there's still lots of issues to be resolved any application of a space programme too early could damage public belief that it would work.

That would be hugely energy intensive. Do you know how hard it would be to move resources out from that deep inside the gravitational well?

I'm assuming we'd have the technology or knowledge by then to do it safely and economically. besides the whole space idea is hugely energy intensive anyway.

I'm assuming we'd have the technology or knowledge by then to do it safely and economically. besides the whole space idea is hugely energy intensive anyway.
I have to side with Llewdor. It'd be smarter to start with asteroids and to keep as far away from the sun until you have to get that close. Remember, it's hot enough on Mercury to melt lead so you'd have to remain in the shadow.

I'm assuming we'd have the technology or knowledge by then to do it safely and economically. besides the whole space idea is hugely energy intensive anyway.
But there are vastly more efficient plans. For example, if you're going to mine materials off-world to construct a base on the moon, you should mine those materials farther up the gravity well. It's actually cheaper to move resources from Mars to the moon than it is to move resources from Earth to the moon (and both are vastly cheaper than moving them from Mercury).

We can't even handle basic planetary maintenance, and you want to build a new one from scratch?!? :p

Software tells us designing something new is much easier than maintaining something that already exists :)

I have to side with Llewdor. It'd be smarter to start with asteroids and to keep as far away from the sun until you have to get that close. Remember, it's hot enough on Mercury to melt lead so you'd have to remain in the shadow.
ah fair point.
But there are vastly more efficient plans. For example, if you're going to mine materials off-world to construct a base on the moon, you should mine those materials farther up the gravity well. It's actually cheaper to move resources from Mars to the moon than it is to move resources from Earth to the moon (and both are vastly cheaper than moving them from Mercury).

okay that sounds like it makes sense, but how do you know this?

I think the climate of the earth should be warmer.

okay that sounds like it makes sense, but how do you know this?
I studied two things at University. The first, Philosophy, often comes in handy around NSG.

The second, Astrophysics, only occasionally proves useful. Like now.

I studied two things at University. The first, Philosophy, often comes in handy around NSG.

The second, Astrophysics, only occasionally proves useful. Like now.

aha. Astrophysics.hmmmm interesting, pray tell what else this involves.

Okay so i've got a reformulated plan.
An outpost on the Moon is definite, then from there an outpost on Mars to take it's resources to help this Moon colony. Then we work on energies from other planets to help this process.
oh and what would happen if say, we managed to take the whole of mercury and effectively destroy it. (using it's resources for other projects) Would this upset the balance in our solar system?

Software tells us designing something new is much easier than maintaining something that already exists :)

"Welcome to Microsoft Mars!

SP2 is now available for planting here."

I do not know the first thing about the science behind terraforming a planet,

There's not any.

aha. Astrophysics.hmmmm interesting, pray tell what else this involves.

Okay so i've got a reformulated plan.
An outpost on the Moon is definite, then from there an outpost on Mars to take it's resources to help this Moon colony. Then we work on energies from other planets to help this process.
oh and what would happen if say, we managed to take the whole of mercury and effectively destroy it. (using it's resources for other projects) Would this upset the balance in our solar system?

I have taken advanced astronomy, chemistry and physics classes at my university and I would like to answer that question with whatever credentials you may think that I possess.

Destroying Mercury would have no affect of the other planets. Little is known about the composition of Mercury but we do know that it has a lot of iron and that the surface on the sun side is molten.

In regards to your Lunar station comment. Have you ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? A Moon base would be cool. I think we should make a self-sustaining ecosystem inside a giant cylinder like in Arthur C. Clarke's "Rendezvous with Rama." I think having a mobile space station would be more useful than a lunar base unless we decide there are resources on the moon worth harvesting.

On another note. Did anyone mention yet that giving Mars an atmosphere and magnetic poles would involve liquefying the solid core of the planet? Yeah, Mars is a dead planet and you would have to heat it up a lot to be able to have an atmosphere on it. I believe Mars is currently losing thousands of tons of atmosphere every day as it is.

aha. Astrophysics.hmmmm interesting, pray tell what else this involves.

Okay so i've got a reformulated plan.
An outpost on the Moon is definite, then from there an outpost on Mars to take it's resources to help this Moon colony. Then we work on energies from other planets to help this process.
Indri's plan to mine the asteroids is probably even better, since they have effectively no gravity well to escape at all.
oh and what would happen if say, we managed to take the whole of mercury and effectively destroy it. (using it's resources for other projects) Would this upset the balance in our solar system?
Removing Mercury would have negligible impact on the solar system. Mercury's mass is so small relative to that of the sun - Mercury's mass is 3.30*10^23 kg, the sun's mass is 1.99*10^30 kg - that removing Mercury wouldn't matter.

But, mining it would still have the gravity well problem.

aha. Astrophysics.hmmmm interesting, pray tell what else this involves.

Okay so i've got a reformulated plan.
An outpost on the Moon is definite, then from there an outpost on Mars to take it's resources to help this Moon colony. Then we work on energies from other planets to help this process.
oh and what would happen if say, we managed to take the whole of mercury and effectively destroy it. (using it's resources for other projects) Would this upset the balance in our solar system?

the problem with taking mercury is we have to escape the suns gravity (at that range pretty hard) other wise mercury would be just like the moon.