Hey Insane Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it with your friends or on other social networks like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter, etc... (Since the algorithm is not cooperating in showing us to the public 😅). In just 30 seconds, you will greatly help our Channel to grow and improve future contents. A big thank you from all of us.
There is some misinformation here out of line with what research supports regarding Venus. 1)There is no connection between the lack of a magnetosphere and the strength of the solar wind only the ability of the solar wind to strip away the atmosphere. Remember that the Planet Mercury which is much closer to the Sun has a Magnetosphere of its own as does the moon Ganymede, Earth and the giant planets. The question of why Venus lacks a magnetosphere when the smaller Mercury and Ganymede have one is an unsolved mystery. 2)There is no diatomic oxygen in Venus's atmosphere the particular layer at which colonization looks promising is instead based off temperature availability of resources such as water(from the the sulfuric acid clouds) Nitrogen(from the atmosphere) Phosphorous and Sulfur(from the acidic clouds) Carbon and Oxygen (from CO2). While oxygen is available you would still have to extract that oxygen from CO2. The main advantage is that you can use Nitrogen as your lifting gas on Venus as it only accounts for 5% of the atmosphere thus you could use an Earth like atmosphere as your habitable space and lifting gas chamber at the same time. 3)You mention that there is no chance of life on Venus but surprisingly life on Venus might not only be possible but is perhaps the best candidate for life outside of the Earth based on observations. This relates to the thus far unexplained anomalous UV absorber within the sulfuric and phosphoric acid cloud decks of the upper Venusian atmosphere. There is no simple thermodynamically stable and self buoyant, compound which can produce the matching absorption spectrum which has resulted in wild ideas based on rare heavy metals somehow being suspended in the atmosphere. These however all fail to explain the temporal variations of the anomalous absorber which varies exponentially in concentration, area and albedo on short timescales of hours to Earth days. Further strengthening this evidence is the results of the Soviet Venera missions probes atmospheric sampling which found large elongated micron sized particles within the same cloud layers. These particles were far too large and complex to analyze but appear to be organic . Note that these particles were well within the typical size range of microbial life on Earth and appear to have a similar shape to typical Earth based microbial life. Moreover the same elevations also contain substantial concentrations of biologically accessible Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulfur and Phosphorus which are all the essential elements needed for simple microbial life as well as a readily available energy source via sunlight. In short give an Earth based microbe adaptions to stay suspended survive in acidic environments and block or utilize UV light, all traits all observed in Earth based life although never all at once, and it could not only survive but thrive. So we have evidence for bacteria shaped particles at the same altitudes as all the essential elements for life and an unknown UV absorber, which has even been suggested to be within the same size range based off the absorption spectrum, which shows dynamic variability in the same manner as plankton blooms on Earth. There is a saying regarding Abductive reasoning which says "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." I think a similar thing applies here in that if it looks like life as we know it, and behaves like life as we know it, in an environment which has all the characteristics which could support life as we know it, it is probably life as we know it. Is it definitely life? No of course not we lack observations to confirm the micron sized particles as the anomalous warm observer in addition to needing definitive evidence of metabolic activity and self replication but it is more than we can say about speculated martian life. We are still at an early stage where we haven't yet come to determine what exactly is life in general so it is important to keep an open mind. The scientific community has very slowly been waking to the realization there is a real possibility that there may be life in the clouds of Venus today but the same has not been happening among the general public or science communicators and is very slow outside the astrobiological community. Also given Venus's extreme deuterium to Hydrogen ratio of 20 to 1 among its remaining water(which is still the second largest concentration of water interior to Jupiter second only to Earth) Venus likely once had comparable amounts of water to Earth especially given the high rate of atmospheric loss which indicates that the transition to the runaway greenhouse world with no magnetosphere had to happen around a billion or less years ago at the earliest and this whole argument gets even stronger. We really need to send missions to Venus as we are capable of sending probes to study the Venusian atmosphere and Silicon Carbide electronics have advanced enough that we can potentially have a long lasting surface probe on Venus so long as we can come up with some way to power the probe on the surface and we either solve the lack of silicon carbide cameras or are ok with lacking cameras.
Speaking of misinformation, they didn't even touch on the whole atmospheric density. Even if the atmosphere of Venus was identical in its gas proportions to that of Earth *and* the temperature wouldn't boil you alive, the atmospheric pressure would crush you to death. This is part of why Venusian sky cities are the most common solution to the environmental problems, and bombarding the planet with comets to drive off the excess is the #2.
@@karunama3771 Yeah though I never liked the idea of bombarding/blasting away the atmosphere as doing that is going to get rid of a lot of the stuff you would want for a terraformed Venus if you ever want it to bear life i.e. the planets Carbon and Nitrogen supplies are in its atmosphere as are its Sulfur and Phosphorus supplies. Not to mention that Venus while having lost most of its water to outgassing remains one of the largest reservoirs of water in the inner solar system short of Earth. Blast most of that atmosphere away and you would have to import those resources from the outer solar system in short its like using nukes to try and cool the Earth a short sighted lose lose situation. If anything the atmosphere of Venus should be an advantage for industrial scale processing as you don't need to extract those elements from rock or from the far reaches of the solar system. Besides wait a few hundred million to a billion years and the Sun will do that for you since the planet's atmosphere is actually getting stripped away at a startling rate today it just likely hasn't been enough time since whatever cataclysm resurfaced the planet for it to be stripped to a barren rock.
@@Dragrath1 I like the idea of bombarding it with comets since they are, by nature, potent sources of water ice. If you want to live on the surface, there's no choice in the matter about getting rid of the atmosphere. As I said before, the atmospheric pressure would crush you like a coke can as-is. Sulfur is far too common as well, as evidenced by the rains of sulfuric acid.
@@karunama3771 You missed the point you get rid of that material and there is no more of that element on Venus the current state of the planet is the consequence of a planetary resurfacing event. Given the scarcity of those elements if you do get rid of them there is no other supply unless you want to take them from Earth. Comets are far away in the asteroid belt and finding and shipping them inwards in significant quantities would take thousands of years at the fastest (and not to mention serve as a source of heat injection which is likely the source of the problem in the first place) not to mention that to deorbit comets you would need to make them lose kinetic energy which is a harder problem to solve than adding energy to a system so there is no avoiding long timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years if you anted to perform that on a large scale remember space is big. Plus good luck performing industrial scale endeavors way out in the outer solar system without fusion reactors. It would be far more efficient and cheaper in the long run to just build cloud cities using the atmosphere as materials and slowly sequestering away or exporting that carbon away as resources in a cloud based city environment. Sure it would take hundreds of thousands of years but it would also have the advantage of enabling those comets/asteroids to be put to far better use without injecting even more heat into the planet. Since silicon carbide transistors can function at Venusian surface temperatures and pressures you could potentially build a self automated mining industry using initial silicon reserves to make more silicon carbide by mining the surface extracting silicon and combining that carbon with it leaving oxygen as a byproduct. Any effort that involves blasting away the atmosphere will require so much energy that it will take a long time to do anyway because space is big. The sheer mass of Venus's atmosphere is comparable to the mass of our oceans or the mass of all asteroids put together and is sufficient to slow down objects entering its atmosphere to a soft landing so to overcome that you would need a lot of mass/energy. Thus unless you want to build and or launch fleets of relativistic kill missiles or weaponize a stellaser and or Dyson sphere (which I'm sure your neighbors would just "love" to let you acquire and operate and totally not interpret as an act of war....) you can give up on doing anything on timescales less than tens of thousands of years. If the process is going to have to be slow anyway why not do it right in a way where you can make a profit instead?
@@Dragrath1 Frankly, it wouldn't take anywhere near the timescale to bombard the planet with comets that you're suggesting. In fact, there's a very good outline of a terraforming plan for Venus based on comet bombardment that could reasonably begin within our lifetimes and be done in 300~ years. The plan suggests a 40~year timespan for bombarding the planet with an assortment of asteroids/comets until the atmosphere is much thinner, then a roughly 150-200~ year span of time for the planet to heat up and cool back down followed by a couple waves of bacteria to convert the remaining sulfur into CO2 followed by microscopic algae to turn the CO2 into O2. Any claim that you'd need thousands of years frankly is ridiculous and reductionist. After all, such claims assume that either technology remains as-is or progresses along a predictable path, both of which are flawed assumptions. Regardless, you don't need any particularly amazing technology or efforts to blast off Venus' excess atmosphere. You just need to hit it very hard with a big rock. That might sound like a massive oversimplification, but it's really not. Literally the only reasons to pick comets to do it with is that they're already taking convenient paths and they're heavy in water ice. Frankly, I have no idea why you would claim you'd need to go way out beyond Neptune when comets routinely come near to both Earth and Venus on a perfectly predictable timescale. I will agree that making cloud cities is the easier option, but it would actually take longer due to the need to use wave after wave of bacteria to eat away all the sulfur in the atmosphere and convert it into something far less likely to melt both the cities and the people in them.
Fun fact: nun of them aint worth it might as well build cities in space and take care of earth and each other feed hungry mouths....the day we all unite work together and lookout for each other we can answer all the unknown questions of the universe
@@davidtrezelle208 Colonizing space isn’t about looking for answers to unknown questions. It’s about making sure humanity doesn’t go extinct. We should do everything obviously. But colonizing space is more important than ending world hunger. But of course ending world hunger is still very much extremely important
One major benefit is that Venus already has an atmosphere. You don't have to bring the material in from space. You just have to find a way to convert it from gas to solid. Also, Venus might be the best source for materials for Mars.
Though, there's no water in any form on Venus, unlike on our Moon and Mars, but almost everything else about 50km above the ground on Venus is favorable compared to Luna or Mars.
Freeze the CO2 into dry ice launch it at Mars via mass driver. Best part is this is actually super cheap as you just crash into Mars no need to land. Plants could be grown to break apart the CO2 into carbon and oxygen eventually giving Mars a breathable atmosphere and enough pressure to live on the surface. A sun screen would need to be built to prevent this new atmosphere from being stripped away by solar wind.
The solar system does not lack water in the form of ice. The trillions of comets and hundreds of significant Kuiper belt objects can easily provide enough water, not to mention the multi-kilometer deep oceans probably on Enceladus Europa and perhaps even Pluto.
@@michaelskywalker3089 Venus and Jupiter's moon io are the only places in our solar system without any water, thus any colonies on those two worlds will have to import water.
It is hard to prove that negative without a comprehensive survey of the entire solar system. I do not know. It is up to subsequent generations of people to make the choices that will either make a substantial presence on other worlds or not. I love the Earth, and there should be no limit on the resources spent to 'improve' it for the animals and people living on it but it takes actions not words alone to make it happen. As well as science.
Considering you would likely need a presence on the planet before attempting to terraform it, a floating colony would need to be the first step. Creating such a colony might not be that hard though as plastics and carbon materials could be synthesized from atmospheric elements. So, as long as an atmospheric processing facility gets going, the majority of building materials will be available to you. The real tricky part would be mining the surface for any additional elements needed to sustain and expand the colonies.
Or perhaps building special bombs designed for cloud seeding, etc and sending them to Venus in an attempt to modify the weather (cooling it) and atmosphere, as a start to terraforming. Doesn't have to take centuries.
@zhongxina7815 Yep, I was going to point out other thing but who am I kidding? I mean after all, they just said in the video it's too hard to modify the planet. It's no wonder why there's too much interest in Mars instead, especially in terms of terraforming. Problem is that the planet is way too far.
I'm pretty sure that during the 100-200 million years when Venus was habitable, something like this was not possible. Even if there was a civilization, very little chance it had access to wast amount of fossil fuel (with organic origin).
Ah the lies that we tell children... Venus is so hot that it's peak heat emission wavelength from the surface is beyond CO2's absorption spectrum. There's more going on with Venus's atmosphere than what you were told. I'd suggest looking at the reflective Sulfurous cloud layer, where the temperature drops off rapidly.
Technically, we can. It's just a question of whether our corporate bought politicians would be willing to do so. It's gonna cost them lots of money to do just for benefits to materialize after the ones in charge are most likely dead.
BTW, if every last gram of fossil fuel were somehow magically burned, we might possibly reach about 4000 ppm. This would cause between 4° and 15° C warmer - per the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report. Not great, but hardly Venusian.
It's not far fetched to terra-form either planet. Mars seems to be more suitable right now, but as technology grows, so do the chances of Venus becoming habitable. Remember, just over 100 years ago we were in horse drawn carriages.
Precisely, it is primarily the lack of courage that prevents us from fully taking advantage of Venus and Mars besides some of the core problems related to the size of Mars and the tectonic/magnetosphere aspects of both planets.
@@alripal9665 We still don't know why Mars and Venus lack magnetospheres as Ganymede, Mercury, Earth, Uranus, Neptune Saturn and Jupiter all have magnetospheres of their own separate from their host planet/star. Perhaps it could even be something we could fix we don't know yet. Insight should help answer some of the questions related to the interior of Mars but Venus remains a mystery.
@@michaelskywalker3089 Personally the biggest problem for each will probably be logistics based namely replacing the material which has already been stripped away by the Sun. Mars has enough to make about a Great lake to small Mediterranean Sea, Venus maybe a small Ocean but neither have the material for a substantial Earth like Ocean and Mars lacks the materials to make a significant atmosphere. Even if you processed all the material from every asteroid in the solar system you still wouldn't find enough water to make an Earth like Ocean since the Earths Oceans are on the same order of mass as all the asteroids in our solar system combined ~2 e+21 kg compared to asteroids which have a total mass on the order of ~3 e+21 kg. Realistically the terraforming of either planet is an extreme stretch goal probably far less feasible than building large quantities of O'Neil Cylinders. Classical Science fiction Terraforming a planet is honestly comparable in difficulty to constructing a Dyson Swarm around the Sun as in each case you will need unimaginably large scale interplanetary coordination, communication, space based resource harvesting, interplanetary transportation networks, and of course space based refinement and manufacturing capabilities at the minimum to pull off. Venus is less problematic as it still has most of its Nitrogen which composes 5% of its atmosphere but that 5% by mass is equivalent to over three times the total atmospheric nitrogen on Earth where it makes up 70% of our atmosphere. If you can get efficient catalyzed carbon sequestration Venus's crazy atmosphere could probably be reduced to survivable pressures in somewhere between tens of thousands to millions of years with Oxygen being used to make air and rock and carbon for graphite, graphene, and organic materials among other things. The most important use however might be Silicon Carbide based electronics which while they would at least initially require imported Silicon to produce have the unique perk of remaining fully operational under the high temperatures and pressures found on the Surface of Venus which would then enable remote access to resources from the Surface of the Planet. Terraforming like construction of mega structures is something doable with current technology under drastically expanded logistics and far longer periods of time than our civilization has existed. And don't forget a cloud city on Venus is the only remotely feasible human habitat beyond Earth not underground or wholly artificial (and still hypothetical) like O'Neil Cylinders.
Why try to terraform Venus when we could live above its clouds? I love the idea of cloud islands on Venus! You would have to import pretty much all your resources, especially water, but at least the atmospheric pressure is survivable.
I hate the idea. It means that we would have to evacuate people and stations stuck in the sulfuric acidic clouds of Venus while we are trying to either blow the atmosphere away or trying to alter it. It makes real terraforming much more problematic.
Sorry but the idea is silly. Imagine going to Venus and then NOT living there? If you wish to NOT BENEFIT from the resources of Venus then simply establish a colony in space (in orbit around earth)
That sounds like a better idea then after learning to build cities in space instead of repairing planets beyond repair especially if they are closer to the sun than our own plant which will be swallowed first by the sun eventually ...so many people going hungry on earth n thats what we spending billions of dollars doing when thats problem thats more important n easier to fix
No . Because all the ideas to do it so is by adding additional chemicals . Much more likely for something to go wrong . Test it out first on dead planet . You don't try medicines on humans before trying on rats
I'm curious (assuming our space travel technology advances quickly) whether we could remove and contain certain elements from the atmosphere of Venus and take them to Mars to seed the atmosphere of Mars. This would remove the excess elements preventing rehabilitation of Venus while insisting the missing elements to Mars. I'm not sure which elements would be needed, but perhaps we could induced a controlled greenhouse effect on Mars to jump start it's core by increasing it's atmospheric pressure to get it's magnetic field going again. Likely, this would have us terraforming Venus first, and would likely be a multi generational venture. But it has potential to get us going in the right direction.
You don't know how it works. A greenhouse effect has no effect on wherever a core of a planet can produce a magnetic field or not. Jupiter has no greenhouse effect and yet it has the strongest planetary magnetic field in the solar system. Increasing atmospheric pressure on Mars won't restore Mars' magnetosphere and it won't restore convection within Mars' core.
"Even if you know only a little bit about Venus, you know that it is a place that is infinitely hot" Ummmmmm, what? I can't tell if its trying to be a serious statement or crazily hyperbolic; either way, such a ridiculous "fact" 20 seconds in its quite offputting
We're causing more damage trying to fix things right now. Green technology (particularly solar) is poisoning the planet while China laughs in pollution. If you want to save Earth, just push for next-gen fission plants and superconductor science (to make fusion feasible), and the rest will be much easier to deal with.
hmm there have being attepmts to make oxygen from carbon dioxid its do-able but costs alot of electric not do able without alot of nucler power intresting tho
@@hypercomms2001 That's... why they look into it... It's not supposed to be brief-term for habitability. While thousands of people terraform a planet, it would take many generations and it would be our responsibility to advance our technologies and stay alive till they finish terraformation. It wouldn't take hundreds of millions of years to make a planet such as Mars 'habitable' it would take time to make it perfectly like earth. If we ensure our survival and invest in long-term things rather than go to war for a stupid resource (oil). right now we are good at one thing, Global Warming, and that is what we need to not only build Mars an atmosphere but melt the dry ice and frozen H2O to give it oceans. It is habitable but we can't breathe because of the compound of gasses being primarily CO2. The Algae planted would boost the cycle and possibly genetically engineered to be very efficient so easy to plant trees as pine can thrive in a rich CO2 environment which would make them bigger than California redwoods with the reduced gravity and high CO2 concentration. we would just go through the phases of the earth until we get past the "Super Oxygen" phase where trees will die after a while and bring us to a dinosaur age where concentrations are perfect. But by then we would be dead or we would have the technology to terraform a wasteland planet into an earth copy.
I think instead of wasting time and effort trying to terraform Venus we should just develope space ships that can travel at warp speed Allowing us to travel and find habitable planets in the habitable zones of other solar systems.
@@luismatthew5875 It isn't currently impossible, it is impossible. You can't go faster than c, F.T.L engine is science fiction, it can't happen. For a start, an object with a rest mass =/=0 can't even reach c, let alone surpass it.
The other problem is that the whole day is a Venus year long, so imagine to live months with day and months with night, that would destroy any kind of life that exists in earth
Dude there are scientist living on both of our poles which experience 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness. Living is hard but possible
I wish the videographer would elaborate on why the solar shade idea would be implausible or too expensive. It is true that a significant invest in money time and research would be needed to launch and operate the solar panels, battery/energy transfer mechanisms needed to fairly quickly reduce the temperature of Venus. Beyond physically expelling most of the atmosphere and treating what is left behind, this might be the best long term solution. We can steadily launch the solar collectors which we would need to launch anyway to provide a significant amount of energy for solar system activities especially near Mercury and Earth orbit and our star. It is a planet wide solar collector array which is needed but this system could be implemented slowly with a steady buildup of the 'fleet' of solar collector arrays which would block solar radiation and re-direct it to either batteries or an energy using module or simply re-radiate or reflect the energy back into space. The mission to Pluto and Charon seems to have proven that an atmosphere can be effectively frozen and collapse to the ground level with a trace atmosphere or outgassing dust left behind. Once the atmosphere would be effectively frozen and collapses the significant challenge of reforming and rebuilding an atmosphere would begin. Luckily, because of the climate change on Earth, methods of manipulating a terrestrial atmosphere would be more refined by then and eventually much of the solar shield blocking the solar radiation to Venus would not be needed.
We just need to create a large spigot, then tap it into the side of Venus. When you open it up all the gases will shoot out into space creating a large thruster to push Venus into a better orbit further from the sun. That way you solve two problems at once. Jesus, do I have to think of everything? lol
I could see in the future that after we colonize Mars and Venus that earth will be like america was for people outside of the country ( earth will be a dream place to live rather than Mars or Venus)
The easiest and most productive way to begin to change Venus would be to send probes out to the asteroid belt. A group of asteroids would be selected ahead of time, based on mass, density, composition and location. The probes would attach some sort of engine or powerplant to the asteroids to get them moving. They would be sent on a collision course with Venus. Through careful planning and calculations, the impacts would graze Venus at just the right angle. This would 1): eject some of the CO2 into space, thus cooling the planet over time. 2) Speed up Venus' rotational day period. Multiple impacts would eventually eject enough CO2 to cool the planet and increase its rotational day/night period to be more like Earth's. Venus would have to rotate in the opposite direction however, as would be more cost-effective, since it has a retrograde rotation already.
What if all of these planets and moons have life teeming right under the surface? Would the discovery of that stop us from messing with these places? What moral dilemma would that create if any?
No moral dilemma whatsoever! Intelligent life should expand, explore & exploit the resources of nearby planets or solar systems and not allow itself to be subservient by a simple mindless bacteria! We can create a small zoo, park or a reservation for the bacteria.
I would have to say that before we can begin Terraforming Venus we would need to figure out a way correct the rotation of Venus. Scientist believe that Venus once rotated similar to Earth. Then something crashed into Venus slowing it's rotation down to a crawl and that's when the runaway greenhouse started. no rotation plus a weakening magnetic field. And there you go.
if we could adjust a comet's trajectory to hit the sun facing side of Venus at an o bleak angle near Venus's equator to alter Venus's rotation and atmospheric composition.... Terra forming may not take as long as Mars would. We'd just need to find the right sized comet with the right composition
Lol afaik i aß the only one ever talking about solar shading. I mean its really expensive but doable, as well as physically possible. And with elon musks rockets the price only falls
Hm i guess it would not be easy to keep a planet sized solar sail in orbit. Any ideas? Counteracting ion thrusters? Until the clouds settle and its cold enough, then we can make the surface shiny istead? Well have fun cleaning that.
I always had a hunch that there is advanced civilisation inside Venus, and its' volatile surface is its' defence mechanism, you can't go there unless you are invited or selected, imagine civilisation starting at the core and slowly expanding, the inner volume could support every living human from earth, it's basically a mothership planet, I've done a lot of LSD in my past, makes sense.
It gives me hope, but with so much money it would cost and our inability as humans to band together for something like that, it seems to be merely just a pipe dream in my opinion.
Write a letter to your congressman asking for him to push for a new NASA probe to Venus to test the "Floating habitat" concept. Falcon Heavy can send a 10 ton test probe that could test the basic concept with a breathable lifting gas interior and some extraction instruments to produce oxygen from Venusian Carbon Dioxide.
Solar shades would be easily doable. One of the main projects we would be doing in the inner system is sending machines to mine Mercury, and one of the main projects the metals mined will be used is building a Dyson swarm of mirrors and solar collectors to power rest of our projects. It will be relatively easy to direct some of that production to block extra light from Venus. These things need to be able to adjust their position somewhat, so the system is even adjustable. Think of simple umbrellas except made from aluminum foil and a lot bigger, send a bunch of them between Venus and Sun and open them. They not only block light from reaching Venus but turn into solar sails so they will be pushed towards Venus, but we don't want that so they will either close themselves or turn sideways. That lets more light pass, but not all shades do this at same time; without the solar sail pushing them the gravity of the Sun will draw them back until they open up again and repeat the cycle. By programming some of the shades to open more or less the amount of light and heat reaching Venus(or Earth) can be controlled.
Or building special bombs designed for cloud seeding, etc and sending them to Venus in an attempt to modify the weather (cooling it), atmosphere, etc and could be a start for terraforming. Doesn't have to take centuries.
I'm gonna pull a Patrick Star and say, "why don't we just take the Atmosphere from Venus... and push it somewhere else?" all jokes aside. if Venus has too much atmosphere, and mars has too little...... i can't be the only person who's thought of this.
Short answer. No. Acid rain would be a constant problem. However if we were to have say floating bio-domes in the upper atmosphere that could possibly work. We need to try this on earth first however to see if we can even make such a thing
Butteridge's Law of Headlines applies: the answer is just "No." Venus is at 70% of the distance from the sun, meaning that each square meter of the surface receives twice as much energy from the sun. There is not much that can be done to get around that fact. And it rotates so slowly that the days can get super hot by mid-afternoon, even if the atmosphere was removed. Any much hotter than Earth, and carbonates decompose so they can't trap CO2.
Actually, Venus is what we should set our sites on. It’s gravity is similar to Earth, thus making it ideal for humans. A long term colony on the moon or Mars is highly unlikely.
Both have massive cons. Venus has an extremely slow rotation and we'd need a way to block some of the UV from the sun becuase it's so much closer than earth. It also has almost no axial tilt. Mars has an Axial tilt and a day night cycle similar to Earth, but a paper-thin atmosphere and very low gravity.
@@scvboy1 Except you can live on Venus in theory, because it has a gravity similar to Earth, thus you wouldn't suffer from the side effects of low gravity( such as Earth atrophy). Venus' surface is actually protected from UV rays because its atmosphere is very thick, it also has an ozone layer at about 100 km of altitude above its surface and has an induced magnetosphere due to solar winds. Venus' rotation is not a problem. The only other planet where humanity can live on is Venus, the others are off limits. But that's besies the fact that Venus' is extremely difficult to terraform,if not impossible.
@@durshurrikun150 yeah but you’d have to live in a colony above the surface and would never be able to set on the surface. And would never be able to make a self sustaining city or a growing city since they would have to get everything from earth because all the material is on the surface where we can’t go. Mars has much more to work with and you can actually get on the surface. Terraforming would take a long time and by that time Venus would be well out of the habitable zone.
Venus would be a far greater planet than Mars for us to inhabit. It seems out of the question right now but a more advanced us in 30 years might see it differently. I don't get the sun shield bashing that still seems like the most likely way to get it done. You have to cool it down first, period.
Would have to stop ALL solar energy that Venus receives so that over a long period the atmosphere would condense out. Then the CO2 ice would need to be removed as well as the sulfur. This touched on the magnetosphere but only in passing. The main problem is that Venus has a very slow retrograde rotation. Venus spins very slowly which makes its days longer than its years. We don’t know if Venus is a dead planet or if it’s stills has an active core.
Yes, I agree. But I have to admit it is more probable people will press the easy button and send international space stations to Venus once Mars has a few research stations on it rather than attempt the challenge of terraforming Venus.
actually only a landing craft has once made it on the surface (Without any humans in it, just a computer or something like that we controlled remotely). But because of the extreme conditions of the environment, we lost contact with it 30 min after it landed, and we only managed to make a few pictures on that time and that's it. So no we haven't been really on the surface. Hell even with a spacesuit we still will die in less than a min if not within 10 seconds. Because the heat of 480 degrees celciu (896 degrees Fahrenheit) and the pressure on venus is 93 times the earths pressure wich will crush you. So... there's all that.
So, suggestions were made to bring materials from earth to absorb the carbon dioxide, or physically removing the carbon dioxide from the planet... but you think it's not worth discussing the solar shade solution?... this seems to be far less ridiculous than the several of the things you proposed. If you shade Venus and reduce the temperature very low, then the carbon will simply fall out of the atmosphere at the poles leaving mostly nitrogen and potentially reducing the air pressure to a reasonable level.... and then the temperature could be allowed to increase gradually allowing colonization at the equator, and the introduction of carbon fixing life... while keeping most of the CO2 fixed as try ice at the poles. The temperature would have to be regulated for thousands of years, but a 1mm thick shade in space covering a large area of the planet could be built and maintained by automated robots in space from the material in a captured asteroid, and while it would be an enormous engineering exercise, it would be far less work than any other method suggested in this video, so I'm not sure why it was rejected out of hand.
we can easily cool the entire venus to -218 c by blocking sunlight ( if we get there we will obviously have giant space craft to do this stuff that will be easy to make when we make a colony in the moon and make a factory of spacecraft) with this there wont be any atmosphere to drag the solid carbon dioxide down and we can send all of this stuff to europa moon
For the love of all that's good in the world would you RUclips science channels please stop using this stock footage (2:11) in every single video you produce. It's more annoying than the freaking Wilhem scream. All it does is distract from your topic.
RUclips is not some sort of big payday. Stock footage is the only way to produce decent videos without breaking the bank or to take way too much time. These are single person authors, not some documentary film makers with huge budgets and staff. Don't compare them to Netflix, Amazon et al.
@@strategicthinker8899 At no point did I say not to use stock footage. I said stop using the exact same footage every damn time. Are you telling me that the only video out there that has scientists is the one with the ubiquitous gender and race stereo types they force down our throats in 90% of everything produced. It's tiresome and lazy.
Why cant we invent a satellite that sucks out the gas out of atmosphere and shoots it into outer space. Once that is accomplished the temperature would go back to normal. It is after all what makes the planet so hot i believe
If you drop pipeline from satellite, you can suck carbon dioxide up to the satellite. Solidified carbon dioxide can be easy transported to Moon, Mars and any other planet of Solar system. Oxygen, methane, graphene can be produced on Moon factories from carbon dioxide.
Little confused why the solar shade is a problem that you "don't even want to talk about". We're talking about planet-scale terraforming. If we are on that level, then planet scale terraforming with a shade/s should not be an issue.
I would build a fleet of airships that contained industrial sized carbon strippers (they use an electrolysis technique to separate CO2 into Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen). The Carbon Monoxide can be used to create synthetic fuel, fertilizer, etc. and the Oxygen can be either released back to the atmosphere, contained and used for human habitats, or combined with hydrogen to make water. If used to make water, again we could save it for human habitats, or we release it to the atmosphere for it to, over time, rain to the surface creating a pseudo water cycle due to the extreme heat of the surface. In the end, Venus's atmosphere could be reduced to less than 10x Earth's atmosphere and also have shallow seas covering most of the planets surface.
It would be a waste of time, effort and resources. Firstly it is harder to get to Venus than Mars, even though it is nearer. Secondly we are looking to move out into the Solar System and not the opposite. Thirdly if man survives to the time of the expansion of the Sun's outer layers Venus is in a vulnerable position. Oh yes and why use gobbledegook like livable when the language already has a valid word, habitable, as in the habital zone.
U dont know anthing pal 1.It is easier to get to venus mars is harder 2.There is 1 billion years until earth turns into venus (actualy worse) but in 1billion years the advancement in our technology will be enough to terraform venus. And terraforming venus and making it earth 2.0 is possible in 1 billion years but mars is IMPOSSIBLE because it doesnt have the neccesary ingredients(things we can turn into gas)to make the atmosphere thicker and bringing the neccesary gases there is just simply impossible we need nitrogen for the atmosphere same amount we have on earth and get all that air to mars and we dont even have plenty of nitrogen in the solar system. But venus all we realy need is bringing hydrogen and waay less amount then we need for mars when we do that the co2 in the atmosphere that gets destroyed then recombined when we bring hydrogen there it would make water and in time co2 will decrease and it will have similar atmosphere to earth then we can bring life there and make it habitable
Venus is not heated by greenhouse gases, but instead the ideal gas Law is primarily responsible for it's extreme surface Temperature of 860 degrees F. 90% of the Sunlight striking Venus never reaches it's surface. However at an Altitude of 50Km where the atmospheric pressure is the same as the Earth. The Temperature is the same as the Earth 59 Degrees F. The Ideal Gas Law says as pressure rises so does Temperature and when pressures drop Temperatures also drop. This is the same basic principle that Freon Air Conditioning works from. The Ideal Gas Law means you can have Goldie locks temperature zone any where from Mecury to Pluto if the atmospheric pressure is at the correct level regardless of gas mixtures.
You know we could realistically move the planets further out as well with an asteroid or however many that we could set up to orbit between Venus and or Earth with Jupiter. It would steal gravitational energy from Jupiter, slowing it down a tiny bit, and when it swings by us, it imparts a lot more gravitational tug, widening our orbit from the sun. It's a lot of math, but possible with today's technologies.
Even if we could terraform the atmosphere, the planet doesn't hardly rotate. It take 246 days to rotate once. That makes for very hot weather on one side regardless of the atmosphere. Mars at least rotates about that of the Earth. It does lack enough gravity but that can be dealt with with spinning living units
Export dry Lithium Hydroxide to convert the sulfuric acid into water. Lithium Hydroxide would also scrub the CO2 into Oxygen. Sodium Bicarbonate could be used as an addition PH Buffer. Millions of shader satellites would need to orbit venus. Rain would form and drop pressure and temperature. Increased Argon gas could be increased to emit infrared into space.
What's wrong with solar shades? - a project this size would start with a thin (like aluminum foil) planet-wide umbrella structure to prevent direct sunlight getting to the surface of Venus. It would take a long time but most of the hot gases in the atmosphere would precipitate out when cooled and fall to the surface. At the same time Cloud cities could be built on the "dark" side of the planet, lit up by filtered reflector mirrors, and would suck up more atmospheric CO2 into containers to be transported to Mars which would need more greenhouse causing gases to warm it up (and provide for biological oxygen conversion). At some point, remote controlled/autonomous surface machines can suck up surface precipitates, sequestering or converting them to more terraform-friendly gases/resources until surface colonies can be established under domes. Then take some ice asteroids from the outer planets zone to melt into oceans and rain to wash out the rest of the air and you're well on your way to creating a near earth-like world, warmed by filtered orbital solar mirrors and protected by the solar umbrella from the sun. Using this shade/mirror method you can terraform most rocky medium sized planets with an atmosphere in the Goldilocks Zone anywhere in the galaxy, and use ONeill Cylinders and artificial fusion reactor suns to populate the rest of the Icy Zones (or orbiting gas giant planets) in any solar system.
I don’t think Venus needs any water. Venus atmosphere is 90 times that of earth. The biggest green house gas on Venus is water vapor. But yes the CO2 needs to be condensed out. But that would also condense any water vapor too. Another problem is the sulfar precipitate which I think is also a high volume. To be honest it just seems a waste because the earth only had a billion years left Venus would be even hotter before then. Mars could take hundreds of years to get a modest atmosphere but would need continued adding to it because it like Venus has no magnetosphere.
Could we attacht giant "sucker tube" to Venus atmosphere and outer space, thus vaccum would "suck" all excess particals that create greenhouse effect. This tube wouldn t need any energy, proces would occur spontaniusly
I have an idea. Build large solar powered satellites that act like a vacuum. Long tubes go down into tip of Venuses atmosphere sucking in the gases and pumping it through another long tube out into space. If we had a couple thousand of them orbiting venus it would suck all the gasses out into space lowering temperature and pressure
I been speaking about my dream that a billion years ago, venus,earth,mars, and even the planet after mars now the asteroid belt all were habitable, navigable... War, war, war, destroyed venus, moved it from its axis, destroyed a planet making it asteroid belt, and made mars a radiation unlivable planet and we blew up saturn which used to be a SUN
That is a very reminiscent dream. In mythology Saturn is called the second sun. Also, of course your dream is evocative of the greek and roman myths surrounding Mars as Ares the god of war and the Aphroditic goddess Venus as the perfection of fertility and vitality, vulnerable to the ugliness and destruction of war.
@@MrKerr808 If I recall correctly, the potential planet that could have formed there would have been called Phaeton. According to wikipedia the Titius- bode law would prevent a planet from forming there anyway despite the evidence that much of the material {a lunar moon's worth] is made of old planets. Jupiter heavily influenced the lack of p[anet formation between mars and jupiter. As it is the dwarf planets Ceres and Vesta with Pallas are very interesting. I am very hard nosed when it comes to astronomy ,especially solar system astronomy but the astrology and mythical lore represent knowledge and insight passed down from thousands of years.
sure we can , lets see , about like 3 million years from now , come on we even cant keep our planet clean and healthy , but we already thinking about to go to another one
Research actually suggests Venus would be habitable had it not been for some extreme cataclysm of some kind around (0.72-1.0) Gya. This is based on the rate of atmosphere loss and isotopic ratios. Plus Venus is the only other planet that can hold onto the gasses we would need to have a habitable planet. Remember Mars has no magnetosphere and lacks the gravity to hold onto diatomic nitrogen, oxygen or water vapor even if it did have a magnetosphere.
@@strategicthinker8899 If temperature was the only factor yes however there is ionizing radiation which thanks to both Mars's low gravity and lack of a magnetic field can photodissociate atoms causing them to be lost to space since the atmosphere is so thin that they can escape unimpeded. Mars could hold onto liquid water if it had the right pressures and temperatures to support it. A magnetic shield against the solar wind could drastically lower the loss rates but that still wouldn't address the problem from ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Note that for hydrogen bearing compounds not even the Earth is able to overcome the loss due to photodissociation here on Earth we retain water because it precipitates out before it can rise high enough for it to be likely for it to photodissociate and escape.
Unlike Mars, Venus has plenty of nitrogen. The problem is huge volumes of CO2. Three things need to happen to reclaim Venus. First, those "despised" solar screens would be necessary to block the sun completely. Second, massive quantities of raw hydrogen would have to be imported to make up for what's been lost after the seas boiled away. Third, either the rotation rate must somehow be sped up or orbiting solar reflectors must be employed to allow for viable plant life. Ideally, the former, as a faster rotating Venus would likely result in a geomagnetic field that would protect the atmosphere and surface. That amounts to a project far in excess of anything we could hope to mount in the foreseeable future. Mars would be easy in comparison.
Can a 6 month old baby human bench press 400lbs? -No! We can’t even fix climate change or prevent the destruction of wild habitats/species! Who is going to pay for it, my taxes are already too high!
The magnificent Cathedrals and other temples/mosques took almost a hundred years to build so it makes sense to have the patience to build a habitat in space that can accomadate millions if not tens of millions of people.
Or perhaps building special bombs designed for cloud seeding, etc and sending them to Venus in an attempt to modify the weather (cooling it) and atmosphere, as a start to terraforming. Doesn't have to take centuries...
There are some minor technical errors in the presentation. Venus does not have a magnetic field. The UV light hitting Venus would be the same even with a magnetic field. The solar wind strips oxygen out of the Venusian atmosphere, so no ozone layer. Others have probably mentioned these issues so I'll stop there.
We just need to throw floating/flying bacteria there and they will evolve and do all the job for us. They not necessarily will make it look like Earth or habitable for humans, but at least there will be life!
Idea about solar shade is not laughable, is best idea there is. Best way would be to use existing asteroid that passes close to Earth and Venus, adjust its trajectory and use it for solar shade purpose. Once Solar shade is in place temperature would start to fall fast. Second step would be to use bacteria/algae to eat up all dried up carbon dioxide. We only need asteroid that is already moving close and redirect it with engines, solar sails, painting...or any other way to Venus orbit.
Dusting the atmosphere with extremophiles is the only possible approach. Probably going to take 10 million years to get it done, and buy us about 500 million years of a livable environment.
I thought the name of this video was "Could We Terraform Venus?" not "Could We Terraform Venus in the next 30 days?" Nobody really think its going happen anytime really soon.
@@techybro1141 "used to be" just because of its thick atmosphere that i think it was a gas giant the size of Neptune, since it's so close to the sun all its atmosphere has gone left the core and the remaining atmosphere. I know I'm totally wrong but if it had happened that way, that would've been cool
Hey Insane Curiosity Squad! If you liked the video, we would love for you to share it with your friends or on other social networks like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter, etc... (Since the algorithm is not cooperating in showing us to the public 😅). In just 30 seconds, you will greatly help our Channel to grow and improve future contents. A big thank you from all of us.
There is some misinformation here out of line with what research supports regarding Venus.
1)There is no connection between the lack of a magnetosphere and the strength of the solar wind only the ability of the solar wind to strip away the atmosphere. Remember that the Planet Mercury which is much closer to the Sun has a Magnetosphere of its own as does the moon Ganymede, Earth and the giant planets. The question of why Venus lacks a magnetosphere when the smaller Mercury and Ganymede have one is an unsolved mystery.
2)There is no diatomic oxygen in Venus's atmosphere the particular layer at which colonization looks promising is instead based off temperature availability of resources such as water(from the the sulfuric acid clouds) Nitrogen(from the atmosphere) Phosphorous and Sulfur(from the acidic clouds) Carbon and Oxygen (from CO2). While oxygen is available you would still have to extract that oxygen from CO2. The main advantage is that you can use Nitrogen as your lifting gas on Venus as it only accounts for 5% of the atmosphere thus you could use an Earth like atmosphere as your habitable space and lifting gas chamber at the same time.
3)You mention that there is no chance of life on Venus but surprisingly life on Venus might not only be possible but is perhaps the best candidate for life outside of the Earth based on observations. This relates to the thus far unexplained anomalous UV absorber within the sulfuric and phosphoric acid cloud decks of the upper Venusian atmosphere. There is no simple thermodynamically stable and self buoyant, compound which can produce the matching absorption spectrum which has resulted in wild ideas based on rare heavy metals somehow being suspended in the atmosphere. These however all fail to explain the temporal variations of the anomalous absorber which varies exponentially in concentration, area and albedo on short timescales of hours to Earth days.
Further strengthening this evidence is the results of the Soviet Venera missions probes atmospheric sampling which found large elongated micron sized particles within the same cloud layers. These particles were far too large and complex to analyze but appear to be organic . Note that these particles were well within the typical size range of microbial life on Earth and appear to have a similar shape to typical Earth based microbial life. Moreover the same elevations also contain substantial concentrations of biologically accessible Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulfur and Phosphorus which are all the essential elements needed for simple microbial life as well as a readily available energy source via sunlight. In short give an Earth based microbe adaptions to stay suspended survive in acidic environments and block or utilize UV light, all traits all observed in Earth based life although never all at once, and it could not only survive but thrive.
So we have evidence for bacteria shaped particles at the same altitudes as all the essential elements for life and an unknown UV absorber, which has even been suggested to be within the same size range based off the absorption spectrum, which shows dynamic variability in the same manner as plankton blooms on Earth.
There is a saying regarding Abductive reasoning which says "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
I think a similar thing applies here in that if it looks like life as we know it, and behaves like life as we know it, in an environment which has all the characteristics which could support life as we know it, it is probably life as we know it.
Is it definitely life? No of course not we lack observations to confirm the micron sized particles as the anomalous warm observer in addition to needing definitive evidence of metabolic activity and self replication but it is more than we can say about speculated martian life. We are still at an early stage where we haven't yet come to determine what exactly is life in general so it is important to keep an open mind. The scientific community has very slowly been waking to the realization there is a real possibility that there may be life in the clouds of Venus today but the same has not been happening among the general public or science communicators and is very slow outside the astrobiological community.
Also given Venus's extreme deuterium to Hydrogen ratio of 20 to 1 among its remaining water(which is still the second largest concentration of water interior to Jupiter second only to Earth) Venus likely once had comparable amounts of water to Earth especially given the high rate of atmospheric loss which indicates that the transition to the runaway greenhouse world with no magnetosphere had to happen around a billion or less years ago at the earliest and this whole argument gets even stronger. We really need to send missions to Venus as we are capable of sending probes to study the Venusian atmosphere and Silicon Carbide electronics have advanced enough that we can potentially have a long lasting surface probe on Venus so long as we can come up with some way to power the probe on the surface and we either solve the lack of silicon carbide cameras or are ok with lacking cameras.
Speaking of misinformation, they didn't even touch on the whole atmospheric density. Even if the atmosphere of Venus was identical in its gas proportions to that of Earth *and* the temperature wouldn't boil you alive, the atmospheric pressure would crush you to death. This is part of why Venusian sky cities are the most common solution to the environmental problems, and bombarding the planet with comets to drive off the excess is the #2.
@@karunama3771 Yeah though I never liked the idea of bombarding/blasting away the atmosphere as doing that is going to get rid of a lot of the stuff you would want for a terraformed Venus if you ever want it to bear life i.e. the planets Carbon and Nitrogen supplies are in its atmosphere as are its Sulfur and Phosphorus supplies. Not to mention that Venus while having lost most of its water to outgassing remains one of the largest reservoirs of water in the inner solar system short of Earth. Blast most of that atmosphere away and you would have to import those resources from the outer solar system in short its like using nukes to try and cool the Earth a short sighted lose lose situation. If anything the atmosphere of Venus should be an advantage for industrial scale processing as you don't need to extract those elements from rock or from the far reaches of the solar system. Besides wait a few hundred million to a billion years and the Sun will do that for you since the planet's atmosphere is actually getting stripped away at a startling rate today it just likely hasn't been enough time since whatever cataclysm resurfaced the planet for it to be stripped to a barren rock.
@@Dragrath1 I like the idea of bombarding it with comets since they are, by nature, potent sources of water ice. If you want to live on the surface, there's no choice in the matter about getting rid of the atmosphere. As I said before, the atmospheric pressure would crush you like a coke can as-is. Sulfur is far too common as well, as evidenced by the rains of sulfuric acid.
@@karunama3771 You missed the point you get rid of that material and there is no more of that element on Venus the current state of the planet is the consequence of a planetary resurfacing event. Given the scarcity of those elements if you do get rid of them there is no other supply unless you want to take them from Earth. Comets are far away in the asteroid belt and finding and shipping them inwards in significant quantities would take thousands of years at the fastest (and not to mention serve as a source of heat injection which is likely the source of the problem in the first place) not to mention that to deorbit comets you would need to make them lose kinetic energy which is a harder problem to solve than adding energy to a system so there is no avoiding long timescales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years if you anted to perform that on a large scale remember space is big. Plus good luck performing industrial scale endeavors way out in the outer solar system without fusion reactors.
It would be far more efficient and cheaper in the long run to just build cloud cities using the atmosphere as materials and slowly sequestering away or exporting that carbon away as resources in a cloud based city environment. Sure it would take hundreds of thousands of years but it would also have the advantage of enabling those comets/asteroids to be put to far better use without injecting even more heat into the planet. Since silicon carbide transistors can function at Venusian surface temperatures and pressures you could potentially build a self automated mining industry using initial silicon reserves to make more silicon carbide by mining the surface extracting silicon and combining that carbon with it leaving oxygen as a byproduct.
Any effort that involves blasting away the atmosphere will require so much energy that it will take a long time to do anyway because space is big. The sheer mass of Venus's atmosphere is comparable to the mass of our oceans or the mass of all asteroids put together and is sufficient to slow down objects entering its atmosphere to a soft landing so to overcome that you would need a lot of mass/energy. Thus unless you want to build and or launch fleets of relativistic kill missiles or weaponize a stellaser and or Dyson sphere (which I'm sure your neighbors would just "love" to let you acquire and operate and totally not interpret as an act of war....) you can give up on doing anything on timescales less than tens of thousands of years. If the process is going to have to be slow anyway why not do it right in a way where you can make a profit instead?
@@Dragrath1 Frankly, it wouldn't take anywhere near the timescale to bombard the planet with comets that you're suggesting. In fact, there's a very good outline of a terraforming plan for Venus based on comet bombardment that could reasonably begin within our lifetimes and be done in 300~ years. The plan suggests a 40~year timespan for bombarding the planet with an assortment of asteroids/comets until the atmosphere is much thinner, then a roughly 150-200~ year span of time for the planet to heat up and cool back down followed by a couple waves of bacteria to convert the remaining sulfur into CO2 followed by microscopic algae to turn the CO2 into O2.
Any claim that you'd need thousands of years frankly is ridiculous and reductionist. After all, such claims assume that either technology remains as-is or progresses along a predictable path, both of which are flawed assumptions. Regardless, you don't need any particularly amazing technology or efforts to blast off Venus' excess atmosphere. You just need to hit it very hard with a big rock. That might sound like a massive oversimplification, but it's really not. Literally the only reasons to pick comets to do it with is that they're already taking convenient paths and they're heavy in water ice. Frankly, I have no idea why you would claim you'd need to go way out beyond Neptune when comets routinely come near to both Earth and Venus on a perfectly predictable timescale.
I will agree that making cloud cities is the easier option, but it would actually take longer due to the need to use wave after wave of bacteria to eat away all the sulfur in the atmosphere and convert it into something far less likely to melt both the cities and the people in them.
Fun Fact: Venus is easier to terraform than mars
Why do you think that?
Can you explain how?
It’s a 50/50 tbh
Fun fact: nun of them aint worth it might as well build cities in space and take care of earth and each other feed hungry mouths....the day we all unite work together and lookout for each other we can answer all the unknown questions of the universe
@@davidtrezelle208 Colonizing space isn’t about looking for answers to unknown questions. It’s about making sure humanity doesn’t go extinct. We should do everything obviously. But colonizing space is more important than ending world hunger. But of course ending world hunger is still very much extremely important
Within the first 40 seconds I already have a complaint. Nothing is near infinite
Numbers
@Dragon De l’Ouest 😂
Indeed. Spoken like a mathematician.
One major benefit is that Venus already has an atmosphere. You don't have to bring the material in from space. You just have to find a way to convert it from gas to solid. Also, Venus might be the best source for materials for Mars.
Though, there's no water in any form on Venus, unlike on our Moon and Mars, but almost everything else about 50km above the ground on Venus is favorable compared to Luna or Mars.
Freeze the CO2 into dry ice launch it at Mars via mass driver. Best part is this is actually super cheap as you just crash into Mars no need to land. Plants could be grown to break apart the CO2 into carbon and oxygen eventually giving Mars a breathable atmosphere and enough pressure to live on the surface. A sun screen would need to be built to prevent this new atmosphere from being stripped away by solar wind.
The solar system does not lack water in the form of ice. The trillions of comets and hundreds of significant Kuiper belt objects can easily provide enough water, not to mention the multi-kilometer deep oceans probably on Enceladus Europa and perhaps even Pluto.
@@michaelskywalker3089 Venus and Jupiter's moon io are the only places in our solar system without any water, thus any colonies on those two worlds will have to import water.
It is hard to prove that negative without a comprehensive survey of the entire solar system.
I do not know. It is up to subsequent generations of people to make the choices that will either make a substantial presence on other worlds or not. I love the Earth, and there should be no limit on the resources spent to 'improve' it for the animals and people living on it but it takes actions not words alone to make it happen. As well as science.
Considering you would likely need a presence on the planet before attempting to terraform it, a floating colony would need to be the first step.
Creating such a colony might not be that hard though as plastics and carbon materials could be synthesized from atmospheric elements. So, as long as an atmospheric processing facility gets going, the majority of building materials will be available to you.
The real tricky part would be mining the surface for any additional elements needed to sustain and expand the colonies.
Or perhaps building special bombs designed for cloud seeding, etc and sending them to Venus in an attempt to modify the weather (cooling it) and atmosphere, as a start to terraforming. Doesn't have to take centuries.
@zhongxina7815 Minus contents that would cause radiation and destruction though
@zhongxina7815 Yep, I was going to point out other thing but who am I kidding? I mean after all, they just said in the video it's too hard to modify the planet. It's no wonder why there's too much interest in Mars instead, especially in terms of terraforming. Problem is that the planet is way too far.
@zhongxina7815 I know but just saying the fact that Mars is far away, adds extra difficulties.
What if Venus had a ancient civilization but they ended up doing what we are doing today and then their planet ended up like that
I'm pretty sure that during the 100-200 million years when Venus was habitable, something like this was not possible. Even if there was a civilization, very little chance it had access to wast amount of fossil fuel (with organic origin).
I don't think climate change on Earth is severe enough to make Earth uninhabitable.
and so they did not see our planet next to theirs to move here then?
@@yerman0564 No one knows that but it could happen
@@helloitsme6056 I don't think so though. Even if mammals die out, reptiles will reclaim the planet.
We need to Terra form Earth first. Currently, we are un-Terra forming Earth and could end up like Venus if we don't change our ways.
The human race will be extinct before we could do that.
The technology needed to terra form any planet could also be used here.
Ah the lies that we tell children...
Venus is so hot that it's peak heat emission wavelength from the surface is beyond CO2's absorption spectrum. There's more going on with Venus's atmosphere than what you were told.
I'd suggest looking at the reflective Sulfurous cloud layer, where the temperature drops off rapidly.
Technically, we can. It's just a question of whether our corporate bought politicians would be willing to do so. It's gonna cost them lots of money to do just for benefits to materialize after the ones in charge are most likely dead.
BTW, if every last gram of fossil fuel were somehow magically burned, we might possibly reach about 4000 ppm.
This would cause between 4° and 15° C warmer - per the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report. Not great, but hardly Venusian.
It's not far fetched to terra-form either planet. Mars seems to be more suitable right now, but as technology grows, so do the chances of Venus becoming habitable. Remember, just over 100 years ago we were in horse drawn carriages.
DeathByFishing mars' dynamo is dead it will never host life
Precisely, it is primarily the lack of courage that prevents us from fully taking advantage of Venus and Mars besides some of the core problems related to the size of Mars and the tectonic/magnetosphere aspects of both planets.
@@alripal9665 We still don't know why Mars and Venus lack magnetospheres as Ganymede, Mercury, Earth, Uranus, Neptune Saturn and Jupiter all have magnetospheres of their own separate from their host planet/star. Perhaps it could even be something we could fix we don't know yet. Insight should help answer some of the questions related to the interior of Mars but Venus remains a mystery.
@@michaelskywalker3089 Personally the biggest problem for each will probably be logistics based namely replacing the material which has already been stripped away by the Sun. Mars has enough to make about a Great lake to small Mediterranean Sea, Venus maybe a small Ocean but neither have the material for a substantial Earth like Ocean and Mars lacks the materials to make a significant atmosphere. Even if you processed all the material from every asteroid in the solar system you still wouldn't find enough water to make an Earth like Ocean since the Earths Oceans are on the same order of mass as all the asteroids in our solar system combined ~2 e+21 kg compared to asteroids which have a total mass on the order of ~3 e+21 kg.
Realistically the terraforming of either planet is an extreme stretch goal probably far less feasible than building large quantities of O'Neil Cylinders. Classical Science fiction Terraforming a planet is honestly comparable in difficulty to constructing a Dyson Swarm around the Sun as in each case you will need unimaginably large scale interplanetary coordination, communication, space based resource harvesting, interplanetary transportation networks, and of course space based refinement and manufacturing capabilities at the minimum to pull off.
Venus is less problematic as it still has most of its Nitrogen which composes 5% of its atmosphere but that 5% by mass is equivalent to over three times the total atmospheric nitrogen on Earth where it makes up 70% of our atmosphere. If you can get efficient catalyzed carbon sequestration Venus's crazy atmosphere could probably be reduced to survivable pressures in somewhere between tens of thousands to millions of years with Oxygen being used to make air and rock and carbon for graphite, graphene, and organic materials among other things. The most important use however might be Silicon Carbide based electronics which while they would at least initially require imported Silicon to produce have the unique perk of remaining fully operational under the high temperatures and pressures found on the Surface of Venus which would then enable remote access to resources from the Surface of the Planet.
Terraforming like construction of mega structures is something doable with current technology under drastically expanded logistics and far longer periods of time than our civilization has existed.
And don't forget a cloud city on Venus is the only remotely feasible human habitat beyond Earth not underground or wholly artificial (and still hypothetical) like O'Neil Cylinders.
Dragrath1 mars will be a death sentence for anyone who goes there
Short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but- Reverend Lovejoy.
Why try to terraform Venus when we could live above its clouds? I love the idea of cloud islands on Venus! You would have to import pretty much all your resources, especially water, but at least the atmospheric pressure is survivable.
I hate the idea. It means that we would have to evacuate people and stations stuck in the sulfuric acidic clouds of Venus while we are trying to either blow the atmosphere away or trying to alter it. It makes real terraforming much more problematic.
Actually that's a great idea I've been telling people
this is impossible to do and it will never happen
@@aronbraswell1589 I'd rather just build the stations in space like an O'Neil cylinder.
Sorry but the idea is silly. Imagine going to Venus and then NOT living there?
If you wish to NOT BENEFIT from the resources of Venus then simply establish a colony in space (in orbit around earth)
Should try terraforming Earth first , ie reducing carbon in earth’s atmosphere
That sounds like a better idea then after learning to build cities in space instead of repairing planets beyond repair especially if they are closer to the sun than our own plant which will be swallowed first by the sun eventually
...so many people going hungry on earth n thats what we spending billions of dollars doing when thats problem thats more important n easier to fix
No . Because all the ideas to do it so is by adding additional chemicals . Much more likely for something to go wrong . Test it out first on dead planet . You don't try medicines on humans before trying on rats
Kurzgesagt 1 year later: how to terraform Venus quickly
I'm curious (assuming our space travel technology advances quickly) whether we could remove and contain certain elements from the atmosphere of Venus and take them to Mars to seed the atmosphere of Mars. This would remove the excess elements preventing rehabilitation of Venus while insisting the missing elements to Mars.
I'm not sure which elements would be needed, but perhaps we could induced a controlled greenhouse effect on Mars to jump start it's core by increasing it's atmospheric pressure to get it's magnetic field going again.
Likely, this would have us terraforming Venus first, and would likely be a multi generational venture. But it has potential to get us going in the right direction.
You don't know how it works.
A greenhouse effect has no effect on wherever a core of a planet can produce a magnetic field or not.
Jupiter has no greenhouse effect and yet it has the strongest planetary magnetic field in the solar system.
Increasing atmospheric pressure on Mars won't restore Mars' magnetosphere and it won't restore convection within Mars' core.
"Even if you know only a little bit about Venus, you know that it is a place that is infinitely hot"
Ummmmmm, what?
I can't tell if its trying to be a serious statement or crazily hyperbolic; either way, such a ridiculous "fact" 20 seconds in its quite offputting
It's hell for real
Venus's day is longer than its year so take that into factor.
a year of sun exposure is what creates too much CO2 because of the heat generated.
We could use meteorites to accelerate the rotation. They would need to be perfectly directed and masiva, but it's possible
@@dhv2852 antimatter bomb
This could be a future documentary about Earth
No, let’s try this out on Earth first and see how we go ...
We're causing more damage trying to fix things right now. Green technology (particularly solar) is poisoning the planet while China laughs in pollution.
If you want to save Earth, just push for next-gen fission plants and superconductor science (to make fusion feasible), and the rest will be much easier to deal with.
hmm there have being attepmts to make oxygen from carbon dioxid its do-able but costs alot of electric not do able without alot of nucler power intresting tho
Michael John Little Right. If we can’t terraform earth we will have no chance with another planet.
@@scottcampbell7944 Agreed... "Terraforming" is Science Fiction nonsense... not unless you have a spare 100 Million year to wait...!
@@hypercomms2001 That's... why they look into it... It's not supposed to be brief-term for habitability. While thousands of people terraform a planet, it would take many generations and it would be our responsibility to advance our technologies and stay alive till they finish terraformation. It wouldn't take hundreds of millions of years to make a planet such as Mars 'habitable' it would take time to make it perfectly like earth. If we ensure our survival and invest in long-term things rather than go to war for a stupid resource (oil). right now we are good at one thing, Global Warming, and that is what we need to not only build Mars an atmosphere but melt the dry ice and frozen H2O to give it oceans. It is habitable but we can't breathe because of the compound of gasses being primarily CO2. The Algae planted would boost the cycle and possibly genetically engineered to be very efficient so easy to plant trees as pine can thrive in a rich CO2 environment which would make them bigger than California redwoods with the reduced gravity and high CO2 concentration. we would just go through the phases of the earth until we get past the "Super Oxygen" phase where trees will die after a while and bring us to a dinosaur age where concentrations are perfect. But by then we would be dead or we would have the technology to terraform a wasteland planet into an earth copy.
When they do it to the Sahara first, I will believe it.
Sand is brought to the Amazon rainforest by winds and helps with rainforest growth. But we can terraform some of it. Just not all.
just plant trees but there is something called government and countries that other planets don't have so there are no limitations on doing it
I think instead of wasting time and effort trying to terraform Venus we should just develope space ships that can travel at warp speed Allowing us to travel and find habitable planets in the habitable zones of other solar systems.
NASAs been on that for a few years now.
@@noobhero6661 how ever long it takes;and it will take a number of years.
Travelling at a speed faster than c is impossible.
@@durshurrikun150 currently impossible, research needs to keep going on developing F.T.L. Engine.
@@luismatthew5875 It isn't currently impossible, it is impossible.
You can't go faster than c, F.T.L engine is science fiction, it can't happen.
For a start, an object with a rest mass =/=0 can't even reach c, let alone surpass it.
The other problem is that the whole day is a Venus year long, so imagine to live months with day and months with night, that would destroy any kind of life that exists in earth
Dude there are scientist living on both of our poles which experience 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness. Living is hard but possible
Make it rotate fast by using heavy Rocket Couples... 😑😐
Fun fact the same amount of people can live on Venus for its similar size
I wish the videographer would elaborate on why the solar shade idea would be implausible or too expensive. It is true that a significant invest in money time and research would be needed to launch and operate the solar panels, battery/energy transfer mechanisms needed to fairly quickly reduce the temperature of Venus. Beyond physically expelling most of the atmosphere and treating what is left behind, this might be the best long term solution. We can steadily launch the solar collectors which we would need to launch anyway to provide a significant amount of energy for solar system activities especially near Mercury and Earth orbit and our star. It is a planet wide solar collector array which is needed but this system could be implemented slowly with a steady buildup of the 'fleet' of solar collector arrays which would block solar radiation and re-direct it to either batteries or an energy using module or simply re-radiate or reflect the energy back into space. The mission to Pluto and Charon seems to have proven that an atmosphere can be effectively frozen and collapse to the ground level with a trace atmosphere or outgassing dust left behind. Once the atmosphere would be effectively frozen and collapses the significant challenge of reforming and rebuilding an atmosphere would begin. Luckily, because of the climate change on Earth, methods of manipulating a terrestrial atmosphere would be more refined by then and eventually much of the solar shield blocking the solar radiation to Venus would not be needed.
We just need to create a large spigot, then tap it into the side of Venus. When you open it up all the gases will shoot out into space creating a large thruster to push Venus into a better orbit further from the sun. That way you solve two problems at once.
Jesus, do I have to think of everything? lol
That is so retarded it's hilarious
I could see in the future that after we colonize Mars and Venus that earth will be like america was for people outside of the country ( earth will be a dream place to live rather than Mars or Venus)
What if we just cool it down till the co2 become ice dig it out than heat it up againe maybe with mirrors ?
The easiest and most productive way to begin to change Venus would be to send probes out to the asteroid belt. A group of asteroids would be selected ahead of time, based on mass, density, composition and location. The probes would attach some sort of engine or powerplant to the asteroids to get them moving. They would be sent on a collision course with Venus. Through careful planning and calculations, the impacts would graze Venus at just the right angle. This would 1): eject some of the CO2 into space, thus cooling the planet over time. 2) Speed up Venus' rotational day period. Multiple impacts would eventually eject enough CO2 to cool the planet and increase its rotational day/night period to be more like Earth's. Venus would have to rotate in the opposite direction however, as would be more cost-effective, since it has a retrograde rotation already.
What if all of these planets and moons have life teeming right under the surface? Would the discovery of that stop us from messing with these places? What moral dilemma would that create if any?
No moral dilemma whatsoever! Intelligent life should expand, explore & exploit the resources of nearby planets or solar systems and not allow itself to be subservient by a simple mindless bacteria! We can create a small zoo, park or a reservation for the bacteria.
Thank you
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I would have to say that before we can begin Terraforming Venus we would need to figure out a way correct the rotation of Venus. Scientist believe that Venus once rotated similar to Earth. Then something crashed into Venus slowing it's rotation down to a crawl and that's when the runaway greenhouse started. no rotation plus a weakening magnetic field. And there you go.
if we could adjust a comet's trajectory to hit the sun facing side of Venus at an o bleak angle near Venus's equator to alter Venus's rotation and atmospheric composition.... Terra forming may not take as long as Mars would. We'd just need to find the right sized comet with the right composition
So basically for a some billion $ we could shade it with orbiting foil, thus cooling it to earth temperatures.
Lol afaik i aß the only one ever talking about solar shading. I mean its really expensive but doable, as well as physically possible.
And with elon musks rockets the price only falls
Hm i guess it would not be easy to keep a planet sized solar sail in orbit. Any ideas? Counteracting ion thrusters? Until the clouds settle and its cold enough, then we can make the surface shiny istead? Well have fun cleaning that.
Or we could use that new optically active nano lense material to divert light away from the planet?
Does diverting light create propulsion?
I always had a hunch that there is advanced civilisation inside Venus, and its' volatile surface is its' defence mechanism, you can't go there unless you are invited or selected, imagine civilisation starting at the core and slowly expanding, the inner volume could support every living human from earth, it's basically a mothership planet, I've done a lot of LSD in my past, makes sense.
It gives me hope, but with so much money it would cost and our inability as humans to band together for something like that, it seems to be merely just a pipe dream in my opinion.
Write a letter to your congressman asking for him to push for a new NASA probe to Venus to test the "Floating habitat" concept. Falcon Heavy can send a 10 ton test probe that could test the basic concept with a breathable lifting gas interior and some extraction instruments to produce oxygen from Venusian Carbon Dioxide.
great video !! ;)
Video starts at 3:33
I enjoyed it😎👍😉
Solar shades would be easily doable. One of the main projects we would be doing in the inner system is sending machines to mine Mercury, and one of the main projects the metals mined will be used is building a Dyson swarm of mirrors and solar collectors to power rest of our projects. It will be relatively easy to direct some of that production to block extra light from Venus.
These things need to be able to adjust their position somewhat, so the system is even adjustable. Think of simple umbrellas except made from aluminum foil and a lot bigger, send a bunch of them between Venus and Sun and open them. They not only block light from reaching Venus but turn into solar sails so they will be pushed towards Venus, but we don't want that so they will either close themselves or turn sideways. That lets more light pass, but not all shades do this at same time; without the solar sail pushing them the gravity of the Sun will draw them back until they open up again and repeat the cycle. By programming some of the shades to open more or less the amount of light and heat reaching Venus(or Earth) can be controlled.
Or building special bombs designed for cloud seeding, etc and sending them to Venus in an attempt to modify the weather (cooling it), atmosphere, etc and could be a start for terraforming. Doesn't have to take centuries.
I'm gonna pull a Patrick Star and say, "why don't we just take the Atmosphere from Venus... and push it somewhere else?"
all jokes aside. if Venus has too much atmosphere, and mars has too little...... i can't be the only person who's thought of this.
Short answer. No. Acid rain would be a constant problem. However if we were to have say floating bio-domes in the upper atmosphere that could possibly work. We need to try this on earth first however to see if we can even make such a thing
Butteridge's Law of Headlines applies: the answer is just "No."
Venus is at 70% of the distance from the sun, meaning that each square meter of the surface receives twice as much energy from the sun. There is not much that can be done to get around that fact.
And it rotates so slowly that the days can get super hot by mid-afternoon, even if the atmosphere was removed.
Any much hotter than Earth, and carbonates decompose so they can't trap CO2.
About Venus runaway greenhouse effect, isn't just possible it has always been like that? With that amount of gasses (90/95 bars)?
Actually, Venus is what we should set our sites on. It’s gravity is similar to Earth, thus making it ideal for humans. A long term colony on the moon or Mars is highly unlikely.
Unless you have a plausible idea on how to do that then we'll talk
@@sakesithole6295 find a way to open venus atmosphere to the vacuum of space to release some co2
Both have massive cons. Venus has an extremely slow rotation and we'd need a way to block some of the UV from the sun becuase it's so much closer than earth. It also has almost no axial tilt. Mars has an Axial tilt and a day night cycle similar to Earth, but a paper-thin atmosphere and very low gravity.
@@scvboy1 Except you can live on Venus in theory, because it has a gravity similar to Earth, thus you wouldn't suffer from the side effects of low gravity( such as Earth atrophy).
Venus' surface is actually protected from UV rays because its atmosphere is very thick, it also has an ozone layer at about 100 km of altitude above its surface and has an induced magnetosphere due to solar winds.
Venus' rotation is not a problem.
The only other planet where humanity can live on is Venus, the others are off limits.
But that's besies the fact that Venus' is extremely difficult to terraform,if not impossible.
@@durshurrikun150 yeah but you’d have to live in a colony above the surface and would never be able to set on the surface. And would never be able to make a self sustaining city or a growing city since they would have to get everything from earth because all the material is on the surface where we can’t go. Mars has much more to work with and you can actually get on the surface. Terraforming would take a long time and by that time Venus would be well out of the habitable zone.
No, there is no run away green house affect on venus. The high surface temperature is because of the high pressure.
Venus would be a far greater planet than Mars for us to inhabit. It seems out of the question right now but a more advanced us in 30 years might see it differently. I don't get the sun shield bashing that still seems like the most likely way to get it done. You have to cool it down first, period.
Would have to stop ALL solar energy that Venus receives so that over a long period the atmosphere would condense out. Then the CO2 ice would need to be removed as well as the sulfur. This touched on the
magnetosphere but only in passing. The main problem is that Venus has a very slow retrograde rotation. Venus spins very slowly which makes its days longer than its years. We don’t know if Venus is a dead planet or if it’s stills has an active core.
Terraform Venus is better .Than living up in the clouds...
Yes, I agree. But I have to admit it is more probable people will press the easy button and send international space stations to Venus once Mars has a few research stations on it rather than attempt the challenge of terraforming Venus.
Pretty sure we have been to the surface of Venus seeing as there are pictures of the surface...
actually only a landing craft has once made it on the surface (Without any humans in it, just a computer or something like that we controlled remotely). But because of the extreme conditions of the environment, we lost contact with it 30 min after it landed, and we only managed to make a few pictures on that time and that's it. So no we haven't been really on the surface. Hell even with a spacesuit we still will die in less than a min if not within 10 seconds. Because the heat of 480 degrees celciu (896 degrees Fahrenheit) and the pressure on venus is 93 times the earths pressure wich will crush you. So... there's all that.
So, suggestions were made to bring materials from earth to absorb the carbon dioxide, or physically removing the carbon dioxide from the planet... but you think it's not worth discussing the solar shade solution?... this seems to be far less ridiculous than the several of the things you proposed.
If you shade Venus and reduce the temperature very low, then the carbon will simply fall out of the atmosphere at the poles leaving mostly nitrogen and potentially reducing the air pressure to a reasonable level.... and then the temperature could be allowed to increase gradually allowing colonization at the equator, and the introduction of carbon fixing life... while keeping most of the CO2 fixed as try ice at the poles.
The temperature would have to be regulated for thousands of years, but a 1mm thick shade in space covering a large area of the planet could be built and maintained by automated robots in space from the material in a captured asteroid, and while it would be an enormous engineering exercise, it would be far less work than any other method suggested in this video, so I'm not sure why it was rejected out of hand.
Looks like a big gas station to me. Gonna need a real long gas hose to pump it out...
we can easily cool the entire venus to -218 c by blocking sunlight ( if we get there we will obviously have giant space craft to do this stuff that will be easy to make when we make a colony in the moon and make a factory of spacecraft) with this there wont be any atmosphere to drag the solid carbon dioxide down and we can send all of this stuff to europa moon
venus is like earth which fully went through global warming
For the love of all that's good in the world would you RUclips science channels please stop using this stock footage (2:11) in every single video you produce. It's more annoying than the freaking Wilhem scream. All it does is distract from your topic.
RUclips is not some sort of big payday. Stock footage is the only way to produce decent videos without breaking the bank or to take way too much time. These are single person authors, not some documentary film makers with huge budgets and staff. Don't compare them to Netflix, Amazon et al.
@@strategicthinker8899 At no point did I say not to use stock footage. I said stop using the exact same footage every damn time. Are you telling me that the only video out there that has scientists is the one with the ubiquitous gender and race stereo types they force down our throats in 90% of everything produced. It's tiresome and lazy.
WHY NOT USE THE SKY CITY OPTION TO PLACE AN INVESTAGATIVE SATELITE IN THE ATMOSPHERE?
Why cant we invent a satellite that sucks out the gas out of atmosphere and shoots it into outer space. Once that is accomplished the temperature would go back to normal. It is after all what makes the planet so hot i believe
It's not that simple, kind sir
That would be like taking a straw to the ocean and sucking it dry.
If you drop pipeline from satellite, you can suck carbon dioxide up to the satellite. Solidified carbon dioxide can be easy transported to Moon, Mars and any other planet of Solar system. Oxygen, methane, graphene can be produced on Moon factories from carbon dioxide.
Little confused why the solar shade is a problem that you "don't even want to talk about".
We're talking about planet-scale terraforming. If we are on that level, then planet scale terraforming with a shade/s should not be an issue.
Giant refrigerators duh. Do I have to think of everything myself
Was that a Lloyd Bridges reference from Hot Shots?
Solar shade the best option.
Venus and earth will swap and have swapped orbits with each other allegedly.
I would build a fleet of airships that contained industrial sized carbon strippers (they use an electrolysis technique to separate CO2 into Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen). The Carbon Monoxide can be used to create synthetic fuel, fertilizer, etc. and the Oxygen can be either released back to the atmosphere, contained and used for human habitats, or combined with hydrogen to make water. If used to make water, again we could save it for human habitats, or we release it to the atmosphere for it to, over time, rain to the surface creating a pseudo water cycle due to the extreme heat of the surface. In the end, Venus's atmosphere could be reduced to less than 10x Earth's atmosphere and also have shallow seas covering most of the planets surface.
The sun will get bigger so would be better to find a way of moving earth a bit futher
It would be a waste of time, effort and resources. Firstly it is harder to get to Venus than Mars, even though it is nearer. Secondly we are looking to move out into the Solar System and not the opposite. Thirdly if man survives to the time of the expansion of the Sun's outer layers Venus is in a vulnerable position.
Oh yes and why use gobbledegook like livable when the language already has a valid word, habitable, as in the habital zone.
U dont know anthing pal
1.It is easier to get to venus mars is harder
2.There is 1 billion years until earth turns into venus (actualy worse) but in 1billion years the advancement in our technology will be enough to terraform venus.
And terraforming venus and making it earth 2.0 is possible in 1 billion years but mars is IMPOSSIBLE because it doesnt have the neccesary ingredients(things we can turn into gas)to make the atmosphere thicker and bringing the neccesary gases there is just simply impossible we need nitrogen for the atmosphere same amount we have on earth and get all that air to mars and we dont even have plenty of nitrogen in the solar system.
But venus all we realy need is bringing hydrogen and waay less amount then we need for mars when we do that the co2 in the atmosphere that gets destroyed then recombined when we bring hydrogen there it would make water and in time co2 will decrease and it will have similar atmosphere to earth then we can bring life there and make it habitable
What if Venus acquired a moon like Earth's?
Venus is not heated by greenhouse gases, but instead the ideal gas Law is primarily responsible for it's extreme surface Temperature of 860 degrees F. 90% of the Sunlight striking Venus never reaches it's surface. However at an Altitude of 50Km where the atmospheric pressure is the same as the Earth. The Temperature is the same as the Earth 59 Degrees F. The Ideal Gas Law says as pressure rises so does Temperature and when pressures drop Temperatures also drop. This is the same basic principle that Freon Air Conditioning works from. The Ideal Gas Law means you can have Goldie locks temperature zone any where from Mecury to Pluto if the atmospheric pressure is at the correct level regardless of gas mixtures.
You know we could realistically move the planets further out as well with an asteroid or however many that we could set up to orbit between Venus and or Earth with Jupiter. It would steal gravitational energy from Jupiter, slowing it down a tiny bit, and when it swings by us, it imparts a lot more gravitational tug, widening our orbit from the sun. It's a lot of math, but possible with today's technologies.
Precisely, there was even a mission proposed by Prez Obama's administration to move an asteroid.
Even if we could terraform the atmosphere, the planet doesn't hardly rotate. It take 246 days to rotate once. That makes for very hot weather on one side regardless of the atmosphere. Mars at least rotates about that of the Earth. It does lack enough gravity but that can be dealt with with spinning living units
TL;DR No, and if we could, we could also stop global warming here on earth.
Export dry Lithium Hydroxide to convert the sulfuric acid into water. Lithium Hydroxide would also scrub the CO2 into Oxygen. Sodium Bicarbonate could be used as an addition PH Buffer. Millions of shader satellites would need to orbit venus. Rain would form and drop pressure and temperature. Increased Argon gas could be increased to emit infrared into space.
What if mercury hit venus for making carbondioxide in venus released and venus cool down and we can terraformed venus
It could help the rotation of Venus much faster than before
From 243 days rotation to about 60-20 days.
@@bladerbrawlers yes that right 🖒
Venus is not even close to being very hot, let alone infinitely hot.
What's wrong with solar shades? - a project this size would start with a thin (like aluminum foil) planet-wide umbrella structure to prevent direct sunlight getting to the surface of Venus. It would take a long time but most of the hot gases in the atmosphere would precipitate out when cooled and fall to the surface. At the same time Cloud cities could be built on the "dark" side of the planet, lit up by filtered reflector mirrors, and would suck up more atmospheric CO2 into containers to be transported to Mars which would need more greenhouse causing gases to warm it up (and provide for biological oxygen conversion). At some point, remote controlled/autonomous surface machines can suck up surface precipitates, sequestering or converting them to more terraform-friendly gases/resources until surface colonies can be established under domes. Then take some ice asteroids from the outer planets zone to melt into oceans and rain to wash out the rest of the air and you're well on your way to creating a near earth-like world, warmed by filtered orbital solar mirrors and protected by the solar umbrella from the sun. Using this shade/mirror method you can terraform most rocky medium sized planets with an atmosphere in the Goldilocks Zone anywhere in the galaxy, and use ONeill Cylinders and artificial fusion reactor suns to populate the rest of the Icy Zones (or orbiting gas giant planets) in any solar system.
I don’t think Venus needs any water. Venus atmosphere is 90 times that of earth. The biggest green house gas on Venus is water vapor. But yes the CO2 needs to be condensed out. But that would also condense any water vapor too. Another problem is the sulfar precipitate which I think is also a high volume. To be honest it just seems a waste because the earth only had a billion years left Venus would be even hotter before then. Mars could take hundreds of years to get a modest atmosphere but would need continued adding to it because it like Venus has no magnetosphere.
It is important to terraforming earth again because of global warming, covid19 and others
Could we attacht giant "sucker tube" to Venus atmosphere and outer space, thus vaccum would "suck" all excess particals that create greenhouse effect. This tube wouldn t need any energy, proces would occur spontaniusly
I have an idea. Build large solar powered satellites that act like a vacuum. Long tubes go down into tip of Venuses atmosphere sucking in the gases and pumping it through another long tube out into space. If we had a couple thousand of them orbiting venus it would suck all the gasses out into space lowering temperature and pressure
If only we could transfer half of Venus' atmosphere to Mars
I been speaking about my dream that a billion years ago, venus,earth,mars, and even the planet after mars now the asteroid belt all were habitable, navigable... War, war, war, destroyed venus, moved it from its axis, destroyed a planet making it asteroid belt, and made mars a radiation unlivable planet and we blew up saturn which used to be a SUN
Saturn made a second habitable zone
That is a very reminiscent dream. In mythology Saturn is called the second sun. Also, of course your dream is evocative of the greek and roman myths surrounding Mars as Ares the god of war and the Aphroditic goddess Venus as the perfection of fertility and vitality, vulnerable to the ugliness and destruction of war.
@@michaelskywalker3089 cool!! Lol did not know any of that..
@@michaelskywalker3089 what about the planet thats the asteroid belt?
@@MrKerr808 If I recall correctly, the potential planet that could have formed there would have been called Phaeton. According to wikipedia the Titius- bode law would prevent a planet from forming there anyway despite the evidence that much of the material {a lunar moon's worth] is made of old planets. Jupiter heavily influenced the lack of p[anet formation between mars and jupiter. As it is the dwarf planets Ceres and Vesta with Pallas are very interesting. I am very hard nosed when it comes to astronomy ,especially solar system astronomy but the astrology and mythical lore represent knowledge and insight passed down from thousands of years.
How about the factor of it's rotation? We could eventually adapt to that, but it would be a no for now. Let's just save our home planet first.
Thank you for actually reading the nasa paper.
Xd
Anyway to transport a planet?
I won't mention specifics until I get backers
sure we can , lets see , about like 3 million years from now , come on we even cant keep our planet clean and healthy , but we already thinking about to go to another one
Waste time and money terraforming a planet that's closer to the sun.
Research actually suggests Venus would be habitable had it not been for some extreme cataclysm of some kind around (0.72-1.0) Gya. This is based on the rate of atmosphere loss and isotopic ratios.
Plus Venus is the only other planet that can hold onto the gasses we would need to have a habitable planet. Remember Mars has no magnetosphere and lacks the gravity to hold onto diatomic nitrogen, oxygen or water vapor even if it did have a magnetosphere.
That's not true. Mars holds on to nitrogen and oxygen. Water vapor is borderline, i.e. not so much.
@@strategicthinker8899 If temperature was the only factor yes however there is ionizing radiation which thanks to both Mars's low gravity and lack of a magnetic field can photodissociate atoms causing them to be lost to space since the atmosphere is so thin that they can escape unimpeded. Mars could hold onto liquid water if it had the right pressures and temperatures to support it. A magnetic shield against the solar wind could drastically lower the loss rates but that still wouldn't address the problem from ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Note that for hydrogen bearing compounds not even the Earth is able to overcome the loss due to photodissociation here on Earth we retain water because it precipitates out before it can rise high enough for it to be likely for it to photodissociate and escape.
No mention of the unique fact that the length of a day in Venus is 116 Earth days (I've also seen 243 quoted in other places) ?
If you live above the clouds and dont attach yourself to the ground you would go around the planet every 3 days soo not good not terrible
Unlike Mars, Venus has plenty of nitrogen. The problem is huge volumes of CO2. Three things need to happen to reclaim Venus. First, those "despised" solar screens would be necessary to block the sun completely. Second, massive quantities of raw hydrogen would have to be imported to make up for what's been lost after the seas boiled away. Third, either the rotation rate must somehow be sped up or orbiting solar reflectors must be employed to allow for viable plant life. Ideally, the former, as a faster rotating Venus would likely result in a geomagnetic field that would protect the atmosphere and surface. That amounts to a project far in excess of anything we could hope to mount in the foreseeable future. Mars would be easy in comparison.
Can’t we just focus on saving our planet first...
stop over exaggerating is fine for the most part lol
Can a 6 month old baby human bench press 400lbs? -No!
We can’t even fix climate change or prevent the destruction of wild habitats/species!
Who is going to pay for it, my taxes are already too high!
Could do with a moon too. But that wouldn't be hard. Play pool with large astounds we have the math and the technology to move em.
Astounds
We could always "build a planet between Mars and earth"like a mega gigantic space station might take 100 years but I know we could build it
The magnificent Cathedrals and other temples/mosques took almost a hundred years to build so it makes sense to have the patience to build a habitat in space that can accomadate millions if not tens of millions of people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder
Or perhaps building special bombs designed for cloud seeding, etc and sending them to Venus in an attempt to modify the weather (cooling it) and atmosphere, as a start to terraforming. Doesn't have to take centuries...
There are some minor technical errors in the presentation. Venus does not have a magnetic field. The UV light hitting Venus would be the same even with a magnetic field. The solar wind strips oxygen out of the Venusian atmosphere, so no ozone layer. Others have probably mentioned these issues so I'll stop there.
If we terraformed Venus it would be the Florida of the solar system.
We just need to throw floating/flying bacteria there and they will evolve and do all the job for us. They not necessarily will make it look like Earth or habitable for humans, but at least there will be life!
Idea about solar shade is not laughable, is best idea there is. Best way would be to use existing asteroid that passes close to Earth and Venus, adjust its trajectory and use it for solar shade purpose. Once Solar shade is in place temperature would start to fall fast. Second step would be to use bacteria/algae to eat up all dried up carbon dioxide.
We only need asteroid that is already moving close and redirect it with engines, solar sails, painting...or any other way to Venus orbit.
We don't know that the heat on Venus isn't coming from inside.
It’s from the sun mostly.
What about placing ships into an elliptical orbit that would chip away into the atmosphere and throw it into the sun's direction?
While that is a nice idea thatslike asking someone to drain the Pacific Oean one bucket at a time.
Dusting the atmosphere with extremophiles is the only possible approach. Probably going to take 10 million years to get it done, and buy us about 500 million years of a livable environment.
I thought the name of this video was "Could We Terraform Venus?" not "Could We Terraform Venus in the next 30 days?" Nobody really think its going happen anytime really soon.
I think Venus used to be a gas giant?
That's Jupiter
@@techybro1141 "used to be" just because of its thick atmosphere that i think it was a gas giant the size of Neptune, since it's so close to the sun all its atmosphere has gone left the core and the remaining atmosphere. I know I'm totally wrong but if it had happened that way, that would've been cool
Set up needed in space - Robotics on the moon to integrate mineral needed to teraform other Moon's.
Didn’t really explain how it could be done.
The question is can we terraform Earth back to normal?