I belive Mars have 2 get a wakeupcall of something so huge and "hot" , that there is a chance 2 wake the planet up again (Breake it down and build it up) . And as i see it , The best "and economical sane" way 2 do just that is 2 use it´s larger moon Phobos , That have been in a low decaying orbit around Mars 4 millions of years . Give it a "tap" and stand clear 4 a couple of years , If anything could get things going on mars like CFC , CD , MF , Crust movement - It´s thru methods like these.
It's TO SMALL! It doesn't have a Magnetic field! Not enough gravity. To dry. It wobbles dramatically. No Atmosphere. Where are you going to get a Magnetic field? Where are you going to get an ocean? Where are you going to get an atmosphere? Are you going to take them from this planet?! It's to cold! To far from the Sun. It's lopsided. All of the water will fill one side of mars since one side has a lower elevation. You can't live there! There is no reason why you could!
In one billion years we will have such tech. thatwill be able to eith move the earth during the red giant stage or terraform mars then when we cant use mars anymore we will be mystifed that jupiter will turn on and come a sun it was always ment to be . then tech will be so high we will be able to produce our own sun. so f em were here to stay
@94kricco then it is more complicated to form a terra like life, as it will have different periods of night.. and so on, also the gravitational pool is heavier, so we will have a problem with walking, unless ur skin and bones; anyways you will feel A LOT heavier
@thesomebody3 It is possible to move animals over to Mars from Earth. It's just to clone the DNA of the animals, but first see if they can handle the terraformed Martian environment
@94kricco yeah i know it's possible, but the thing is that i just mentioned that it has two moons as 94kricco said and that animals would really have to make some drastic adaptations, also the gravitational pool is way stronger then on earth.
@t8nlink yes, you are right. the absence of a magnetic field would allow the solar winds, ultra violate and xrays to reach the atmosphere and the surface. that would shortly blow away any atmosphere that is put on that planet. the xray will spilt water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen being so light, gets blown away into space by the solar wind, and the oxygen would oxydize the elements on the surface of Mars, giving it a red color..... Well,deja vu!!
That's some strange reasoning, since trees would need water to grow in the first place. Anyway, Mars appears to have plenty of water, but it's frozen.
I think terraforming Mars would be a monumental waste of resources. We should colonize space itself. Why plunge ourselves into another gravity source? There are enormous amaounts of resources just floating around in space in the form of rocks. More than an entire planet in bitesize chunks for us to mine. Our future is in space stations, not in planetary colonies!
I think this transition will be more expensive than even terraforming Mars, so... No... :)
Actually, people could live in space stations, no problem. You can simulate gravity by having people live on the inside of huge rotating cylinders. People always claim to know it wont work for whatever reason of course. But its usually unfounded. Like, people think it wont work because of motion sickness or something but actually itd be fine.
how much energy to take complete habitats into orbit
how much oil would that take.
i agree the spinning artificial gravity would work, but replacing earths' life support is immense task. we take so much for granted from earth. eg van alan belt, temp control, recycling of waste products etc.
"transition/expensive"
- i still say money is symbol for energy. also information, but people only withold info to get energy (info easy to copy)
@walter0bz Do you really believe terraforming the entire planet Mars and putting people on it would be cheaper?
You wouldnt actually have to go so far, there are lots of resources floating around Earth. This is vastly cheaper than surface mining for obvious reasons. Then, it takes significant efforts to bring equipment safely to the surface of a gravity well like Mars. Also, dont you think it would be cheaper to regulate the environment in a 2 mile diameter cylinder than the entire planet Mars??
question is, could you make a planet self-sufficient. The word 'cheaper' refers to system of trade and social interaction. could you make self sufficient space stations?
i think i'm skeptical humans can live efficiently anywhere other than earth. Humans are part of earths biosphere. If space is 'colonized' it will most likely be by AI. or just straight bacteria.
One issue for space living is Radiation (earth's solution is geothermal powered van-alan-belt)
recomendation for canditates was 50's because you're likely to get cancer.
other speculation for spacecraft involves a radiation-proofed capsule that the crew must retreat to during flare ups of solar wind; too expensive to shield the whole craft that way
@walter0bz Its really very simplistic to reduce everything to "the entire human race escaping Earth before oil runs out which will end civilization on Earth." The benefit of colonizing space would be in overcoming the scarceness of resources on earth. It would relieve a lot of economical (and ecological) pressure. Perhaps there would even be ways to harvest lots of solar energy?
Anyways, whatever you can get into space to terraform Mars, you could put to better use colonizing space itself.
you need a certain amount of energy to get into space. Can you really see a space program being run using windmills ? the industrial base for a space program is a product of the oil age.
we can't wait for the scarcity on earth before we start harvesting offworld - then it will be too late.
Sure I think harvesting solar from space is a good idea.
Energy itself is way more important than minerals.
r.e. 'economic'/'scarce resources' on earth: we have some miscalculations due to fiat/debt system which distorted market signals. The scarcity is WELL underway, but more tokens were being issued against rising property prices. peeps measuring profit from scarcity.
I think harvesting offworld energy (& resources) is more likely than outright colonization, but even then very unlikely.
99% likely: billions will die in post-oilage wars, sustainable human pop ~0.5-1billion
oil/fossil-fuels allowed 5+billion extra people to exist, I honestly can't see us building enough self-sufficient space stations to house this existing surplus wthin the next 50 years.
How many people to do you estimate we will have living in orbital colonies in 2050 ?
Will space colonization be possible against a backdrop of societal collapse (see recent UK riots, a taste of things to come) and wars?
How many countries have sufficient space program ?
@walter0bz Also, I just read some things you said... First of all, where do you get the preposterous idea that only 2 billion people could live sustainably on Earth?? Im quite perplexed by this... You do realise not even the grimmest of climate doomsayers would come anywhere near that? Sources please...
Then, actually the plans for space colonies are to construct increasingly big cylinders that simulate gravity by rotation. Hardly "like living on a submarine". Look up O'Neil cylinders.
yes, I loved babylon 5, and the Usborne Book Of The Future I read in 1980.
The demand is there NOW - I can't see this being built for real against our current backdrop.
Only thing I will say is computer tech might allow robots to 'go ahead' and do the construction work - but i think you could have done that with remote control already ? The will or ability to divert resources is the issue, not the technology.
To give everyone a western standard of living would take 5X earths' resources... but that is an oversimplification that confuses renewable/non-renewables.
Truth is that western standard of living & current human population can't even be sustained indefinitely. we've fast-forwarded a geological age by returning FF material to atmosphere. I dont think we'll go extinct, humans survived reduction to 10,000 members, but this current civ is on thin ice
@mariamole011 - correct, the fewer kids the quicker the problem is solved. Genocidal wars on a scale never seen are the more likely as we'll leave it too late.
i'm quite troubled by the number of people that can't relate oil (energy) to carrying capacity. even on comment threads about colonizing other planets. one should be thinking about energy to determine if this is helpful, or viable. mars only has a fraction of the earths surface area, yet splurging FF's multiplied earths cc 8x.
@walter0bz what is FF's cc X multipled earth? regarding the wars, it seems there will be more wars around the globe, as predicted, but i think governments are trying to work on that. in china , people are having less than 2 children per woman, i seen in a video that mers can sustain more than a bilion people. if its true or not , i dont know.
cc=Carrying Capacity. FF=Fossil Fuels. num of humans is limited by energy transformed into food; As part of nature's symbiosis (can't think of plants and animals separately, earth = single organism) there's room for ~0.5 billion humans, 1billion max? By living off FF(reservoir of millions of years of stored plant energy) we multiply unrestrained ..till that reservoir runs out. So we're already used to billions of extra peeps. I doubt Mars could sustainably hold 200million.
@walter0bz to be sustainablei guess also 200 milion max in mars, but like earth most peoplo live in relative poverty with 7 bilion. when i was younger 15 years ago, the earth had 5, 6 bilion, and people knew there would not be enough petrol, could it be that is the reason europe and russia already have its popultion under constant reductio?
@mariamole011 - YES - smart people realize their way of life is over-adapted so they cease to breed. When I was born , pop was 4billion, when my parents were born, 2.5billion. this can't go on. We knew our entire lives that Cars are not viable in the long run, yet we still have a society based on them. It's a collective addiction, too hard to break, because cars & other fossil-fuel products let us live where it's otherwise impossible. e.g. in climates that are too cold. etc.
@mariamole011 - to think some are actually complaining about falling populations , IMO we actually need them to fall faster. ideal TFR of 1.0 globally is the goal. yes, some countries are already as low as 1.3, thats a step in the right direction. One Utopian solution: baby license requires proof of fossil-fuel free lifestyle. car driving license = sterilization :)
@mariamole011 - cars are a big part of the problem - by letting you live detached from real carrying capacity e.g. living and working separate, bringing in resources from elsewhere. but biggest problem is industry generally , i.e. use of petrochemicals (oil energy) to extend food production. Some see waste i.e. if we put all the oil into basics instead of luxuries maybe earth could hold 10's of billions.. but thats until oil runs out
@mariamole011 - many peeps can't face life without a car. yet cars are the easiest part of industrial civilization to fix, i.e. teleworking, dormitories, public transport. if we can't fix car dependance we have no hope with the rest. (food & water)
mars has 1/3rd the surface area of earth, so maybe 1/3rd the carrying capacity. Thats if you can figure out how to replicate the earths services we take for granted. so ballpark pop of mars if you're lucky is 150-300m people. compared to 6billion surpluss we already have.. it doesn't help much. even if you could do it, most humans are still doomed.
@walter0bz i think you are right , most of us humans are doomed, but remember, the majority of the people on our planet is not white europeans. but asian or dark, african, i dont know if that is relevant or not, but i dont know if those people are wiling to adopt a reduction in their population, that could be trouble.
defining aspects of western lifestyle are as bad as over-population.
1 american = same resources as nearly 10 africans.
overconsumption & overpopulation , it's a global human problem not restricted to any country or group. all face reduction in quality & quantity of life
@mariamole011 - 3rd world multiplies too much, 1st world consumes too much. population is a global problem, we're all linked in trade. even the poorest still benefit from fossil-fuels, i.e. trading local cash crops & cheap labour for industrially produced grain.
sustainable lifestyles are easy, but we can't face it, having been spoilt by the energy lottery win. I'd hate to live without gadgets myself. Some think we can't even have computers/telecoms without fossil-fueled industry.
personally I am fatalistic.
zero kids for me, leave the earth to some better adapted species, everyone else's kids can deal with the misery of a dog-eat dog reduction from 7billion back to 1 billion :) if they face such hell whats the point of being born?
@mariamole011 - google can tell you much more about fusion than me, but
Nuclear Fission = process used in 'atom bombs' & current nuclear reactors
Nuclear Fusion = process used by the Sun, & 'hydrogen bombs'.
If Fusion could be generated in controlled reaction it would be a major breakthrough , generating energy from hydrogen isotope in water. but it is try technically difficult.
in fission/fusion atomic nuclei split or merge, releasing energy as they move closer to stable configuration (iron)
I define our situation as Overpopulation because we rely on non-renewable energy.
Renewable = from sun's energy(plants,wind,solar..) The sun will run out but not in our timescale. Also, we can't OVERSPEND it.. its' a slow steady 'income' we can't change.
Fossil-Fuels are stored solar energy (dead plants) that took 10s of millions of years to accumulate. we 'SPEND' it as fast as we can dig it up -> exponential growth (more hands..). Like a 'Lottery Win'- fun till it runs out..
@mariamole011.. plants. plants harness & store solar.
Fossil Fuels: we can't survive without them. This is why there is so much resistance to 'fixing global warming'.(IMO,mmgw=moot point) we waste a lot but also use some for essentials i.e. modern agriculture, medicine, raw materials for all infrastructure.. To stop using fossil... billions will starve :( if you think this is far fetched - see how long you can go without any fossil products
>>" You do realise not even the grimmest of climate doomsayers would come anywhere near that? "
- My hypothesis is, govts talk about Global Warming so much so as to get fossil-fuel rationing in place. MMGW is actually a moot point- given FF's will deplete, we HAVE to figure out how (or IF) we can live without them. If governments simply say "FF's will deplete and most of you will die!" there will be mass panic, rioting. We've just had rioting in major UK cities over 'nothing much'
uk population prior to industrial revolution: 6m. today, 60m
world population prior to industrial revolution: 800m. today, 6.7b
even before industrial revolution we were using coal (fossil-fuel-energy) to supplant sustainable firewood. Steam engines were invented to drain coal-mines. We already had windmils, solar-power (via plants),wind-powered global trade network - supporting pop <1billion.
@walter0bz I have read some of your document on peak oil and I admit that I probably have been overlooking this problem. I think however that there might be ways around the scenario you predict, however. Even without oil we wouldnt live in a world like before the industrial revolution. It's not as if without abundant energy and petrochemicals all our technology will become completely useless. A plant is not a solar panel, and a modern windmill not a premodern one. Also, nuclear energy.
thanks for taking the time to read it, I hope I introduced you to worthwhile ideas.
True that the 'descent' may force some unique solutions we can't yet predict, the best hope is teleworking/web perhaps, but its' when you connect the resource & (failed) economic model that things look worrying... what gives this credance is he predicted in 2003 economic collapse preceeds actual peak - and yes the banks were revealed to be bankrupt in 2008.
>>"Even without oil we wouldnt live in a world like before the industrial revolution."
averaging out the possibilities, i go with 2billion as a reasonably optimistic figure, i.e. still higher than pre-industrial. on the downside consider how much of the ecological 'hysteria' may be well founded - while the oil was flowing, we didn't have to maintain natural fertility, water systems, forests - these became over-spent, depleted. This is why the pessimists say STONE AGE next.
@walter0bz we need a city sixed space staion, like i saw in picture once, some place we can go and back to earth as if we were geting a car and going to the coast line. that would be realy sustainable.
@mariamole011 - ok sustainable living is possible, just not for 6billion people. cars & industrial agri mean we already live in areas that are inhospitable , or only hospitable at very low population density. we are in a dead end already. UK so crowded that rainfall per person = same as middle east
Only fusion could save us. I expect 1-10% chance of such breakthrough . asteroid mining? more materials for constructing orbital solar panels or fissile material perhaps? still sounds ilke scifi.
if we solved Nuclear Fusion power (it works in bombs) then we could keep the current population level on earth, maybe even grow more.
However, it may be unfeasible. always seems 40 years away. Works in bombs, because it's unconfined. it works in the Sun, because gravity of 99.86% of the solar systems mass makes confinement. with energy you can solve any other problem. Life is all about energy. all lives' complexity is methods of channeling energy into being burned.
@mariamole011 - [1] 'GDP..' Money is just a social construct(pecking order) GDP is irrelevant,gets fudged. prosperity depends on available energy & efficiency with which it is used. Economic crisis is because ponzi scheme unravelled - paper wealth is not backed up by real resources.
Total resource availabity would give everyone Chinese quality of life, some have more some have less.. [more]
@walter0bz i read some parts of the web you sent, me , but the text was very long, i cant read all, but it mention that when the oil start to depleat , it could be a major cathastrophe, will kill milion, we are heading for an oil apogeu, as the population still soars.
@mariamole011 - Google 'matt savinar peak oil die off' for an excellent PDF on the subject of peak oil... I agree with 90% of it, he uses more detail than me. ( e.g.: i disagree that 9/11 was inside job - stresses building up were enough for genuine terror attack ; and population figure is 0.5-2billion not 0.5 as he writes, and all the alternative energy sources CAN be used for anything oil can, just in no where *near* the same quantities.)
@walter0bz Also, yes, space stationS could be self-sufficient. they could specialize in processing different resources and send them to each other maybe? Really, I dont think any of the chemical elements you'd need are lacking in space. Also, agriculture in space stations, derp...
>>"Our future is in space stations, not in planetary colonies!"
bear in mind this will be living conditions similar to being imprisoned on a Submarine or Arctic Research Base... permanently, with no shore leave, etc.
WE WILL NOT TERRAFORM MARS. THE WHOLE POINT OF GOING IS FOR THE COLONIES PEOPLE!!! TERRAFORMING THE MOON WILL START AT ABOUT A CENTURY FROM NOW IF WE ARE LUCKY!!! COLINIZATION IS ALL WE ARE DOING FOR QUITE SOME TIME...
Actually, heating Mars is not as hard as you think, "just" need to bomb it with some asteroids from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The blows will free ENOUGH carbon-dioxide and water from the ground, and will make a global warming, which is on the Mars a quite good thing
@Vogel885 I doubt that.....eventually technology will get better and we will change our ways for the better good don't jump to conclusions and don't loose hope on humanity it will be a sad day to leave this planet of our origins our home..it expensive and takes a lot of effort to terraform a planet even if it was fifty years from now it's better to just invest to help ourselves for a better future
@HowlingWolf518 We havnt conquered gravity yet, that is one of the few things we have not mastered yet but by all means if you have a levitating ship that isnt affected by gravity at all by all means show us all. But for the rest we should really start colonizing terraforming maybe not quite yet but colonizing yes.
@daggeron8 Ok, To terraform this shithole, we'll need about a million heaters, 4 billion deep freeze chambers, a lot of water, and an assload of polants
Terraforming Mars is indeed a tall order and it may take thousands of years. Here is one way. Bombard Mars with water rich asteroids and comets. The effect of this should be studied and analyzed the best way to accomplish this and to see what would happen to the rotation and orbit of Mars. Once that is done and its ok to terraform Mars than we proceed with the actual mission. We can have a fleet of automated rockets that will seek out the asteroids and crash them into Mars.
@125RTY actually it could only take 1-4 years, scientists found a natural rock that can be incinerated and add oxegan to the planet and an atmosphere, colonization mission is also will happen in 2030-2035
@pieman7771 The problem is that Mars doesn't have enough mass to keep an atmosphere. Believe it will take quite a few asteroids and comets to build it up.
The effect is you will build up the mass of Mars and add extra water and other minerals. How many asteroids? Probably hundreds if not thousands. Also crash the decaying but water rich moon Phobos into Mars, it’s going to crash one day anyway. After Mars had cooled down from all the crashes it should be heavier and more water rich with an atmosphere. Now you can add the water life, plants and so on.
should be easy.......place some power plants on mars,send the electricity to earth(one problem solved) the co2 will create an atmosphere of itself, then u can get water in and the bacteria will make o2 for new plants to grow(green plants). and in a 100 years or so we will be ready to colonize it
It is perfectly possible to terraform mars, but first there needs to be traces of hydrogen in the soil. Then you need to thicken the atmosphere, to keep the heat and oxygen in, then grow some evergreen trees, to create oxygen, which should allow the water from the ice to melt and evaporate, and turn into rain which will refill the oceans!
the fact that i'll be dead when we finally terraformed it makes me unbelievable sad =/
but ok - im 14 years old at the moment i'm very inspired to spend my life in terraforming-studys, even if my career aspiration changes every 5-6 months xD
If terraforming does prove difficult however, paraterraforming could be a possible alternative. This would see a large area of Mars being covered by a dome, but it would be so big you would seem like 'the outside'.
About the economy side of things:
If Mars can't make up for the money, Terraforming Mars might have to become a bit like National Service.
I say that Mars Terraforming does seem viable, as for the solar wind you could create an artificial magnetosphere using a powerful electromagnet up in orbit, although it would probably need alot of power to use it. However given the exponential rise in power to civilisation this might be easier then you think.
@Killacats119 And the problem is???? Stop being egocentric..... In around 2 milions years the sun wil start growing up, we need to find samething else to live :). Its about surving, not about holadays :).
But would the weather be tolerable? Is this responsible? How do the other people in the universe feel about this they might not like it. We should ask them first. Maybe they have tried this already.
I don't think Mars can be terraformed easily. Most of the northern hemisphere is bellow "water level". So what would happen is that the northern parts would fill with water while the south parts not so much. There would be no ocean heat transfer mechanism like the Gulf current in the Atlantic here on Earth.
In order for mars to be terraformed, the same thing that humanity has done to earth has to be done there. To create a green house affect, in doing this the frozen co2 will melt and slowly create an atmosphere and after that plants could be planted to grow and start creating oxygen thus leading to a new earth in like a couple hundred years...while venus turned into a acidic death trap mars just froze. awesome.lol
Seriously though, humanity's future is among the stars. We've already evolved to peak physical capacity; now we need take the next step and evolve technologically.
We've conquered gravity, split the atom, built to the sky, and are now exploring the heavens. I say we colonize them.
@HowlingWolf518 "Conquered gravity"? You seriously think lifting your arms is a technological achievement worthy of being listed along with nuclear fission?
@HowlingWolf518 We need to find a way to bridge the huge gap between solar systems though. Even at light speed, it takes thousands of years to reach our nearest star, Proxima Centauri. Your words are inspirational though. :')
@CarlosMarti123 True. And even if we do figure out how get there in a couple of years, we don't really know how to make a world - 'specially since we still don't know how NOT to screw up our own!
And then there's the question of what to do if said world is already occupied... (sigh), humanity's got its hands full, 100 years from now.
@The3H2SO4 Perhaps you are retarded enough not to do your research before acting like a moron.
The fastest unmanned space craft travelled at 157,000 mph. A light year is around 5.8 TRILLION miles. That means 4217 years to travel a light year, and Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years away. Do the math, genius.
@CarlosMarti123 You said "even at light speed". If ship traveling at 300000 km/s speed then it arrives there in about 4 years. By the way,nothing can travel faster than light.
@The3H2SO4 Agreed. No object of non-zero mass can be accelerated to the speed of light in a vacuum. However, saying "nothing" can travel faster than light is a generalization. Things can travel "faster than light" depending on how you look at it. Spacetime itself has the possibility of being morphed and shaped to connect two different regions of space into a shorter distance, thus taking less time to traverse that distance.
@The3H2SO4 Perhaps. It is the only way we can bridge the vast expanses of spacetime without violating current physical laws of normal matter always travelling below the speed of light.
@strikeout1991 I explained this in my previous response. -.-
The fastest unmanned space craft travelled at 157,000 mph. A light year is around 5.8 TRILLION miles. That means 4217 years to travel a light year, and Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years away.
@HowlingWolf518 We should initiate another age of scientific achievements like what happened between the Russians and the US, but with China this time, and instead of weaponry, space propulsion and physics.
@SniperViper1000 Mentally, technologically - yes, we're still growing; now that we're at the top of the food chain though, I'd say we're good physically. Unless of course somebody figures out immortality, x-ray vision or super-strength.
@walter0bz Very true; first wave would have to be qualified, dedicated, specifically chosen and/or nuts. Probably wouldn't even take colonists until a century later. We do need to start somewhere, though.
Besides - walking across a crater and knowing you're the first one to ever set foot there, under a night sky with stars you can't recognize? Can't get that on Antarctica.
@walter0bz Yeah... climate change, nuclear holocaust, massive economic meltdown, cataclysmic natural disasters... And the population is still rising. If we don't get at least part of that population off Earth, we'll be in serious trouble.
No Geomagnetic Field on Mars---had one billions and billions of yrs ago but gone now! Given smaller size of Mars compared to Earth; Mars "evolved' faster and is core became soild...Without a Geomagnetic field any protoatmosphere would be wiped away by the sun's CME...
@rangeclerk If there is no geomagnetic field, how does mars hold its atmosphere? Have you looked at mars through a telescope? I've seen it through a 14" telescope my friend has and it definitly has something holding an atmosphere because it is not lacking an "aura" like the moon is
@mattmatt115 Looks like u need to take Astronomy 101 Intro. Its "atmosphere" allows Gamma Rays, through to the surface of Mars. Atmospheric Pressure on the 'surface' of Mars is ONE MILLBAR of Pressure. It is 1000 MILLIBARS on the 'surface' of Earth. Given its low mass it does retain a very rarefied atmosphere but unable to hold onto an "atmosphere" to allow for the "BS" of Terraforming of Mars!
I support space settlements and space mining but terraforming is a waste of time and money!
I belive Mars have 2 get a wakeupcall of something so huge and "hot" , that there is a chance 2 wake the planet up again (Breake it down and build it up) . And as i see it , The best "and economical sane" way 2 do just that is 2 use it´s larger moon Phobos , That have been in a low decaying orbit around Mars 4 millions of years . Give it a "tap" and stand clear 4 a couple of years , If anything could get things going on mars like CFC , CD , MF , Crust movement - It´s thru methods like these.
Buzrazer 4 days ago in playlist Terraforming Mars
Comment removed
ironmantis25 3 weeks ago
It's TO SMALL! It doesn't have a Magnetic field! Not enough gravity. To dry. It wobbles dramatically. No Atmosphere. Where are you going to get a Magnetic field? Where are you going to get an ocean? Where are you going to get an atmosphere? Are you going to take them from this planet?! It's to cold! To far from the Sun. It's lopsided. All of the water will fill one side of mars since one side has a lower elevation. You can't live there! There is no reason why you could!
wavepsychic 1 month ago
terraforming will take a least 1000 years once we can figure out how to do it
screwdriver121212 1 month ago
@screwdriver121212
Sounds like a very scientific estimate!
twiztedsinnz 1 month ago
ok guys this isnt spore i doubt we will ever make mar hospitable
threeguy123 1 month ago
In one billion years we will have such tech. thatwill be able to eith move the earth during the red giant stage or terraform mars then when we cant use mars anymore we will be mystifed that jupiter will turn on and come a sun it was always ment to be . then tech will be so high we will be able to produce our own sun. so f em were here to stay
thegregjay1 1 month ago
and natural life can't resist because it has no moon
thesomebody3 1 month ago
@thesomebody3 two small ones, it has moons
Phobos and Deimos
94kricco 1 month ago
@94kricco then it is more complicated to form a terra like life, as it will have different periods of night.. and so on, also the gravitational pool is heavier, so we will have a problem with walking, unless ur skin and bones; anyways you will feel A LOT heavier
thesomebody3 1 month ago
@thesomebody3 It is possible to move animals over to Mars from Earth. It's just to clone the DNA of the animals, but first see if they can handle the terraformed Martian environment
94kricco 1 month ago
@94kricco yeah i know it's possible, but the thing is that i just mentioned that it has two moons as 94kricco said and that animals would really have to make some drastic adaptations, also the gravitational pool is way stronger then on earth.
thesomebody3 1 month ago
I woud love it to have a bit more info in the title like "Terraforming Mars Trailer-Style" or something like this...
because I was looking for a reportation... not for this... It may be good, but... not what I expected.
vielzuueberbewertet 2 months ago
Ok there's neither water or trees on Mars there is Ice but no water therefore no trees -_- seriously come on generation Y
Myimmortalghost 2 months ago
You didn't show how Mars would be terraformed, just that it will be...why is that a meaningful video?
Thedyingfire 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Google: Airborne aerial unmanned bulletproof combat drone of monitoring system.
000vortex 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In Google: Department of UFO,technologies,weapon,poison.
000vortex 2 months ago
There is still the problem with the lack of a magnetic field on Mars. Without a magnetic field, solar winds would destroy and harm a lot of things.
t8nlink 2 months ago 8
@t8nlink yeah, so they gotta find out how magneticfields are formed, i say they start searching on earth
thesomebody3 1 month ago
@t8nlink yes, you are right. the absence of a magnetic field would allow the solar winds, ultra violate and xrays to reach the atmosphere and the surface. that would shortly blow away any atmosphere that is put on that planet. the xray will spilt water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen being so light, gets blown away into space by the solar wind, and the oxygen would oxydize the elements on the surface of Mars, giving it a red color..... Well,deja vu!!
hotboyclarence 1 month ago
@hotboyclarence Lol I'm just pointing it out to the people that don't know.
t8nlink 1 month ago
why is there water on mars in that picture? i get the trees but water? thats fucking stupid
niggadownniggadown 2 months ago
@niggadownniggadown
That's some strange reasoning, since trees would need water to grow in the first place. Anyway, Mars appears to have plenty of water, but it's frozen.
dunnono00 2 months ago
@niggadownniggadown Funny considering Mars ALREADY HAS WATER.
JJAB91 2 months ago
That reminds me, I need to preorder Mass Effect 3: Collectors Edition.
EthanNin0 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HEY GUYS I HAVE THE REAL MISSION VIDEO ON MY PROFILE!! CHECK IT OUT!!
sincerely , energyscience
energyscience 4 months ago
If it is terraformed, we would need a ton of hot jungles or else we all freeze to death. the temperature on mars is -50.
IceHarmony 4 months ago
@IceHarmony increasing atmospheric density, increasing GHG levels will warm the planet up substantially.
curingaging00 4 months ago
@IceHarmony humans already live comfortably at the south pole today, and terraforming includes temperature change if needed.
cipihevent 3 months ago
@cipihevent is proved to be possible
mariamole011 3 months ago
cool, when it will teraformed we will fly to mars and live there. :D
robertas2391 4 months ago
Mass Effect soundtrack WIN.
Seriously though, we're done evolving physically - now we need to evolve technologically.
We've learned to fly, split the atom, built mile-high buildings, sent messages around the world in two minutes, and spliced DNA.
We've put a man on the moon, and also created the rumour that we DIDN'T put a man on the moon. Who says we can't go to Mars?
There's just so much waiting for humanity in the galaxy - I say we get up there and colonize it.
HowlingWolf518 4 months ago
well that was simple
Ironjagg 5 months ago
is the music mass effect?
giantchicken891 6 months ago 22
@giantchicken891 most probably
thesomebody3 1 month ago
@giantchicken891 Yes
GAM3HAZARD 1 month ago
@GAM3HAZARD i no that now haha... i have completely destroyed both of those games every achievement on both. haha.
giantchicken891 1 month ago
I think terraforming Mars would be a monumental waste of resources. We should colonize space itself. Why plunge ourselves into another gravity source? There are enormous amaounts of resources just floating around in space in the form of rocks. More than an entire planet in bitesize chunks for us to mine. Our future is in space stations, not in planetary colonies!
wishcraft4u2 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
'we' are designed to live in gravity.
AI and/or bacteria will colonize space.
'we' are just a transitionary form.
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz Lol...
I think this transition will be more expensive than even terraforming Mars, so... No... :)
Actually, people could live in space stations, no problem. You can simulate gravity by having people live on the inside of huge rotating cylinders. People always claim to know it wont work for whatever reason of course. But its usually unfounded. Like, people think it wont work because of motion sickness or something but actually itd be fine.
wishcraft4u2 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
how much energy to take someone into orbit
how much energy to take complete habitats into orbit
how much oil would that take.
i agree the spinning artificial gravity would work, but replacing earths' life support is immense task. we take so much for granted from earth. eg van alan belt, temp control, recycling of waste products etc.
"transition/expensive"
- i still say money is symbol for energy. also information, but people only withold info to get energy (info easy to copy)
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz Do you really believe terraforming the entire planet Mars and putting people on it would be cheaper?
You wouldnt actually have to go so far, there are lots of resources floating around Earth. This is vastly cheaper than surface mining for obvious reasons. Then, it takes significant efforts to bring equipment safely to the surface of a gravity well like Mars. Also, dont you think it would be cheaper to regulate the environment in a 2 mile diameter cylinder than the entire planet Mars??
wishcraft4u2 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
question is, could you make a planet self-sufficient. The word 'cheaper' refers to system of trade and social interaction. could you make self sufficient space stations?
i think i'm skeptical humans can live efficiently anywhere other than earth. Humans are part of earths biosphere. If space is 'colonized' it will most likely be by AI. or just straight bacteria.
One issue for space living is Radiation (earth's solution is geothermal powered van-alan-belt)
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz I dont know where people keep getting the radiation thing from. You'd be adequately shielded from radiation in a space station...
wishcraft4u2 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2
mars mission
recomendation for canditates was 50's because you're likely to get cancer.
other speculation for spacecraft involves a radiation-proofed capsule that the crew must retreat to during flare ups of solar wind; too expensive to shield the whole craft that way
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz a space *station*, not a rocketship...
And the same principle applies... It's hardly going to be "too expensive" compared to trying to terraform Mars.
wishcraft4u2 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
ok a space station will need a lot of sheilding. I agree though space statioins easier than terraforming entire planet.
i'm skeptical we can acheive this before peak oil.. earths *sustainable* carrying capacity is maybe 1-2billion at best.
we're not building enough space stations to house 4-5 billion people any time soon :)
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz Its really very simplistic to reduce everything to "the entire human race escaping Earth before oil runs out which will end civilization on Earth." The benefit of colonizing space would be in overcoming the scarceness of resources on earth. It would relieve a lot of economical (and ecological) pressure. Perhaps there would even be ways to harvest lots of solar energy?
Anyways, whatever you can get into space to terraform Mars, you could put to better use colonizing space itself.
wishcraft4u2 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
i think we're talking about the same thing,
you need a certain amount of energy to get into space. Can you really see a space program being run using windmills ? the industrial base for a space program is a product of the oil age.
we can't wait for the scarcity on earth before we start harvesting offworld - then it will be too late.
Sure I think harvesting solar from space is a good idea.
Energy itself is way more important than minerals.
[more]
walter0bz 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
r.e. 'economic'/'scarce resources' on earth: we have some miscalculations due to fiat/debt system which distorted market signals. The scarcity is WELL underway, but more tokens were being issued against rising property prices. peeps measuring profit from scarcity.
I think harvesting offworld energy (& resources) is more likely than outright colonization, but even then very unlikely.
99% likely: billions will die in post-oilage wars, sustainable human pop ~0.5-1billion
walter0bz 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
oil/fossil-fuels allowed 5+billion extra people to exist, I honestly can't see us building enough self-sufficient space stations to house this existing surplus wthin the next 50 years.
How many people to do you estimate we will have living in orbital colonies in 2050 ?
Will space colonization be possible against a backdrop of societal collapse (see recent UK riots, a taste of things to come) and wars?
How many countries have sufficient space program ?
walter0bz 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
I'd really rather see this 'star trek' future, but our future is Soylent Green, Mad-Max, etc.. all the dystopias rapidly coming true
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz Also, I just read some things you said... First of all, where do you get the preposterous idea that only 2 billion people could live sustainably on Earth?? Im quite perplexed by this... You do realise not even the grimmest of climate doomsayers would come anywhere near that? Sources please...
Then, actually the plans for space colonies are to construct increasingly big cylinders that simulate gravity by rotation. Hardly "like living on a submarine". Look up O'Neil cylinders.
wishcraft4u2 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2
>>"m quite perplexed by this...
2billion is the optimistic upper limit.
The most pessimistic prediction is outright extinction.
Most claim a sustainable carrying capacity in the range 0.5-2billion.
James Lovelock (gaia theory) claims 1 billion humans by end of century.
SOURCE: look at the population chart v industrial & oil age.
Now do an experiment: see how long YOU can survive without any fossil-fuel products. Make a video diary. a 'practice run'.
walter0bz 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2
>>" Look up O'Neil cylinders"
yes, I loved babylon 5, and the Usborne Book Of The Future I read in 1980.
The demand is there NOW - I can't see this being built for real against our current backdrop.
Only thing I will say is computer tech might allow robots to 'go ahead' and do the construction work - but i think you could have done that with remote control already ? The will or ability to divert resources is the issue, not the technology.
walter0bz 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2
>>"You do realise not even the grimmest of climate doomsayers would come anywhere near that?"
google -
[1] james lovelock predictions
[2] matt savinar peak oil die off
the latter covers dreams of colonizing mars & space etc in depth, in the context of peak oil
Peak Oil is more important than Climate Change: it will kill you sooner and with greater certainty.
walter0bz 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
To give everyone a western standard of living would take 5X earths' resources... but that is an oversimplification that confuses renewable/non-renewables.
Truth is that western standard of living & current human population can't even be sustained indefinitely. we've fast-forwarded a geological age by returning FF material to atmosphere. I dont think we'll go extinct, humans survived reduction to 10,000 members, but this current civ is on thin ice
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz may be we need a 1 child policiy globaly
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - correct, the fewer kids the quicker the problem is solved. Genocidal wars on a scale never seen are the more likely as we'll leave it too late.
i'm quite troubled by the number of people that can't relate oil (energy) to carrying capacity. even on comment threads about colonizing other planets. one should be thinking about energy to determine if this is helpful, or viable. mars only has a fraction of the earths surface area, yet splurging FF's multiplied earths cc 8x.
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz what is FF's cc X multipled earth? regarding the wars, it seems there will be more wars around the globe, as predicted, but i think governments are trying to work on that. in china , people are having less than 2 children per woman, i seen in a video that mers can sustain more than a bilion people. if its true or not , i dont know.
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 -
cc=Carrying Capacity. FF=Fossil Fuels. num of humans is limited by energy transformed into food; As part of nature's symbiosis (can't think of plants and animals separately, earth = single organism) there's room for ~0.5 billion humans, 1billion max? By living off FF(reservoir of millions of years of stored plant energy) we multiply unrestrained ..till that reservoir runs out. So we're already used to billions of extra peeps. I doubt Mars could sustainably hold 200million.
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz to be sustainablei guess also 200 milion max in mars, but like earth most peoplo live in relative poverty with 7 bilion. when i was younger 15 years ago, the earth had 5, 6 bilion, and people knew there would not be enough petrol, could it be that is the reason europe and russia already have its popultion under constant reductio?
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - YES - smart people realize their way of life is over-adapted so they cease to breed. When I was born , pop was 4billion, when my parents were born, 2.5billion. this can't go on. We knew our entire lives that Cars are not viable in the long run, yet we still have a society based on them. It's a collective addiction, too hard to break, because cars & other fossil-fuel products let us live where it's otherwise impossible. e.g. in climates that are too cold. etc.
walter0bz 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - to think some are actually complaining about falling populations , IMO we actually need them to fall faster. ideal TFR of 1.0 globally is the goal. yes, some countries are already as low as 1.3, thats a step in the right direction. One Utopian solution: baby license requires proof of fossil-fuel free lifestyle. car driving license = sterilization :)
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz well , i dont want to be sterilized.
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - don't drive then :)
walter0bz 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - cars are a big part of the problem - by letting you live detached from real carrying capacity e.g. living and working separate, bringing in resources from elsewhere. but biggest problem is industry generally , i.e. use of petrochemicals (oil energy) to extend food production. Some see waste i.e. if we put all the oil into basics instead of luxuries maybe earth could hold 10's of billions.. but thats until oil runs out
walter0bz 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - many peeps can't face life without a car. yet cars are the easiest part of industrial civilization to fix, i.e. teleworking, dormitories, public transport. if we can't fix car dependance we have no hope with the rest. (food & water)
walter0bz 3 months ago
@mariamole011 -
mars has 1/3rd the surface area of earth, so maybe 1/3rd the carrying capacity. Thats if you can figure out how to replicate the earths services we take for granted. so ballpark pop of mars if you're lucky is 150-300m people. compared to 6billion surpluss we already have.. it doesn't help much. even if you could do it, most humans are still doomed.
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz i think you are right , most of us humans are doomed, but remember, the majority of the people on our planet is not white europeans. but asian or dark, african, i dont know if that is relevant or not, but i dont know if those people are wiling to adopt a reduction in their population, that could be trouble.
i have a video of mars terra form.
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 -
defining aspects of western lifestyle are as bad as over-population.
1 american = same resources as nearly 10 africans.
overconsumption & overpopulation , it's a global human problem not restricted to any country or group. all face reduction in quality & quantity of life
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz asia is the most populated area in the planet.
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - 3rd world multiplies too much, 1st world consumes too much. population is a global problem, we're all linked in trade. even the poorest still benefit from fossil-fuels, i.e. trading local cash crops & cheap labour for industrially produced grain.
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz ye, we need to find a sustainable way of living,
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 -
sustainable lifestyles are easy, but we can't face it, having been spoilt by the energy lottery win. I'd hate to live without gadgets myself. Some think we can't even have computers/telecoms without fossil-fueled industry.
personally I am fatalistic.
zero kids for me, leave the earth to some better adapted species, everyone else's kids can deal with the misery of a dog-eat dog reduction from 7billion back to 1 billion :) if they face such hell whats the point of being born?
walter0bz 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - google can tell you much more about fusion than me, but
Nuclear Fission = process used in 'atom bombs' & current nuclear reactors
Nuclear Fusion = process used by the Sun, & 'hydrogen bombs'.
If Fusion could be generated in controlled reaction it would be a major breakthrough , generating energy from hydrogen isotope in water. but it is try technically difficult.
in fission/fusion atomic nuclei split or merge, releasing energy as they move closer to stable configuration (iron)
walter0bz 3 months ago
@mariamole011 -
I define our situation as Overpopulation because we rely on non-renewable energy.
Renewable = from sun's energy(plants,wind,solar..) The sun will run out but not in our timescale. Also, we can't OVERSPEND it.. its' a slow steady 'income' we can't change.
Fossil-Fuels are stored solar energy (dead plants) that took 10s of millions of years to accumulate. we 'SPEND' it as fast as we can dig it up -> exponential growth (more hands..). Like a 'Lottery Win'- fun till it runs out..
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz ye, we cant go on spending fossil fuels. are fossil fuels dead plants or dead plants and animals, like dinosaurs.?
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011.. plants. plants harness & store solar.
Fossil Fuels: we can't survive without them. This is why there is so much resistance to 'fixing global warming'.(IMO,mmgw=moot point) we waste a lot but also use some for essentials i.e. modern agriculture, medicine, raw materials for all infrastructure.. To stop using fossil... billions will starve :( if you think this is far fetched - see how long you can go without any fossil products
walter0bz 3 months ago
@wishcraft4u2
in 'peak oil die off' document, point 68 covers why peeps talk about space
walter0bz 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2
>>" You do realise not even the grimmest of climate doomsayers would come anywhere near that? "
- My hypothesis is, govts talk about Global Warming so much so as to get fossil-fuel rationing in place. MMGW is actually a moot point- given FF's will deplete, we HAVE to figure out how (or IF) we can live without them. If governments simply say "FF's will deplete and most of you will die!" there will be mass panic, rioting. We've just had rioting in major UK cities over 'nothing much'
walter0bz 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
uk population prior to industrial revolution: 6m. today, 60m
world population prior to industrial revolution: 800m. today, 6.7b
even before industrial revolution we were using coal (fossil-fuel-energy) to supplant sustainable firewood. Steam engines were invented to drain coal-mines. We already had windmils, solar-power (via plants),wind-powered global trade network - supporting pop <1billion.
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz I have read some of your document on peak oil and I admit that I probably have been overlooking this problem. I think however that there might be ways around the scenario you predict, however. Even without oil we wouldnt live in a world like before the industrial revolution. It's not as if without abundant energy and petrochemicals all our technology will become completely useless. A plant is not a solar panel, and a modern windmill not a premodern one. Also, nuclear energy.
wishcraft4u2 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2 -
thanks for taking the time to read it, I hope I introduced you to worthwhile ideas.
True that the 'descent' may force some unique solutions we can't yet predict, the best hope is teleworking/web perhaps, but its' when you connect the resource & (failed) economic model that things look worrying... what gives this credance is he predicted in 2003 economic collapse preceeds actual peak - and yes the banks were revealed to be bankrupt in 2008.
Agree 100% Nuclear Fission is needed
walter0bz 6 months ago
@wishcraft4u2
>>"Even without oil we wouldnt live in a world like before the industrial revolution."
averaging out the possibilities, i go with 2billion as a reasonably optimistic figure, i.e. still higher than pre-industrial. on the downside consider how much of the ecological 'hysteria' may be well founded - while the oil was flowing, we didn't have to maintain natural fertility, water systems, forests - these became over-spent, depleted. This is why the pessimists say STONE AGE next.
walter0bz 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@walter0bz but today we can use lectric energy.
mariamole011 3 months ago
@wishcraft4u2
youtube watch?v=29Vip-PbuZQ
his take on space travel, 2:30
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz we need a city sixed space staion, like i saw in picture once, some place we can go and back to earth as if we were geting a car and going to the coast line. that would be realy sustainable.
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - ok sustainable living is possible, just not for 6billion people. cars & industrial agri mean we already live in areas that are inhospitable , or only hospitable at very low population density. we are in a dead end already. UK so crowded that rainfall per person = same as middle east
Only fusion could save us. I expect 1-10% chance of such breakthrough . asteroid mining? more materials for constructing orbital solar panels or fissile material perhaps? still sounds ilke scifi.
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz uk and other EU countries are over crouded, like holand. what do you mean fusion?
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 -
if we solved Nuclear Fusion power (it works in bombs) then we could keep the current population level on earth, maybe even grow more.
However, it may be unfeasible. always seems 40 years away. Works in bombs, because it's unconfined. it works in the Sun, because gravity of 99.86% of the solar systems mass makes confinement. with energy you can solve any other problem. Life is all about energy. all lives' complexity is methods of channeling energy into being burned.
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz so nuclear fusion is a source of energy? is it the same as nuclear energy of the power plants?
the world average GDP is also low, i dont know if it because is over populated or not.
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - [1] 'GDP..' Money is just a social construct(pecking order) GDP is irrelevant,gets fudged. prosperity depends on available energy & efficiency with which it is used. Economic crisis is because ponzi scheme unravelled - paper wealth is not backed up by real resources.
Total resource availabity would give everyone Chinese quality of life, some have more some have less.. [more]
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz i read some parts of the web you sent, me , but the text was very long, i cant read all, but it mention that when the oil start to depleat , it could be a major cathastrophe, will kill milion, we are heading for an oil apogeu, as the population still soars.
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011
thanks for taking the time to flick through it
>>" will kill million"
...thats' *billions* not millions :(
what scares me is it's all straightforward logic, yet most people don't get it :( we're born into this world and take it for granted
walter0bz 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - Google 'matt savinar peak oil die off' for an excellent PDF on the subject of peak oil... I agree with 90% of it, he uses more detail than me. ( e.g.: i disagree that 9/11 was inside job - stresses building up were enough for genuine terror attack ; and population figure is 0.5-2billion not 0.5 as he writes, and all the alternative energy sources CAN be used for anything oil can, just in no where *near* the same quantities.)
I thoroughly recommend taking time to read it
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz we need to find a way to provide a very good standanrd of living to the population,
mariamole011 3 months ago
@mariamole011 - "we need to find a way to provide a very good standanrd of living to the population,"
i'm sure there will be many good ideas and innovations on the way down, plenty of efficiencies to find,.. we need plenty of new ideas for sure.
but i'm very fatalistic on this..
walter0bz 3 months ago
@walter0bz Also, yes, space stationS could be self-sufficient. they could specialize in processing different resources and send them to each other maybe? Really, I dont think any of the chemical elements you'd need are lacking in space. Also, agriculture in space stations, derp...
wishcraft4u2 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wishcraft4u2
>>"Our future is in space stations, not in planetary colonies!"
bear in mind this will be living conditions similar to being imprisoned on a Submarine or Arctic Research Base... permanently, with no shore leave, etc.
walter0bz 6 months ago
giving everyone a western standard of living would take 5X the earths' resources. terraforming mars & venus wouldn't even be enough
walter0bz 6 months ago
WE WILL NOT TERRAFORM MARS. THE WHOLE POINT OF GOING IS FOR THE COLONIES PEOPLE!!! TERRAFORMING THE MOON WILL START AT ABOUT A CENTURY FROM NOW IF WE ARE LUCKY!!! COLINIZATION IS ALL WE ARE DOING FOR QUITE SOME TIME...
killer1171100 6 months ago
Actually, heating Mars is not as hard as you think, "just" need to bomb it with some asteroids from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. The blows will free ENOUGH carbon-dioxide and water from the ground, and will make a global warming, which is on the Mars a quite good thing
macee17 6 months ago
@Vogel885 I doubt that.....eventually technology will get better and we will change our ways for the better good don't jump to conclusions and don't loose hope on humanity it will be a sad day to leave this planet of our origins our home..it expensive and takes a lot of effort to terraform a planet even if it was fifty years from now it's better to just invest to help ourselves for a better future
rmtheg234 7 months ago
@HowlingWolf518 We havnt conquered gravity yet, that is one of the few things we have not mastered yet but by all means if you have a levitating ship that isnt affected by gravity at all by all means show us all. But for the rest we should really start colonizing terraforming maybe not quite yet but colonizing yes.
joethecrackhorse 7 months ago
@daggeron8 Ok, To terraform this shithole, we'll need about a million heaters, 4 billion deep freeze chambers, a lot of water, and an assload of polants
Jeff12798 7 months ago
@Vogel885 lol no
jaredqwerty 7 months ago
Terraforming Mars is indeed a tall order and it may take thousands of years. Here is one way. Bombard Mars with water rich asteroids and comets. The effect of this should be studied and analyzed the best way to accomplish this and to see what would happen to the rotation and orbit of Mars. Once that is done and its ok to terraform Mars than we proceed with the actual mission. We can have a fleet of automated rockets that will seek out the asteroids and crash them into Mars.
125RTY 8 months ago
@125RTY actually it could only take 1-4 years, scientists found a natural rock that can be incinerated and add oxegan to the planet and an atmosphere, colonization mission is also will happen in 2030-2035
pieman7771 7 months ago
@pieman7771 The problem is that Mars doesn't have enough mass to keep an atmosphere. Believe it will take quite a few asteroids and comets to build it up.
125RTY 7 months ago
The effect is you will build up the mass of Mars and add extra water and other minerals. How many asteroids? Probably hundreds if not thousands. Also crash the decaying but water rich moon Phobos into Mars, it’s going to crash one day anyway. After Mars had cooled down from all the crashes it should be heavier and more water rich with an atmosphere. Now you can add the water life, plants and so on.
125RTY 8 months ago
Isn't 2148 close to the year when we discover the Prothean ruins on Mars?
draygonicewing 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I say we save Earth first
policeyuan 8 months ago
should be easy.......place some power plants on mars,send the electricity to earth(one problem solved) the co2 will create an atmosphere of itself, then u can get water in and the bacteria will make o2 for new plants to grow(green plants). and in a 100 years or so we will be ready to colonize it
axale98 8 months ago
It is perfectly possible to terraform mars, but first there needs to be traces of hydrogen in the soil. Then you need to thicken the atmosphere, to keep the heat and oxygen in, then grow some evergreen trees, to create oxygen, which should allow the water from the ice to melt and evaporate, and turn into rain which will refill the oceans!
Jacknafy 9 months ago
I love to go to planet Mars on its first day since the terraforming of Mars!!
CraigFoye80 9 months ago
@CraigFoye80 i allrdy packed my stuff :D
yoscruto1595 8 months ago
our new planet
LookHeadcrabs 9 months ago
the fact that i'll be dead when we finally terraformed it makes me unbelievable sad =/
but ok - im 14 years old at the moment i'm very inspired to spend my life in terraforming-studys, even if my career aspiration changes every 5-6 months xD
iWaffle345 10 months ago 12
If terraforming does prove difficult however, paraterraforming could be a possible alternative. This would see a large area of Mars being covered by a dome, but it would be so big you would seem like 'the outside'.
About the economy side of things:
If Mars can't make up for the money, Terraforming Mars might have to become a bit like National Service.
HNMpepper 10 months ago
I say that Mars Terraforming does seem viable, as for the solar wind you could create an artificial magnetosphere using a powerful electromagnet up in orbit, although it would probably need alot of power to use it. However given the exponential rise in power to civilisation this might be easier then you think.
HNMpepper 10 months ago
I wanna have sex on mars.
NotRly1337 10 months ago
Even if we did terraform mars, it would take at least 1000 years to be completely habitable
Killacats119 10 months ago
@Killacats119 And the problem is???? Stop being egocentric..... In around 2 milions years the sun wil start growing up, we need to find samething else to live :). Its about surving, not about holadays :).
PCartCast 10 months ago
IS A WONDERFULL PLANET.
IS BEST THAN THE EARTH xD
thepalitos 11 months ago
Our future is among the stars. What are we waiting for getting out from Earth?
secrecyXable 11 months ago
The Music makes it feel like a new destiny
rachelscloset 11 months ago
We should terraform places like Detroit, MI, Camden, NJ and baltimore, Maryland.
IstvanN1961 1 year ago
i'd be a bit afraid of a intergalactic war between earth and mars :/ think we terraform mars, they get taxed declare war :-/
FoxsitoTaquito 1 year ago
and when the heck terraforming will occur?? 100 years? too short
Legomakerx 1 year ago
Lets nurture planet Earth now. Traveling to Mars and settling there any time before A .D. 20 000 at least, is pure insanity, I would think.
WPGS25041941 1 year ago
What will live on Mars?
Sereniama 1 year ago
But would the weather be tolerable? Is this responsible? How do the other people in the universe feel about this they might not like it. We should ask them first. Maybe they have tried this already.
ironfusion 1 year ago
I don't think Mars can be terraformed easily. Most of the northern hemisphere is bellow "water level". So what would happen is that the northern parts would fill with water while the south parts not so much. There would be no ocean heat transfer mechanism like the Gulf current in the Atlantic here on Earth.
T0B0KKE 1 year ago
I WANT TO PLAY MASS EFFECT 3!!!!!
LaurenziusMaXXXimus 1 year ago
In order for mars to be terraformed, the same thing that humanity has done to earth has to be done there. To create a green house affect, in doing this the frozen co2 will melt and slowly create an atmosphere and after that plants could be planted to grow and start creating oxygen thus leading to a new earth in like a couple hundred years...while venus turned into a acidic death trap mars just froze. awesome.lol
shaisekneal 1 year ago
which mass effect soundtrack is this, its so catchy
lordhound7 1 year ago
Mass Effect soundtrack WIN.
Seriously though, humanity's future is among the stars. We've already evolved to peak physical capacity; now we need take the next step and evolve technologically.
We've conquered gravity, split the atom, built to the sky, and are now exploring the heavens. I say we colonize them.
HowlingWolf518 1 year ago 50
@HowlingWolf518 "Conquered gravity"? You seriously think lifting your arms is a technological achievement worthy of being listed along with nuclear fission?
CaptainVideo890 1 year ago
@CaptainVideo890 In that interpretation, one can say that FLOWERS can conquer gravity. I'm talking about aircraft and skyscrapers, man.
HowlingWolf518 1 year ago
@HowlingWolf518 We need to find a way to bridge the huge gap between solar systems though. Even at light speed, it takes thousands of years to reach our nearest star, Proxima Centauri. Your words are inspirational though. :')
CarlosMarti123 1 year ago
@CarlosMarti123 True. And even if we do figure out how get there in a couple of years, we don't really know how to make a world - 'specially since we still don't know how NOT to screw up our own!
And then there's the question of what to do if said world is already occupied... (sigh), humanity's got its hands full, 100 years from now.
HowlingWolf518 1 year ago
@HowlingWolf518 Let's just hope they invent space cruisers by our time. ;)
CarlosMarti123 1 year ago
@CarlosMarti123 Thousands of years to Proxima Centauri? You are stupid,you know?
The3H2SO4 1 year ago
Comment removed
CarlosMarti123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@The3H2SO4 Perhaps you are retarded enough not to do your research before acting like a moron.
The fastest unmanned space craft travelled at 157,000 mph. A light year is around 5.8 TRILLION miles. That means 4217 years to travel a light year, and Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years away. Do the math, genius.
CarlosMarti123 1 year ago
@CarlosMarti123 You said "even at light speed". If ship traveling at 300000 km/s speed then it arrives there in about 4 years. By the way,nothing can travel faster than light.
The3H2SO4 1 year ago
@The3H2SO4 Agreed. No object of non-zero mass can be accelerated to the speed of light in a vacuum. However, saying "nothing" can travel faster than light is a generalization. Things can travel "faster than light" depending on how you look at it. Spacetime itself has the possibility of being morphed and shaped to connect two different regions of space into a shorter distance, thus taking less time to traverse that distance.
CarlosMarti123 1 year ago
@CarlosMarti123 You talking about space-time shortcut (a.k.a wormhole) ?
The3H2SO4 1 year ago
@The3H2SO4 Perhaps. It is the only way we can bridge the vast expanses of spacetime without violating current physical laws of normal matter always travelling below the speed of light.
CarlosMarti123 1 year ago
@CarlosMarti123
thousand of years?
wrong, with light speed, it would take us 4 (light)years, to get, to Proxima Centauri.
strikeout1991 1 year ago
@strikeout1991 I explained this in my previous response. -.-
The fastest unmanned space craft travelled at 157,000 mph. A light year is around 5.8 TRILLION miles. That means 4217 years to travel a light year, and Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years away.
CarlosMarti123 1 year ago
@HowlingWolf518 We should initiate another age of scientific achievements like what happened between the Russians and the US, but with China this time, and instead of weaponry, space propulsion and physics.
KawasakiPlant 1 year ago
@HowlingWolf518 Why?
alexthekiller25 11 months ago
@HowlingWolf518 Saying we evolved to our peak physical capacity is wrong. We're still evolving. Infact we're evolving faster then ever.
SniperViper1000 9 months ago
@SniperViper1000 Mentally, technologically - yes, we're still growing; now that we're at the top of the food chain though, I'd say we're good physically. Unless of course somebody figures out immortality, x-ray vision or super-strength.
HowlingWolf518 9 months ago
@HowlingWolf518 -
honestly at what point do you think moving to Mars will be an appealing prospect.
You'd be less isolated in a research base in Antarctica or permanently living on a submarine. True space colonization is a LONG way off.
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz Very true; first wave would have to be qualified, dedicated, specifically chosen and/or nuts. Probably wouldn't even take colonists until a century later. We do need to start somewhere, though.
Besides - walking across a crater and knowing you're the first one to ever set foot there, under a night sky with stars you can't recognize? Can't get that on Antarctica.
HowlingWolf518 6 months ago
@HowlingWolf518 -
opposite scenario is probably more likely: human enviro damage turns earth into mars or venus.
walter0bz 6 months ago
@walter0bz Yeah... climate change, nuclear holocaust, massive economic meltdown, cataclysmic natural disasters... And the population is still rising. If we don't get at least part of that population off Earth, we'll be in serious trouble.
HowlingWolf518 6 months ago
No Geomagnetic Field on Mars---had one billions and billions of yrs ago but gone now! Given smaller size of Mars compared to Earth; Mars "evolved' faster and is core became soild...Without a Geomagnetic field any protoatmosphere would be wiped away by the sun's CME...
rangeclerk 1 year ago
@rangeclerk If there is no geomagnetic field, how does mars hold its atmosphere? Have you looked at mars through a telescope? I've seen it through a 14" telescope my friend has and it definitly has something holding an atmosphere because it is not lacking an "aura" like the moon is
mattmatt115 1 year ago
@mattmatt115 Looks like u need to take Astronomy 101 Intro. Its "atmosphere" allows Gamma Rays, through to the surface of Mars. Atmospheric Pressure on the 'surface' of Mars is ONE MILLBAR of Pressure. It is 1000 MILLIBARS on the 'surface' of Earth. Given its low mass it does retain a very rarefied atmosphere but unable to hold onto an "atmosphere" to allow for the "BS" of Terraforming of Mars!
I support space settlements and space mining but terraforming is a waste of time and money!
rangeclerk 1 year ago
i take it this is a game?
if so how do i get it?
YouCelebrityTube 1 year ago
mars has almost no magnetic field terraforming will be quite hard because a solar flare will destroy entire life.