@@aguyontheinternet8436 We would need to be a Type 1.6 civilization and if I remember correctly we're barely at 0.8, it will take another 500 to 600 years assuming that a man-child like Putin, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jingping or any other dictator doesn't go completely bat-shit insane and reset civilization with nukes because they feel "threatened".
remember, for everything that brings life, it can also take away life, as it knows exactly how life works enough to reverse the thing that gave life, a terraformer ship would just as easily be able to un-terraform and cause mass extinctions on already populated planets just as easily as it could make unpopulated planets livable
Sound like making one Space Laser to test stuff out should be a nice safe enough check, though planning for a recoverable failure is always important. Important to actually do something though, just sitting and theorizing forever will get nothing done, best to just figure out some stuff to test and go ahead. Edit: Could have the thing launch a nuke at some other point too, then send some rovers to check the nuked zone and the lasered zone for stuff.
Well... domes is not a terraforming option because terraform means altering the planet to make it haitable, or alter it to different use. And the title is "How to terraform mars", not "How to live in mars".
6:34 imagine if future humans would go like: oh yeah, we are so smart, we are gonna terraform Mars; and then everything would get rect, because we have no idea how terraforming really works, lol
We have ideas on how to stop it, just takes heavy reforms on a global scale that politicians don't want to touch with a ten thousands foot pole or so? I'm not suggesting we know all the answers, because we honestly just frankly don't. But a lot of the things that are going bad, we could make better by changing how things are done.
@@Za11oy Absolutely, imagine a world where countries aren't actively wanting to nuke each other. I honestly think that if the UN was run by competent leaders we'd be at least a 0.9 civilization, we could have set goals for Humanity that all countries would aim to achieve like clean energy and reversing climate change to at least pre-industrial levels if possible, research how to prolong our lifespans and so on.
There ARE great ideas and initiatives, but as earlier mentioned, politicians are being politicians and would rather turn the blind eye than to do something about it.
I imagine with technological advancements, wed travel to and from so often, interbreeding will be impossible to avoid, making any newly mutated genes a part of the earth gene pools. Burn if a colony stays on mars for a few thousand years with no earth gene influence after the migration, they’d evolve into something distinct. I wonder at what point pure earth and mars species would be reproductively incompatible.
Practically speaking, maybe, but becoming a separate species would take at the least millions of years. Possibly even that wouldn’t be enough assuming mars keeps regular contact and interbreeding with Earth’s population.
the video isn't "how to make livable domes on mars" its "how to TERRAFORM mars " which making domes isn't terrafroming. if you make a habitat in space that has life in a dome. you haven't terraformed space
Mars magnetosphere weakened allowing solar rays and winds to destroy the atmosphere. This is either due to it small size causing its core cool quicker and reduce churn or some kinda large planetary impact thats damaged or disrupted the core and thus weakening the magnetosphere. Before large scale teraforming of mars can take place some form of planetary shielding would be required to protect the atmosphere from being destroyed and chemically broken down and blasted away by solar winds.
It’s videos like this that make me realise why Neil DGT said no matter how many resources we can put into terraforming it’ll always be easier to just fix earth lol.
What about gravity? Did I miss it or did they actually skip over the gravity issue entirely. And why would we assume “trees will grow taller” instead of “trees will not grow in the proportions they were genetically designed to do and with the force they are built to suck up water out of the ground and live.”
The problem with developing Terra Domes would be a lack of space and inefficiency. Yes, terraforming a planet has a much larger upfront cost and would take a lot of engineering, planning, etc. to get up and running. But the journey to Mars or Venus is such an arduous task that it needs to be worth it, and having a self-sustaining biosphere that makes the whole planet livable would offer so much more potential for settlement and other endeavors. I like to think of it like a cargo plane; is it a lot more work to pack them full to the brim, and does it take more fuel to fly them at max load? Yes, but it's more efficient than only packing them partway because there is a minimum resource cost for hauling the dry mass of the plane or rocket. That's not even going into the logistics of running out of room and needing to expand or develop new Terra Domes, or the psychological detriment of living in a bubble. People get upset when they have to layer up to go outside on a snowy day, I can't imagine the hassle of needing a spacesuit to go anywhere outside the dome.
This sounds less crazy than Elon's idea of nuking Mars but I still feel it's drastic. Can't we do it with less potentially planet destroying methods? Also, if we do it like this, aren't we destroying endless swaths of geological evidence that can help us study Mars further? Not to mention if there happens to be subterranean life. Etc
So, the whole process of constructing a biosphere is _very_ destructive. The atmosphere needs to be filled via some method, the gases converted, rocks broken into soil. Oceans need a water source, too. Long story short, there does need to be significant surface changes to make this all happen unless we just bury it all. However, there is another reason we want to pretty thoroughly tear through the surface: Mars’s toxic sand. It’s filled with compounds poisonous to most forms of life, and we’d need to do some significant work to detoxify it if we don’t do something with high heat and practically disintegrate a good chunk of the surface to break up those toxic compounds. It’ll release loads of iron, carbon, and salts so we won’t have to import them. Much of the concern when terraforming is where materials for life come from; here, we can reconstitute what’s there into something liveable. Of course, that means we’ll have to do searches and excavations for archeological, biological, and geological studies well before we do terraforming. It’ll be a while before we can do all that laser blasting, so we have time to determine if it’s the best option or if terraforming is even a good option for Mars.
@@tetraxis3011 A better question is why bother? Venus is infinitely more suited for a second home than Mars but also ''"on the timescale our ancestors built monuments in"? That's way too long, I'd bet we get warp space and nuclear fusion even before just the terraforming part is complete, so now we can get to other solar systems with actual Earth-like planets making the whole exercise pointless (tbh all that money and resources would be better spent improving lives here on Earth).
@@maximipe Venus is far more difficult to terraform, and according to Kusrgesagt, it could take THOUSANDS of years, while mars may take 500 years.and in my opinion, we need a Habitable planet soon, before another world war starts and we all kill each other.
We should look for other plants for the simple reason of having insurance against a world-destroying asteroid. Not to mention all the things we would learn in the process, and the many billions of potential new humans that would emerge as we settle newly terraformed planets. New cultures, new ideas, more scientists that can help advance technology to enable things like interstellar space travel, which you mention.
It's funny we have two polar opposites to choose from. One (Venus) where we need to remove CO2 and the other (Mars) where we need to do what we're best at (creating greenhouse gases) to create the atmosphere.
We understand how to make topsoil better than that fyi. Regenerative agriculture methods like no till help. A keyline or yoeman plow cuts a deep rut in soil. This allows water to percolate through the soil without turning over the soil killing the biome. The topsoil can be generated from the bottom up with microbes colonizing the water rich soil that is not being tilled. Perennial crops help a lot too. Making biochar and compost can help a lot too
The video is about the idea of terriforming mars, you look like you had a lot more to say about this, but dident say anything, you are the physicist, exsplain more please
meanwhile, those examples like in Destiny official E3 gameplay experience trailer's portrayal. at its twenty seventh Second part. yes. see for that example. one powerful, existential example at that.
I do not hear any jumpscare static there. or any jumpers-felt Moment in that. but if there is, on this video, then you must have typed it wrongly and it is not somewhere during ''07' : 54' and such?
I presume it would take a titanic work, if you want to make a 3000km hole in a planet that doesn't collapse you run into a lot of problems like: how much energy would it take? is that even close to melting a few meters of surface? where would the molten rocks go, you would need to take it out of the hole somehow? wouldn't that absolutely demolish the planet's atmosphere to the point where it's far worse than Venus?
@@boberboberowski3411 it will take a titanic amount of work, but when you have the tech to control that much energy so you can do a controlled melting of the surface and a controlled sculpting of rivers and vallies, you can probably direct the energy inwards. The same technology (fiber optics?) that allow the lasers to be fired in the first place can be used to pump the energy into the core, or at least close to it. You wouldn't have to dig massive holes. It also helps that the planet is geologically almost inert, so you won't have too many worries compared to digging on Earth. Lastly, you don't need to melt the entire thing like with Earth. Just enough for a magnetic field. Oh and if you're worried about it being like Venus, it being under the surface means it's pretty well-insulated from the atmosphere so not sure what you're worried about there.
@@ShiroKage009 do you realise what's the difference between warming 8 meters of planet surface by 5000 centidegrees and warming entire planet's core to the same temparature? If the first would take like 50 years or so, then the second, would take about 800000 years (that's an oversimplified calculation, but I hope it shows the scale of the venture), also known as a very long time. Secondly, you haven't addressed the issue with taking out liquid rock when drilling the tunnel. A normal drill bit has the shape it has for a very good reason, you know? Another problem with getting to mars core is that gravity doesn't really like deep tunnels, so in order for it not to colapse, after like 5 seconds, you would need to stabilize it somehow, which again, seems like a big problem to me. Btw. Why would you even need to make the planet's core hot? That would only be a threat to planet's young ecosystem and we aren't even sure if that core could create a magnetic field like ours. I thought your idea wasn't as bad initially, but the longer I think about it, the worse it gets
@@boberboberowski3411 you dont't need to dig ultra deep tunnels and you don't need to reach the core. Just far enough to deposit the energy and trap it under the surface, and just thick enough to house the energy piping materials. As for how long it takes, tech evolves so you can keep installing more powerful lasers. This whole plan assumes Dyson sphere technology anyway, so the energy would be relatively abundant. As for why, it's to have a powerful magnetosphere that isn't dependant on constant human intervention. I wouldn't trust a shield in L1 to not be blown away over time by eolar wind or be shot by a stray piece of rock.
It appears that an automated mirror factory is the foundation of most "futuristic mega-projects" out there. Dyson swarm, beamed energy, space telescopes and so on. Being able to manipulate light is essential for communicating and energy transfer, and mirrors seems to be the only viable method to employ on an astronomical scale. I wonder, has NASA funded the development of self-replicating robots that are capable of making mirrors? Certain components like chips are difficult to fabricate in space, so they must be shipped from Earth.
Mars has less gravity. Meaning much larger structures can be built and they would have less wear and tear than the ones commonly found on earth. So I'm all on board with the whole biodome bandwagon.
imma do some math mars is 6779km wide and 1 bar of atomsphere eqates to 1.2kg/m3 to have 1 bar of pressure lets say we give mars a 150km atmosphere because its weaker gravity lets say the bottoms 15km is 80% of the mass and for simplicity im only going to do calculations for the troposhere because im not gonna do a pressure gradient thing 2 billion km3 why is it wrong
I have seen some of your Videos now.. And first.. I like to here another Opinion. 🙂 On the other Hand - kurzgesagt has a whole Team of Authors, Artists and Scientists that FactCheck their Videos.. So Sometimes it feels a little arrogant when you "correct" something... even more when they specify the Topic a few seconds Later and you have to admit that your correction was too fast.. Let's be honest... You use "Kurzgesagt" to promote your Product... A little more humbleness would help - I think!
Just making a climatised dome on Mars is actually a terrible idea for the same reason we can't really do it on the moon: No atmosphere. A passing asteroid could crack it open and kill literally everyone because there's nothing to make it disintegrate before impact.
1. Terraforming Mars without the lasers is not an option. You saw how gruesome it would be to do it manually in the Mars base reaction; nobody is going to go for that. 2. A walled-off dome on Mars is NOT a home; it's a prison. An entire planet is a home. We don't live in walled-off dome on Earth; we live on the entire planet of Earth. Mars should be no different. So yes we DO need to terraform the whole planet. The dome may be the simpler way, but terraforming all of Mars is the right way. The fact is that the right way is complicated sometimes; simpler isn't always better. 3. Kurzgesagt gave you the idea to terraform Venus in the first place; you reacted to the terraform Venus episode earlier. 4. Yes we should terraform Venus, but not just Venus; Mars too. To expand across the solar system, we mustn't only terraform one rocky celestial body, but every viable one in the solar system. Mercury is not viable and is better put to use for building materials for the Dyson sphere.
I mean, you can only test planetary physics on the planetary scale. I also don't really understand what you mean bu "planetary physics" from my understanding there is quantum physics and astrophysics. Y will assume that you mean that we can't possible domino effects that burning the planet may cause, but once again the only way to find out would be to try. and when you say "ruin one of your planets" there are only really a few things that could "ruin" mars. radiation and maybe a chemical reaction produces a chemical that is deadly in large quantities, which given what we currently know about the makeup of mars is very unlikely.
YUP lower gravity will cause bone demineralization, muscle mass loss and other physical effect for long term effect. Higher gravity causes stress fractures, spinal disk compression, all other joints will compress and rupture..
Surly if we ever needed to do anything like this…. We could just put people in a orbit around our planet as we terraform the planet we are on, it’s a much easier starting point and is much closer
I mean we can used mars as charger to our batteries here, why terraform it if we can already used it as a engery stock. Seriously we kept making things difficult in terms of energy when mars exist have a highly radioactive substance good for making engery cells.
The biggest problem is Mars Iron core is solid now, it has no magnetic field se even if we recreate an atmosphere it will just get stripped away again by solar winds, without solving that problem first it is a mute point, the only option other wise is like you said at the beginning and that would be biospheres. without reigniting the planets core, or some how creating a very large powerful magnetic field, witch is a lot harder than it sounds it's never going to happen until we solve those issues.
i calculated if you made gigantic pump stations on venus that cover like a qaurter of the surface and pump 10 billion tons of atmosphere a day into space at the sun you would take around 131 million years to pump all the gas off
I think it was NASA that came up with the most natural and safest way.. MAKE ASTEROIDS CRASH INTO THE SURFACE AND HOPEFULLY SOME WILL HAVE ENOUGH TO GIVE WATER
Also Space around Mars is full of Martian dust, (see Juno mission for data), it's look like the worst case scenario for using space lasers with magical energy return and all mighty resistance to sun wind and radiation (and dust) and rapid component wear due to the power of the lasers... Also the planets tend to return to their general equilibrium, atmospheric equilibrium and their hydrostatic equilibrium, no ? Their project seem completely dumb on so many point, full of magical technology and we-can-do-it-later engineering.... That's,... "surprising" about Kurzgesagt... And that's not how my teachers taught me science at school. So... now we need you Dylan, to research and invent all of those things.... ;)
Hearing the constant “but it also has a chance not to work” is like when you see a meme but it is referring a stranger as he and someone in the comments say shit like “BUT WOMEN CAN ALSO DO IT” when it’s extremely obvious that women can also do that but you’re not doing ANYTHING to help with actual discrimination by doing that, the same way that it doesn’t fucking matter to hear that it “might not” work. Pointless negativity
Our biology is modulate to our Earth gravity well, even the amount of radiation we take on the surface. The only solution to terraform mars is to start dropping huge rocks until it reach a similar mass that earth has, then the rest of the process can be done. If you don't do this part all humans going there will have a misery life. The planet is the size of our outer-core. Of course, please do a archeology and other scientific research on the red planet before starting reshaping the surface or burying under miles of rock. Maybe that is also the only way to "revive" the core of mars.
I am disappointed with your lack of criticism. One shouldn't even need to be a physicist to know how fantastically idiiiiiotic the kurzgesagt video is. They really outdid themselves with this one and no one seems to be noticing, not even the physicists apparently. For starters, NO, actually, heating the surface of Mars with LASERS isn't just fantastically infeasible, it is pointlessly inefficient. Do you not realize lasers typically are less than 10% efficient? Which means, if the lasers produce so much power they can heat up the entire surface of the planet Mars to 5000 degrees, they will be internally dissipating over 10 times that much power within itself. So to be clear, we'd be talking about a laser the size of a planet bigger than Mars in order to be able to withstand the waste heat itself, because if it was ONLY the size of Mars, it would be heated to TEN thousand degrees itself. Which says nothing about the issue of providing it with the power it needs. And the energy it would need would be many thousands of times as much sunlight hits Mars already (because Mars already IS the temperature that it is, BECAUSE of the sunlight hitting it in the quantity it is currently hitting it in, so naturally your lasers if solar powered would need thousands of times the collecting area as the entire surface area of Mars), so you would also need to collect like a trillion square miles of sunlight to power it. Do you think humans could build such a laser, EVER? Or could power it? We'd already be talking type 2 civilization levels of power. At LEAST they shouldn't be talking about using a laser. You would do MUCH, MUCH better just to reflect regular sunlight onto Mars with a bunch of regular mirrors in space, than to try to wastefully add this pointless step of converting it into laser light in the middle, just to use the laser for nothing more than heating the surface of Mars. There's no need for it to be laser light if it's just going to be used as a heat source. But also, if it was so easy to make such LARGE arrays of mirrors as would be necessary, fixing global warming on Earth would be a SNAP, because you could do it just by reflecting 1 or 2 percent of the light that would get to the Earth, away before it got here. Cooling the Earth by 1 degree by reflecting some light away before it gets here, that's literally millions of times easier than heating the surface of Mars to 5000 degrees (and billions of times easier than doing it with lasers), and humans can't even manage that much, they can't even come close to even contemplate doing it.
NO Reaction to all the nonsense!?! First up those Glass-rod lasers that will melt Mars at 5500°C would have to magically be kept below 1000°C themselves, and that would be IF they were magical perfect lasers which don't exist but lets suppose they're so good that their beams diverge only 1cm per kilometer i.e. 10m per 1000km which would be 1.36km wide when the laser is in geostat orbit so it can stay on target long enough to heat the surface - How wide is each of these glass-rod laser's going to be? Absolute FACT you can NOT melt the surface with lasers. Second issue, just add some "super greenhouse gases" - only HCFC and HFCs are stable enough for use and they destroy ozone which means high energy UV now sterilizes your new Mars surface. Third issue, the L1 point is unstable meaning you have to keep using fuel to stay in position, you'd have to keep supplying fuel and correcting its orbit for all eternity to prevent your Mars getting smacked by Solar wind.
Inhabiting Mars is biologically sensible for any species able to do so, at first it be best to build underground habitats and hydroponic farms using regolith to protect themselves from both Solar Wind, UV and cosmic gamma-ray irradiation. I would suggest a deep but narrow part of the Mariner Valley if people wish to be able to colonise part of the surface one day, dig a well for reliable geothermal warmth, start removing perchlorates from the soil, explore the outer asteroid belt as candidates for crashing near the other side of Mars, construct a L1* magnetic shield and a large geostat* mirror to keep your section of the Valley lit 24x7. * NB: excess chlorine could be used as ion engine propellant for the geostat and deep space missions. Explanation: to be able to safely exit underground habitats you at least need to establish sufficient atmosphere to protect people from cosmic rays, i'd guess by time you've got at least half as much gas overhead as on Earth which would mean around a quarter bar pressure at Mars surface, this should happen first along the lowest part of the Mariner Valley allowing dome habitats and city scrapes to be used as you perhaps continue increasing the atmosphere if wanted (I'm guessing a desirable target composition might be around 1% CO2, 30% Oxygen, and as much Nitrogen and inert gases as you can get your hands on - - perhaps there's a good source of nitrogen inside Mars somewhere but I would be concerned until its found; nitrogen as well as oxygen and carbon are needed in large amounts by our biology).
Isn’t it also the case that we have no lasers nor theories around lasers that can travel the distance required? That is why all the “let’s beam solar energy from panels in space” idea folks can’t get the projects going. You can send microwaves or lasers. Those are options. You lose energy with both the further you travel, and lasers travel even shorter than microwaves.
Unrelated: I know you scientists want to be respected for your minds, but you are handsome enough to be a magazine model or movie star. Have you considered trying that? Why not use those random genetic gifts for making some easy money, while simultaneously spreading your physics lore. You look like blonde Aussie Clark Kent, is what I'm saying . . . .
Seeing the likes of Dylan, Derek (Veritasium), and Becky (dr rebecca smedhurst) strutting around on a Chanel, Dior, or Gucci runway and having the time of their lives is far too fun to stop thinking about.
"Let's build some big ass orbital laser canons that can melt planets!" - I don't think human will use them only for terraforming purpose.
I mean, it's kinda like how we don't use nukes
No one wants to live on a melted planet
Sure we can. We can terraform a planet while at the same time destroying enemy aliens.
@@WolfeSaber9933 I like the way you think
Extreme multitasking. Nice.
Bup bada bada bada bowww
Does this mean that technically the death star could've been used to terraform planets instead of destroy them
no. It means it could help terraform planets, but you would need a lot more than just a death star
@@aguyontheinternet8436 We would need to be a Type 1.6 civilization and if I remember correctly we're barely at 0.8, it will take another 500 to 600 years assuming that a man-child like Putin, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jingping or any other dictator doesn't go completely bat-shit insane and reset civilization with nukes because they feel "threatened".
remember, for everything that brings life, it can also take away life, as it knows exactly how life works enough to reverse the thing that gave life, a terraformer ship would just as easily be able to un-terraform and cause mass extinctions on already populated planets just as easily as it could make unpopulated planets livable
@@XiaoYueMao How a Rifle Brings life?
on low power
"I love mosquitoes."
-Someone who doesn't have to deal with them everyday for the rest of their lives
I do like Dragon Flies though.
Sound like making one Space Laser to test stuff out should be a nice safe enough check, though planning for a recoverable failure is always important. Important to actually do something though, just sitting and theorizing forever will get nothing done, best to just figure out some stuff to test and go ahead.
Edit: Could have the thing launch a nuke at some other point too, then send some rovers to check the nuked zone and the lasered zone for stuff.
Well... domes is not a terraforming option because terraform means altering the planet to make it haitable, or alter it to different use.
And the title is "How to terraform mars", not "How to live in mars".
6:34 imagine if future humans would go like: oh yeah, we are so smart, we are gonna terraform Mars; and then everything would get rect, because we have no idea how terraforming really works, lol
I like our ideas to terraform other planets while we destroying our planet with no idea to stop it.
We have ideas on how to stop it, just takes heavy reforms on a global scale that politicians don't want to touch with a ten thousands foot pole or so? I'm not suggesting we know all the answers, because we honestly just frankly don't. But a lot of the things that are going bad, we could make better by changing how things are done.
@@Za11oy Absolutely, imagine a world where countries aren't actively wanting to nuke each other. I honestly think that if the UN was run by competent leaders we'd be at least a 0.9 civilization, we could have set goals for Humanity that all countries would aim to achieve like clean energy and reversing climate change to at least pre-industrial levels if possible, research how to prolong our lifespans and so on.
We know how to stop it, our current predicament is due to the existing energy companies influence the politicians to halt our progress.
@@baishihua Yup, and as long as we don't hold said companies to the sword and demand change we will never see prosperity.
There ARE great ideas and initiatives, but as earlier mentioned, politicians are being politicians and would rather turn the blind eye than to do something about it.
My question is :
Will the humans that would live on mars evolve into something entirely different from us?
The only difference would most likely be that they'll be taller because their gravity is weaker and blood flow would change its pace slightly.
I imagine with technological advancements, wed travel to and from so often, interbreeding will be impossible to avoid, making any newly mutated genes a part of the earth gene pools. Burn if a colony stays on mars for a few thousand years with no earth gene influence after the migration, they’d evolve into something distinct. I wonder at what point pure earth and mars species would be reproductively incompatible.
Practically speaking, maybe, but becoming a separate species would take at the least millions of years. Possibly even that wouldn’t be enough assuming mars keeps regular contact and interbreeding with Earth’s population.
There will be easily noticeable physiological differences, for sure (ex. they're gonna be taller, yet a bit weaker than Earth humans)
Well they would be taller and weaker than the ones from earth, but they wouldn't really be a seperate species.
the video isn't "how to make livable domes on mars" its "how to TERRAFORM mars " which making domes isn't terrafroming. if you make a habitat in space that has life in a dome. you haven't terraformed space
Mars magnetosphere weakened allowing solar rays and winds to destroy the atmosphere. This is either due to it small size causing its core cool quicker and reduce churn or some kinda large planetary impact thats damaged or disrupted the core and thus weakening the magnetosphere. Before large scale teraforming of mars can take place some form of planetary shielding would be required to protect the atmosphere from being destroyed and chemically broken down and blasted away by solar winds.
Yes this is the 1st question to be answered before anything else is done
6:34
well we seem to already be doing that
It’s videos like this that make me realise why Neil DGT said no matter how many resources we can put into terraforming it’ll always be easier to just fix earth lol.
What about gravity? Did I miss it or did they actually skip over the gravity issue entirely. And why would we assume “trees will grow taller” instead of “trees will not grow in the proportions they were genetically designed to do and with the force they are built to suck up water out of the ground and live.”
The problem with developing Terra Domes would be a lack of space and inefficiency. Yes, terraforming a planet has a much larger upfront cost and would take a lot of engineering, planning, etc. to get up and running. But the journey to Mars or Venus is such an arduous task that it needs to be worth it, and having a self-sustaining biosphere that makes the whole planet livable would offer so much more potential for settlement and other endeavors. I like to think of it like a cargo plane; is it a lot more work to pack them full to the brim, and does it take more fuel to fly them at max load? Yes, but it's more efficient than only packing them partway because there is a minimum resource cost for hauling the dry mass of the plane or rocket.
That's not even going into the logistics of running out of room and needing to expand or develop new Terra Domes, or the psychological detriment of living in a bubble. People get upset when they have to layer up to go outside on a snowy day, I can't imagine the hassle of needing a spacesuit to go anywhere outside the dome.
This sounds less crazy than Elon's idea of nuking Mars but I still feel it's drastic. Can't we do it with less potentially planet destroying methods? Also, if we do it like this, aren't we destroying endless swaths of geological evidence that can help us study Mars further? Not to mention if there happens to be subterranean life. Etc
Maybe, but How? How do we give mars an actual atmosphere and oceans?
So, the whole process of constructing a biosphere is _very_ destructive. The atmosphere needs to be filled via some method, the gases converted, rocks broken into soil. Oceans need a water source, too. Long story short, there does need to be significant surface changes to make this all happen unless we just bury it all.
However, there is another reason we want to pretty thoroughly tear through the surface: Mars’s toxic sand. It’s filled with compounds poisonous to most forms of life, and we’d need to do some significant work to detoxify it if we don’t do something with high heat and practically disintegrate a good chunk of the surface to break up those toxic compounds. It’ll release loads of iron, carbon, and salts so we won’t have to import them. Much of the concern when terraforming is where materials for life come from; here, we can reconstitute what’s there into something liveable.
Of course, that means we’ll have to do searches and excavations for archeological, biological, and geological studies well before we do terraforming. It’ll be a while before we can do all that laser blasting, so we have time to determine if it’s the best option or if terraforming is even a good option for Mars.
@@tetraxis3011 A better question is why bother? Venus is infinitely more suited for a second home than Mars but also ''"on the timescale our ancestors built monuments in"? That's way too long, I'd bet we get warp space and nuclear fusion even before just the terraforming part is complete, so now we can get to other solar systems with actual Earth-like planets making the whole exercise pointless (tbh all that money and resources would be better spent improving lives here on Earth).
@@maximipe Venus is far more difficult to terraform, and according to Kusrgesagt, it could take THOUSANDS of years, while mars may take 500 years.and in my opinion, we need a Habitable planet soon, before another world war starts and we all kill each other.
We should look for other plants for the simple reason of having insurance against a world-destroying asteroid. Not to mention all the things we would learn in the process, and the many billions of potential new humans that would emerge as we settle newly terraformed planets. New cultures, new ideas, more scientists that can help advance technology to enable things like interstellar space travel, which you mention.
It's funny we have two polar opposites to choose from. One (Venus) where we need to remove CO2 and the other (Mars) where we need to do what we're best at (creating greenhouse gases) to create the atmosphere.
We understand how to make topsoil better than that fyi. Regenerative agriculture methods like no till help. A keyline or yoeman plow cuts a deep rut in soil. This allows water to percolate through the soil without turning over the soil killing the biome. The topsoil can be generated from the bottom up with microbes colonizing the water rich soil that is not being tilled. Perennial crops help a lot too. Making biochar and compost can help a lot too
How to terraform Mars? Cockroaches and algae... oh wait.
The video is about the idea of terriforming mars, you look like you had a lot more to say about this, but dident say anything, you are the physicist, exsplain more please
meanwhile, those examples like in Destiny official E3 gameplay experience trailer's portrayal. at its twenty seventh Second part.
yes. see for that example.
one powerful, existential example at that.
Makes so much more sense to make domes over Craters for bug habitats with multiple layers of protection within the domes.
Big lasers 😂 and a new home i think mars needs some freedom
7:54 scared the crap out of me
I do not hear any jumpscare static there.
or any jumpers-felt Moment in that.
but if there is, on this video, then you must have typed it wrongly and it is not somewhere during ''07' : 54' and such?
"Wouldn't want to ruin one of our few planets" lol
If we can melt the surface, why not use that energy to dig down to the core and melt the planet from the inside-out? The lasers are still there.
I presume it would take a titanic work, if you want to make a 3000km hole in a planet that doesn't collapse you run into a lot of problems like: how much energy would it take? is that even close to melting a few meters of surface? where would the molten rocks go, you would need to take it out of the hole somehow? wouldn't that absolutely demolish the planet's atmosphere to the point where it's far worse than Venus?
@@boberboberowski3411 it will take a titanic amount of work, but when you have the tech to control that much energy so you can do a controlled melting of the surface and a controlled sculpting of rivers and vallies, you can probably direct the energy inwards. The same technology (fiber optics?) that allow the lasers to be fired in the first place can be used to pump the energy into the core, or at least close to it. You wouldn't have to dig massive holes. It also helps that the planet is geologically almost inert, so you won't have too many worries compared to digging on Earth. Lastly, you don't need to melt the entire thing like with Earth. Just enough for a magnetic field.
Oh and if you're worried about it being like Venus, it being under the surface means it's pretty well-insulated from the atmosphere so not sure what you're worried about there.
@@ShiroKage009 do you realise what's the difference between warming 8 meters of planet surface by 5000 centidegrees and warming entire planet's core to the same temparature? If the first would take like 50 years or so, then the second, would take about 800000 years (that's an oversimplified calculation, but I hope it shows the scale of the venture), also known as a very long time. Secondly, you haven't addressed the issue with taking out liquid rock when drilling the tunnel. A normal drill bit has the shape it has for a very good reason, you know? Another problem with getting to mars core is that gravity doesn't really like deep tunnels, so in order for it not to colapse, after like 5 seconds, you would need to stabilize it somehow, which again, seems like a big problem to me.
Btw. Why would you even need to make the planet's core hot? That would only be a threat to planet's young ecosystem and we aren't even sure if that core could create a magnetic field like ours.
I thought your idea wasn't as bad initially, but the longer I think about it, the worse it gets
@@boberboberowski3411 you dont't need to dig ultra deep tunnels and you don't need to reach the core. Just far enough to deposit the energy and trap it under the surface, and just thick enough to house the energy piping materials.
As for how long it takes, tech evolves so you can keep installing more powerful lasers. This whole plan assumes Dyson sphere technology anyway, so the energy would be relatively abundant.
As for why, it's to have a powerful magnetosphere that isn't dependant on constant human intervention. I wouldn't trust a shield in L1 to not be blown away over time by eolar wind or be shot by a stray piece of rock.
Bc you want a dynamo effect emerging from a miscible liquid, and the miscible liquid is lacking
It appears that an automated mirror factory is the foundation of most "futuristic mega-projects" out there. Dyson swarm, beamed energy, space telescopes and so on. Being able to manipulate light is essential for communicating and energy transfer, and mirrors seems to be the only viable method to employ on an astronomical scale.
I wonder, has NASA funded the development of self-replicating robots that are capable of making mirrors? Certain components like chips are difficult to fabricate in space, so they must be shipped from Earth.
The outro sounds just like "For terraforming lovers by terraforming lovers."
Mars has less gravity. Meaning much larger structures can be built and they would have less wear and tear than the ones commonly found on earth. So I'm all on board with the whole biodome bandwagon.
But humans on mars would be weaker.
imma do some math
mars is 6779km wide
and 1 bar of atomsphere eqates to 1.2kg/m3
to have 1 bar of pressure
lets say we give mars a 150km atmosphere because its weaker gravity
lets say the bottoms 15km is 80% of the mass and for simplicity im only going to do calculations for the troposhere because im not gonna do a pressure gradient thing
2 billion km3
why is it wrong
Understood, have put thermonuclear bomb in package
we should leave the planets alone and build o'neill cylinders for ourselves
I have seen some of your Videos now..
And first.. I like to here another Opinion. 🙂
On the other Hand - kurzgesagt has a whole Team of Authors, Artists and Scientists that FactCheck their Videos..
So Sometimes it feels a little arrogant when you "correct" something... even more when they specify the Topic a few seconds Later and you have to admit that your correction was too fast..
Let's be honest... You use "Kurzgesagt" to promote your Product...
A little more humbleness would help - I think!
This ☝️
There still a problem of gravity
shipping gasses off or onto planetery bodies takes extremely long
Hell ya! Waiting for the Mac Version. Should be up today!
Great videos as always
#terraformVenus2035
#Post-QuantumTime
Just making a climatised dome on Mars is actually a terrible idea for the same reason we can't really do it on the moon: No atmosphere. A passing asteroid could crack it open and kill literally everyone because there's nothing to make it disintegrate before impact.
9:00 Won't it cause nuclear winter?
1. Terraforming Mars without the lasers is not an option. You saw how gruesome it would be to do it manually in the Mars base reaction; nobody is going to go for that.
2. A walled-off dome on Mars is NOT a home; it's a prison. An entire planet is a home. We don't live in walled-off dome on Earth; we live on the entire planet of Earth. Mars should be no different. So yes we DO need to terraform the whole planet. The dome may be the simpler way, but terraforming all of Mars is the right way. The fact is that the right way is complicated sometimes; simpler isn't always better.
3. Kurzgesagt gave you the idea to terraform Venus in the first place; you reacted to the terraform Venus episode earlier.
4. Yes we should terraform Venus, but not just Venus; Mars too. To expand across the solar system, we mustn't only terraform one rocky celestial body, but every viable one in the solar system. Mercury is not viable and is better put to use for building materials for the Dyson sphere.
The lasers are better than nukes.
let's just smack venus, earth and mars together and pray
I mean, you can only test planetary physics on the planetary scale. I also don't really understand what you mean bu "planetary physics" from my understanding there is quantum physics and astrophysics. Y will assume that you mean that we can't possible domino effects that burning the planet may cause, but once again the only way to find out would be to try. and when you say "ruin one of your planets" there are only really a few things that could "ruin" mars. radiation and maybe a chemical reaction produces a chemical that is deadly in large quantities, which given what we currently know about the makeup of mars is very unlikely.
Hahaha can you please subscribe to them already please? It triggers me how you watch so much of their content and aren't subscribed
wouldnt gravity be like, a huge issue for the biosphere? Our life isnt really adapted to the gravity of mars, right?
YUP lower gravity will cause bone demineralization, muscle mass loss and other physical effect for long term effect. Higher gravity causes stress fractures, spinal disk compression, all other joints will compress and rupture..
@@rickw4662For wild life that wouldn’t be much of a problem, as the intent is that the animals and plants will stay there for the rest of their lives.
Having rotating houses which produce centrifugal forces can help minizines the negative health effects
Surly if we ever needed to do anything like this…. We could just put people in a orbit around our planet as we terraform the planet we are on, it’s a much easier starting point and is much closer
The one thing I don't like about the laser it destroys ruins, any life and is honestly excessive. There are easier less destructive ways to terraform.
is QalVPN available on chromebook? and if not when will it be?
I mean we can used mars as charger to our batteries here, why terraform it if we can already used it as a engery stock. Seriously we kept making things difficult in terms of energy when mars exist have a highly radioactive substance good for making engery cells.
The biggest problem is Mars Iron core is solid now, it has no magnetic field se even if we recreate an atmosphere it will just get stripped away again by solar winds, without solving that problem first it is a mute point, the only option other wise is like you said at the beginning and that would be biospheres. without reigniting the planets core, or some how creating a very large powerful magnetic field, witch is a lot harder than it sounds it's never going to happen until we solve those issues.
Hey, awesome video, do you think you could maybe put QALVPN for like 30 days free without paying for tryout?
It is a Brazil flag over there??
We can call them Dome-a-ciles.
yeh Brazil apearing in the video 😎
?
If we can do all that just build a planet
I don’t know what to comment but hello
I would not know from you. but: lore-wise subjects perhaps? [shrugged]
How does one build mirrors the size of the United States
With scrap ton of infrastructure in space and a crap ton of material.
How many kurzgesagt videos have u reacted to?
is unsee even a word?
its commonly used but idk
i calculated if you made gigantic pump stations on venus that cover like a qaurter of the surface and pump 10 billion tons of atmosphere a day into space at the sun you would take around 131 million years to pump all the gas off
Where did you have your teeth done??? They look fantastic!
Kurgestat is make video on how terraform mars not how to live in ut
I think it was NASA that came up with the most natural and safest way.. MAKE ASTEROIDS CRASH INTO THE SURFACE AND HOPEFULLY SOME WILL HAVE ENOUGH TO GIVE WATER
can u react to styro pyro pls
Also Space around Mars is full of Martian dust, (see Juno mission for data), it's look like the worst case scenario for using space lasers with magical energy return and all mighty resistance to sun wind and radiation (and dust) and rapid component wear due to the power of the lasers...
Also the planets tend to return to their general equilibrium, atmospheric equilibrium and their hydrostatic equilibrium, no ?
Their project seem completely dumb on so many point, full of magical technology and we-can-do-it-later engineering....
That's,... "surprising" about Kurzgesagt... And that's not how my teachers taught me science at school.
So... now we need you Dylan, to research and invent all of those things.... ;)
I’m gonna terraform the sun
Hearing the constant “but it also has a chance not to work” is like when you see a meme but it is referring a stranger as he and someone in the comments say shit like “BUT WOMEN CAN ALSO DO IT” when it’s extremely obvious that women can also do that but you’re not doing ANYTHING to help with actual discrimination by doing that, the same way that it doesn’t fucking matter to hear that it “might not” work. Pointless negativity
Our biology is modulate to our Earth gravity well, even the amount of radiation we take on the surface. The only solution to terraform mars is to start dropping huge rocks until it reach a similar mass that earth has, then the rest of the process can be done.
If you don't do this part all humans going there will have a misery life. The planet is the size of our outer-core. Of course, please do a archeology and other scientific research on the red planet before starting reshaping the surface or burying under miles of rock. Maybe that is also the only way to "revive" the core of mars.
I am disappointed with your lack of criticism. One shouldn't even need to be a physicist to know how fantastically idiiiiiotic the kurzgesagt video is. They really outdid themselves with this one and no one seems to be noticing, not even the physicists apparently. For starters, NO, actually, heating the surface of Mars with LASERS isn't just fantastically infeasible, it is pointlessly inefficient. Do you not realize lasers typically are less than 10% efficient? Which means, if the lasers produce so much power they can heat up the entire surface of the planet Mars to 5000 degrees, they will be internally dissipating over 10 times that much power within itself. So to be clear, we'd be talking about a laser the size of a planet bigger than Mars in order to be able to withstand the waste heat itself, because if it was ONLY the size of Mars, it would be heated to TEN thousand degrees itself. Which says nothing about the issue of providing it with the power it needs. And the energy it would need would be many thousands of times as much sunlight hits Mars already (because Mars already IS the temperature that it is, BECAUSE of the sunlight hitting it in the quantity it is currently hitting it in, so naturally your lasers if solar powered would need thousands of times the collecting area as the entire surface area of Mars), so you would also need to collect like a trillion square miles of sunlight to power it. Do you think humans could build such a laser, EVER? Or could power it? We'd already be talking type 2 civilization levels of power. At LEAST they shouldn't be talking about using a laser. You would do MUCH, MUCH better just to reflect regular sunlight onto Mars with a bunch of regular mirrors in space, than to try to wastefully add this pointless step of converting it into laser light in the middle, just to use the laser for nothing more than heating the surface of Mars. There's no need for it to be laser light if it's just going to be used as a heat source. But also, if it was so easy to make such LARGE arrays of mirrors as would be necessary, fixing global warming on Earth would be a SNAP, because you could do it just by reflecting 1 or 2 percent of the light that would get to the Earth, away before it got here. Cooling the Earth by 1 degree by reflecting some light away before it gets here, that's literally millions of times easier than heating the surface of Mars to 5000 degrees (and billions of times easier than doing it with lasers), and humans can't even manage that much, they can't even come close to even contemplate doing it.
8:20 ohio in vpn :skull:
What’s next mercury
nah man, its poisonous, don't touch it
Let's terraform the sun,what could possibly go wrong...
I’m pretty sure we would harvest Mercury for resources instead.
terraform the tesla car that elon musk send for a trip around the sun tho
@@pavelmyshov464 meanwhile....
NO Reaction to all the nonsense!?! First up those Glass-rod lasers that will melt Mars at 5500°C would have to magically be kept below 1000°C themselves, and that would be IF they were magical perfect lasers which don't exist but lets suppose they're so good that their beams diverge only 1cm per kilometer i.e. 10m per 1000km which would be 1.36km wide when the laser is in geostat orbit so it can stay on target long enough to heat the surface - How wide is each of these glass-rod laser's going to be? Absolute FACT you can NOT melt the surface with lasers.
Second issue, just add some "super greenhouse gases" - only HCFC and HFCs are stable enough for use and they destroy ozone which means high energy UV now sterilizes your new Mars surface. Third issue, the L1 point is unstable meaning you have to keep using fuel to stay in position, you'd have to keep supplying fuel and correcting its orbit for all eternity to prevent your Mars getting smacked by Solar wind.
Inhabiting Mars is biologically sensible for any species able to do so, at first it be best to build underground habitats and hydroponic farms using regolith to protect themselves from both Solar Wind, UV and cosmic gamma-ray irradiation. I would suggest a deep but narrow part of the Mariner Valley if people wish to be able to colonise part of the surface one day, dig a well for reliable geothermal warmth, start removing perchlorates from the soil, explore the outer asteroid belt as candidates for crashing near the other side of Mars, construct a L1* magnetic shield and a large geostat* mirror to keep your section of the Valley lit 24x7. * NB: excess chlorine could be used as ion engine propellant for the geostat and deep space missions.
Explanation: to be able to safely exit underground habitats you at least need to establish sufficient atmosphere to protect people from cosmic rays, i'd guess by time you've got at least half as much gas overhead as on Earth which would mean around a quarter bar pressure at Mars surface, this should happen first along the lowest part of the Mariner Valley allowing dome habitats and city scrapes to be used as you perhaps continue increasing the atmosphere if wanted (I'm guessing a desirable target composition might be around 1% CO2, 30% Oxygen, and as much Nitrogen and inert gases as you can get your hands on - - perhaps there's a good source of nitrogen inside Mars somewhere but I would be concerned until its found; nitrogen as well as oxygen and carbon are needed in large amounts by our biology).
By the point that we would be able to build space mirrors larger than the US, all of these problems are non issues.
Isn’t it also the case that we have no lasers nor theories around lasers that can travel the distance required? That is why all the “let’s beam solar energy from panels in space” idea folks can’t get the projects going. You can send microwaves or lasers. Those are options. You lose energy with both the further you travel, and lasers travel even shorter than microwaves.
Seems like Dylan doesn't have a lot of things to say about Mars terraformation.. Not impressed? :)
This video proves that just because you have a degree or title it doesn’t mean you’re smart.
its most definitly wrong
Unrelated:
I know you scientists want to be respected for your minds, but you are handsome enough to be a magazine model or movie star. Have you considered trying that? Why not use those random genetic gifts for making some easy money, while simultaneously spreading your physics lore. You look like blonde Aussie Clark Kent, is what I'm saying . . . .
Seeing the likes of Dylan, Derek (Veritasium), and Becky (dr rebecca smedhurst) strutting around on a Chanel, Dior, or Gucci runway and having the time of their lives is far too fun to stop thinking about.
Vegans will find a way to ruin this.