MARS or VENUS Which PLANET Is Easier To Terraform?

[@InsaneCuriosity]

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.

[@IlmarKiisk]

Both are hard, obviously, but you missed one important part: gravity. Venus is almost the size of the Earth, so that wouldn't affect people and other life forms brought from Earth. But on Mars it would be hard to adapt, and likely even fatal for some.

[@yonathanmengistu731]

This was exactly what I was going to bring up. Mars would be more problematic long term due to the gravity difference whereas Venus would not be. Also, one of the Martian moons is destined to crash into the planet so that’s another negative. Overall, I think both should be terraformed if that’s the route humankind wanted to go but it’s more worth it to do both or at least do one and then the other. But I personally like Venus a bit more due to it being an almost literal twin of Earth. A bizarro twin but still a twin.

[@et34t34fdf]

@@yonathanmengistu731 on the contrary, venus gravity is a major problem, you have to remove almost all its atmosphere, and its gravity poses a big problem in that mission.

[@walterszewczyk9024]

We gotta watch Total Recall again, hmmm Lol 😅🤣. Push the alien 👽 shaped hand ✋ imprint & there you go, instant atmosphere, & everyone comes out, mutants & all. Lol 😆🤣.(girl with three boobs.) Ha,ha,ha haha, teehee hee hee, that's our Quagmire!!

[@mrdollyman5675]

@@et34t34fdf b a c t e r i a

[@IlmarKiisk]

@@et34t34fdf that problem is with atmosphere, not gravity. But as it contains sulphuric acid and carbon dioxide, then breaking apart those molecules (yes, it would take much more energy than we would use in a million years (at current levels) and get both water and oxygen. No transportation needed from other celestial bodies.

[@brianrees6036]

One thing they forgot to mention is Venus is closer in size to earth making its gravity closer to earth. Both need to be terra formed and we could start by learning how to terra form earth's deserts.

[@mishkosimonovski23]

Amen! Sahara might be our test for terraforming Venus. And Canada, Central Asia, Patagonia might simulate Mars.....so if we can make green those areas, we start with the planets.

[@MindForgedManacle]

It's not even really viable to alter Mars's gravity anyway. We'd sooner be able to change Venus's rotation, and even that if possible will take millennia. Mars is just not a good option for actual terraforming, it would be an outpost really

[@flecx9767]

I wouldn't try to terraform our deserts, at least the sahara is one of the most important recource for the Amazon rain forrest, since billions of tonns of dust bring vital nutriens there, since the Amazon produces 20% of the oxigen on earth, i would cut of those nutriens, could be fairly bad

[@yonathanmengistu731]

@@flecx9767 not to mention deserts are a natural part of the environment. Now if we could restore formerly vegetated areas that have been destroy by human impact such as the island of Nauru that would be a great way to test terraforming techniques while actively restoring a devastated habitat back to its natural splendor.

[@mishkosimonovski23]

@@flecx9767 Rainforest will exist without deserts.... once upon a time the whole Earth was covered in Jungles.

[@sunandsage]

Mars seems like the least problematic of the two but I don't believe we have the technology to terraform either one of them yet.

[@treystephens6166]

It’s unlikely we ever will.

[@Eazy-ERyder]

@@treystephens6166 we most CERTAINLY can - and WILL - well before the end of this century.

[@treystephens6166]

@@Eazy-ERyder well I’ll be 100 in 2089.

[@ldubt4494]

@@Eazy-ERyder I think it could begin this century, but certainly not completed.

[@ericgolightly8450]

I'll say in a few hundred years we could terraform mars and venus.

[@ChikyuuKun]

How about we fix Earth first?

[@kerjectroter3761]

Terra Forming 101 Venus- Speeding up it's rotation to 24 hour period. It requires space probes to give it gravity assistance, this requires about 65% of the speed of light to speed up it's rotation. At least it goes west to east, then place an artificial satellite to stabilize the rotation. Lowering it's temperature - Got to remove the excess carbon, by using wind vertex machines. Reflect some of the radiation by building a miniature dayson swarm around the planet. Transport of water- This is the fun part, bombard it with lots of icey objects from the Kipper belt. Maybe obtaine some comets from the Oort cloud. Seeding it with life- If all plans goes well, the dayson swarm around the planet keeps radiation at bay, the satellite to stabilize it's rotation maybe Neptune's Triton could be used as it's moon. We will use cyanobacteria to the newly formed ocean(s) and to accelerate the production of oxygen plant some plants near the coastline. Then let nature do it's magic and valla Terraformed Venus, as for the magnetic field, it will come from it's accelerated rotation since it will hypothetically will from an inner iron core. Mars - Raise it's temperature, pollute it. We will use the excess carbon to release it to the air. By using extraction machines, convert it to oxygen and hydrogen. Transport of water- Melt it's frozen ice caps and bombard it with some icey objects from the Kipper belt. Magnetic field - Need to be artificial by advanced engineering around the planet. Seeding life- If plans goes well, seed cyanobacteria in the newly formed ocean (s), plant some plants near the coastline and Mars can keep it's two satellite. Recommend Mars, to be fair enough. It's easier to raise it's temperature and water transport. The only challenge is to make the artificial magnetic field, since it's not recommend to remelt the outer core of Mars. Venus when we have more advanced engineering in space and figure out to speed up it's rotation and cooling the atmosphere more effectively. Also how will we transport Triton or similar size moon from the outer planets to become it's natural satellite.

[@johnmorelli3775]

If you warm Mars up you will get more severe dust storms. Some of that dust will be perchlorate....toxic!

[@richardmercer2337]

"Both worlds are extremetely opposite...." I'm glad it wasn't just one that was extremetely opposite -- that would be confusing.

[@richardmercer2337]

On the other hand, if Venus receives either insulation or isolation, it is equally puzzling how it/they could be reduced by sunscreens.

[@TheRealRedAce]

:D....yes, they're mutually unalike. Good thing only one of them isn't! :D

[@davedeville6540]

“Mars and Venus are Earth’s two twins” is also a strong sentence with a lot to unpack 😅

[@lancerevell5979]

Neither, both have massive problems, that make terraforming impossible.

[@michaelschuette1743]

Maybe in today's age of tech. A few hundred years from now may tell a different story.

[@toesauce1665]

It isnt impossible

[@Sooner4Life28]

Yeah, and two hundred years ago landing on the moon was impossible, time will prove that it is possible to terraform planets.

[@NotNotGrape]

It’s possible but both will take atleast 100 years

[@abstraction6212]

Its only impossible because you all waste time with politics wars and internet biased and mindless entertainment

[@MichaelSidneyTimpson]

Changing the rotation of venus, being it started going the opposite way slowly was through a hypothetical collision, and since such collision could remove some atmosphere, seems like impossibly well timed could kill two birds with one stone. BUT changing the rotation could affect its orbit and have cooresponding devastatng effects on Earth's orbit.

[@jasondanielfair2193]

Venus has two unmentioned but hugely favorable conditions: 1) gravity, 2) we already have proposals for a floating cloud city doable on Venus with modern technology. Gravity on Venus 90% that of Earth and I'm not sure you could colonize a self-sustaining world without having the ability to reproduce on it. No one is exactly sure what would happen to a woman or her fetus if pregnant in super low gravity but nearly all experts agree that a child raised in low gravity for most of their youth probably couldn't survive very long back on Earth--their heart would have to work orders of magnitude harder at the very least. Having a place we could start successful colonies is a very good indicator that humanity would discover new ways of dealing with that planet--we still have a lot more to learn about Venus. It is also closer than Mars, making telecommunications quicker as well as resupply missions for a good chunk of the year. Terraforming any place is still way outside of current geoengineering capabilities, so having clear and feasible first steps wins in my book. On Mars, you're probably living underground for the first century at least--whereas humans need sunlight and can thrive more easily in cloud cities while we figure out the rest.

[@michaelporter6341]

Build a hollow moon and fill if with solidified CO2 sucked up from the atmosphere (there is 4000000000000000 kilotons) , the moon may even aid altered rotational stability.

[@rogermurph101]

There will be no terraforming of either planet. For Venus, taking 244 days to make a full rotation, that means you would be in darkness for about 4 months at a time. So no plant life, meaning no food. There is no “speeding up” of the planets rotation. Unless it gets hit with a glancing blow by another planetary body, which would not really help with habitability. On Mars, the problem of a lack of a magnetosphere is a dealbreaker. Any atmosphere we managed to manufacture would be stripped away by solar winds, and we’d all be killed by solar radiation. Even if you could fix both of those large problems on both planets, neither planet has a moon equivalent to ours. Life on earth would be very hard without our moon, since it’s responsible for maintaining our axis, providing us with predictable seasons. Take the moon away, and we’d wobble much more quickly than we do now, with wild swings in temperature accompanying that. No more planting season, no more food manufactured on a global scale. Start on a new planet with that problem, and you’re destined to fail. No, we’re stuck here on earth.

[@paulbainbridge5498]

with an expanding sun, venus would 2nd on it's list to eat, after mercury .. we need to get further from the sun, not closer

[@trekkieraccoon3343]

That's still billions of years in the future but terraforming would only take maybe couple hundred to thousands of years that's still time to leave the solar system if we don't blow ourselves up first

[@ericgolightly8450]

We won't have to worry about that for billions of years.

[@PlanetGuy901]

And by “further”, Mars would be a good option to start before moving to Jupiter, Saturn, and then exoplanets. If the sun was dimming instead of brightening, then it could be more necessary to terraform the planets closer to it. (Venus and Mercury) than to terraform the further planets/ moons (Mars and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn)

[@mm-dw4rr]

Honestly both planets seem virtually impossible to terra form. But l'm keen to learn more. ✔

[@keenwood571]

Me too 😀

[@mm-dw4rr]

@@keenwood571 Neat ✔

[@dsilber4]

In an easier way to say, learn by fixing the earth. I do love your videos though

[@alderwolf7687]

Terraforming either is simply not possible for the foreseeable future. Successful terraforming must be able to endure when technology eventually fails or becomes unavailable. Venus is the best bet but it needs to be moved away from the sun and have its rotation sped up. Increasing its rotation, especially that of its core, would likely kickstart a magnetic field. Unfortunately increasing the orbital velocity of a planet or it's rotational speed won't be in our tech tool box for many many centuries to come. Mars is simply too small to retain an atmosphere and will require constraint maintenance.

[@ericgolightly8450]

Venus can stay where it is, it will still stay habitable. And Mars can hold oxygen and nitrogen, just not water vapor for geological timescales.

[@distantthunder12ck55]

Not sure about transporting water to Mars being necessary when there is enough water in ice form identified on Mars today to create a global ocean 115 feet/ 35m deep.

[@GrimmJaw496]

ice asteroids dump a bunch of them into both plaints...easy peezy.

[@BrettonFerguson]

The "Ice" on Mars is not H2O. So melting it would not create H2O water. I think a lot of science magazines and documentaries are intentionally misleading in this area. They will say "Water", "Liquid oceans" and "Ice" when talking about other planets and moons to create excitement and get more viewers. But a lot of the time it isn't H2O water or ice. It is frozen or liquid CO2 or other not water molecules. Like the "Lakes" on Titan. In reality they are liquid methane. However a lot of comets have H2O water. Maybe in a few hundred years we could have robotic ships in the outer solar system, maybe even the Oort Cloud, calculate trajectories and nudge chunks of water ice toward Mars. Calculate the trajectories so precise it would send them into a glancing blow with Mars so they melt in the atmosphere. So they don't bounce off, but also so they don't explode so powerfully they blow material off Mars. Also if we had a colony on Mars, we would want to comets to hit on the poles away from our bases. A different terraforming idea. Also very difficult. I like the idea of moving Ceres into Mars orbit. A close orbit to create tidal forces in Mars. Over a long time this could heat the interior enough to possibly restart Mars magnetic field.

[@BrettonFerguson]

I like the idea to move Ceres into low Mars orbit. To create tides, heat the interior, and hopefully get a magnetic field started. This would take a long time, but it would be a more permanent solution.

[@martingerlitz1162]

How will you manage to bring Ceres to a Mars orbit? When will this be possible????

[@lawrencemalone-px6qe]

@@martingerlitz1162 yea I love how folks casually think moving a planet basically is easy. We can’t even move relocate a mountain let alone a planet

[@Alhazmi75]

Instead of terraforming other plant we should use the same technology to solve and mitigate our environmental problems her in earth

[@amangogna68]

Great video !

[@fgtrhwu2]

Gravity is the main enemy when it comes to terraforming Mars

[@thearmyflyer4905]

If we can terraform planets? Why not our own?

[@norbert099]

Bruh, we better first terraform other planets than ours because we literally could kill ourselves when we try Earth first.

[@dtvjho]

0:41 The challenges for Venus and Mars are both enormous. Before beginning, we'd have to consider the end product. What could we get? We need to consider their distances from the sun. If you move the Earth to Mars's orbit, it freezes over - you get a Hoth. Move Earth to Venus orbit, it would be livable, but only at high latitudes, above 50 degrees, for 50 is where solar insolation (Sunlight intensity) on Venus matches the same intensity as on Earth at its equator today.

[@Zeder95]

For Mars we could use super powerful greenhouse gases to heat it up, there are some that are 1000 times more powerful than CO2. And for Venus we would need to install a giant mirror/filter floating in space in front of it that would filter part of the light to give Venus an earth-like amount of sunlight. We could actually use such a giant sunlight filter to cool down and terraform Mercury as well (if we also find a way to bring water, nitrogen and oxygen there).

[@leotka]

Mars is dead planet but Venus alive. Also Venus has valuable resource that we need right now - carbon dioxide, source of oxygen and methane.

[@fanOmry]

Venus.

[@mpbroadcast]

O'Neill type space colonies are much closer to the current technical capabilties of mankind than terraforming either Venus or Mars. Such colonies could be constructed this century if there we were so motivated. Aside from the technical challenges, terraforming would require a social structure on Earth that would support such a project over many centuries. I don't see that happening for several thousands years, assuming we don't destroy ourselves or enter another dark ages in the meantime.

[@egonhomes]

I was going to say something to this effect. It would also be relatively easy to either take a few of the asteroids and coat the outside of the O'Neill Cylinder to help protect it from debris, or to mine out one of the Dwarf Planets like Ceres and use it as the exterior of the cylinder. Lots of the asteroids are also rich in Nitrogen, so it would help the terraforming process when it starts.

[@sziklamester1244]

Currently both planet is hard to terraform but in the future would be possible. Both bodies needs a moon similar size that our Moon so it could affects the axis, rotation also it could keep the inner core warm or heaten up which would start rotating and generating some kind of magnetic field. Venus have a very small one and Mars have a negligible one. Venus needs a speed up in rotation and protect it against the Sun same how Mars needs a protection so it can regain the atmopshere. For moon candidates I could suggest Ceres for Mars and Callisto for Venus but objectively moving objects in that size and scale is far beyond our current options. Another option would be to create artificial moons for these planets on the zone where the moons can affect their planets and not fly away or fall into the planet so it needs maintain speed and range too and pressure. Venus if terraformed would be ideal for humanity simply because of the similar size, mass and gravity. Mars needs some adaptation but I believe the gravity on Mars is still on the verge to be okay. 0,20 gravity is the line where I would say it is risky but of course the more close to our own is the better. Another option would be terraform Titan but it have lower gravity than Mars and further away and without a fast interstellar technology we cannot travel there to start a process and fly back within 2 week. Another problem we should consider is we need space ship designs for transportation, colonization and weapons (for safety reasons). Also another thing is these ships should not be built on our own planet but build on the moon or in the space so we need to invent space shipyards to make our vehicles in space so it does not need to use rockets to eject them in orbit. Space minding must be before the terraforming so collecting materials from he space and build ships in space could be cost efficient and easier to set up them for travels. Space elevator could be tested if it can work or not but that also is a huge task. Tldr, I love space strategies.

[@josh_bartholomew_2530]

tbh I don't see terraforming either planet as really very realistic. It would need a huge combined effort of entire societies over the course of many generations. If Italy has trouble staying together on earth I don't see how you could get a huge unified effort on terraforming an entire planet. Not to mention, just look at how much changed over the course of the 20th century. When the return period on terraforming is at least centuries and maybe even Millenia, how could you possibly hope to keep enough of a unified effort to do that. Plus, if you settled a planet and then started terraforming it, why would people generations down the line keep terraforming? If you were a member of the 10th generation of Martians, you'd probably look back at Earth the same way Americans do to England. For you, you're entire life and the entire lives of your parents and grandparents and even great grandparents would have been spent on Mars, and your society would have changed drastically to get used to the differences between the planets, so why would you want to completely change your planet to be more like one that the majority of people you've ever met has never even seen?

[@sziklamester1244]

@@josh_bartholomew_2530 For the first part of your answer, yes it is. In the future we humans need to work together combined and at least with a small amountcontribute to the terraforming project. You came with Italy as a counter point and there are your points legit in some way. Italy is a corrupt place just like actually everyone where there are humans, money and greed. Hard to commit something for now but in the future it is possible the common interest to do something. Terraforming projects are long time projects so whoever will contribute and overseer the project those people need to know what they doing and why. The what is a changing variable which will change over the course as how the technology improve and we adopt it in our lifetime same goes to the future. The why part is if I want a short answer, because it is a common interest. If you have option to live on a partial terraformed planet or just paraterraformed under the dome in a city, or you can live on a fully terraformed planet with an environment that is not lethal to you then you would choose the second. Those people and their generations hopefully will choose the second option because it is their common interest to live on a place what not kills you if you not wear any suit. What you pointed out is simple and reasonable because we humans are not unified or not the same and everyone have interests and needs. I speak on a future manner where the people by that time became more intelligent and more unified and less greedy. Of course there will be human needs and greed in the future but by that time the technology and society should developed enough that way to be able handle and contribute to projects that over your lifetime. If you see a lot of things currently in our lifetime changes and the technology level improved drastically from 1986 (when I born) up to 2023. Also humanity worked on make equality, better live standards and there were technologies what was invented in ancient or bronze age times what we currently use in a base level. Also in the future there could be the same with Mars once they reach a development they would want to be free and independent and I think that is the better way to handle colonies. Also the same answer to the last part of your comment to why the people would want the old standards, simply because of logic and surive. All living organism want to survive and if cannot adapt to an environment then it dies but humans have the tools and the interests to make the environment suitable for themselves. Different groups see differently and as we have problems now on Earth in the future there will be too and on all the other places we started to terraform. Who knows maybe in the future a life time is 250-300 year or even 500 so in your life time there could be a visible progress. The better question what I see would be is the ethical part of it. Should we terraform a place if there are chances that living things live on those bodies? I think it depends on what life we find and if we experiment with those life forms what they like more. If the said life enjoys living on that actual condition then we should not terraform but if we don't find meaningful life on those planets then we need to expand our interests and colonize / terraform these planets to make it suitabe for all known life form not only just us Humans. These long time projects needs rescurces, education to what and why we do, patience and interests. That is also a task to keep your burn level high so you will not abandon the project half way or so. When we talk about terraforming or any major projects overall we always see the actual perspectives what we currently have but if you see how much development and technology we adopt per year my hope is stays strong. I see this as a chance to expand our species and survive cataclysms if there would be. The only question is once the terraform is done what society we will build on these planets but those inherently will be different than what we have. Possible they never will fall into the same mistakes as we did it but because humans, errors will be there but hopefully the AI by that time will assist us to settle down much efficiently. Anyway thanks your answer/questions.

[@josh_bartholomew_2530]

@@sziklamester1244 my problem with that idea is that it puts faith in humans suddenly becoming more unified, but if history has taught us anything it should be that human nature never changes. I never understood the idea that one day humans will just be more intelligent and stop fighting each other. History is not something that just goes in a linear direction towards progress and peace. It ebs and flows and sometimes humans come out less advanced then before or even more barbaric then before, so I don’t see humans suddenly wanting to work together and wanting to be peaceful when likely many of those colonizing Mars would come from countries back on earth that hate each other.

[@sziklamester1244]

@@josh_bartholomew_2530 This will not be the case, possible in the future we will see similar things but groups of people could work for this idea and that is mainly enough. Humans could be better but we have tools like genetic engineering, selection and education - ethics. Most things what we can do is put faith on people otherwise nothing would work. You need to find those people in the future whom in the current era thinks the same way. Total unification is an utopia but the common interest could do miracles. Many nations were enslaved by the current ones but they still have faith either adopted or assimilated but exists because they have had faith their life will change positively. The history is an example of things what we could or could not repeat but it depends on the said groups that will repeat it or avoid and try other paths. Errors are exists so with trial and error some things can be figure out but the human nature is a slowly evolving one. This is a process and maybe it takes 100-500-1000-10000 year to change even millions of years evolution but if possible less. This is like the equivalent of courting, you need to find the person (i didn't seek) who is similar to you in the view of things. That is the only possible way to do progress, like minded and less deviated groups of people who can boost each other and disagree on points what compromiseable. There are tools to make it better we just need to learn make it better.

[@Zeder95]

Maybe Venus woudln't need a speed up in rotation considering plants, animals and humans in the polar regions of earth already adapted to permanent daylight during summer and permanent night during winter. For seasonal plants from earth, the Venus day and night would be more like summer and winter.

[@nolan4339]

One point that may make Venus easier are the issues of automation and wear and tear associated to construction. Venus would be heavily reliant upon atmospheric processing for synthesizing building materials, and as these designed habitats would be floating and not needing to deal with soil and dust, the automation and chemical reactors needed to build out these facilities may be a lot easier to design and maintain than infrastructure on mars, which will likely require a more involved human presence, in order to deal with repairs and cleaning that will be associated to mineral processing.

[@walsh4president]

If humans ever develop the technology to terraform a planet than we should start with the one we live on now

[@ecoideazventures6417]

Earth is the easiest planet to terraform to create a habitable ecosystem. Shall we do that first!?!

[@maxcastro007]

Why go to Mars or even Hell Venus? If you wanna go to Mars go to AZ or NM . If wanna go to Venus just go to pit fire. We need to terraform the Earth. Keep or planet safe and better to the next generations!

[@maxhocks2006]

I think it all depends on how much gravity humans need. If we can survive long term on mars level gravity then mars, if not then Venus. Venus is a hellish place, it’s the only place with earth level gravity. That alone may make it the better terraforming candidate.

[@greyeyes_yt]

I'd say it's more of a situational thing. For humans specifically or for life itself? If for humans, Mars. For life? Venus. I don't think humans would even be able to do Venus in general. But, instead, build those cloud cities that process air. Have people in the cities dedicated to growing plant life. Eventually, the air will be calm, and some plants might take to the air like how we have some airborne cells on our planet. Eventually those cells would move downwards, and possibly seeding the surface. Bring in water from astroids (not moons or dwarf planets), culture said water in orbit around Earth to make it viable for consumption, and then bring it to Venus. Meanwhile, with Mars. I would say you got some things backwards. We'd want to get the atmosphere right before worrying about temperature. The if we get the temperature just right, then we add in more gases (which honestly could possibly be harvested from Venus), and the greenhouse effect will start overheating Mars. These are just my ideas, I could've very wrong and misunderstanding things. But hey, I'm young and I got stuff to learn.

[@tbur8901]

A mirror & solar panel grid around Venus could redirect part of the sunlight to the night side recreating Earth's day and night rythm. It could also function as a satellite grid and slowly 'harvest' hydrogen and helium from space and/or possibly extract CO2 and alter the atmosphere. Human settlement would start from the poles like on the moon because of the slow rotation of Venus.

[@ManImTheVoid]

They both would be difficult But.... Which is easier? Cooling a Planet or Warming a planet? We suck at cooling our own planet, but warming a planet is a lot more easier.

[@ManImTheVoid]

Mars is much more easier

[@sookendestroy1]

Mars would be easiest to terraform, venus would be the easiest to colonize. Venus has a very narrow strip of atmosphere that mimics earth's. You'd have to keep the colony afloat but theoretically you could drop inflatable balloons into the atmosphere and have habitats deploy from them. Dont ask how we'd be able to get astronauts to and from those though, you'd have to essentially float entire launch sites and land/launch from them without disturbing the surrounding colony.

[@ericgolightly8450]

Spaceplanes. Floating aircraft carriers would be awesome.

[@kevinlindstrom8486]

Unless we can invent artificial gravity, we're gonna have to find a way to work with Venus because you need healthy gravity to grow human beings.

[@ericgolightly8450]

Artificial Gravity is easy. You just need a big centrifuge.

[@kevinlindstrom8486]

@@ericgolightly8450 on the planet?

[@jerrilehane7815]

Mars & Moon have underground cities.I found Mars people 2004 see pics Jerry Lehane Mars.

[@DJ-tt7tq]

Fascinated by this,as well as other possibilities in the solar system, say Titan too.Personally though, I wouldn't leave our planet, as the Earth is our home. Good luck to future generations who may attempt this though.

[@Architekto]

We are closer to terraforming Earth into Mars…

[@unknownytaus]

Well what if you smoked a cigarette on any other planet then

[@jameskelly3502]

With regards to giving Mars a magnetic field. It is estimated that the amount of electricity needed to generate that field is to be equal to the power requirements of the entire U.S. That by itself isn't feasible.

[@mariop8101]

We could live in the Venus Clouds at the right pressure and temperature, removing gradually the CO2 atmosphere and lowering the altitude as the temperature and pressure start to reduce.

[@ericgolightly8450]

Where do we put it though?

[@mariop8101]

@@ericgolightly8450 O2 to breathe and Carbon to make more habitats.

[@standardindividualist9278]

Another point missed out might be the shifting habitable zone of the sun over time of its existence. Currently, venus is at the edge of the habitable zone, while earth is 'at the middle' of it. In the future, venus will be out of it, while earth will take in Venus' place. Mars will be in 'our' spot by then. If we are willing to do centuries of work to get a new home, why not also choose one which won't be devoured by sun's increasing strength anyway?

[@ericgolightly8450]

Centuries of work, a billion years with a new planet. It won't be as fast as you think.

[@standardindividualist9278]

@@ericgolightly8450 how long exactly it will take is pure speculation, and depends on the available technology/money of the time we start it. I said centuries. Maybe it will be much more, maybe it will take only a few years, who knows?

[@hawgryder13]

If we last long enough as a technological species we will undoubtedly teraform both but Mars is our best bet at this point. Of course, first we have to get there and establish a base. Let's get going!

[@jjhendo]

What about the Mars gravity problem? If people spend too much time there, your bones will never allow you to return to Earth.

[@HailAnts]

Even on _Star Trek,_ set some 300 years in the future, Mars is shown to be, not terraformed, but colonized. But Venus is never even mentioned..

[@ericgolightly8450]

Star Trek isn't hard sci-fi, probably not the best place to get your facts from.

[@MDE_never_dies]

With venus for the time being we should just colonise her skies and focus our terraforming efforts on Mars. For Mars I would propose an asteroid or cometary redirection into the polar ice caps to increase the atmospheric water and CO2 content. We’ll need to get the atmosphere up to at least 20% of Earth. Venus will take a Herculean effort. Nothing short of solar shades or something crazy like an orbital dynamo to create a magnetic field or speed up the rotation, the power requirements will be for an established type 1.5 - type 2 civ. If we can cool venus and speed it up then everything else becomes almost trivial. We could even ship that excess atmosphere off to Mars solid form once it freezes to the surface. The rotation needs to be fixed, that goes without saying. Otherwise the planet will be cooked on one side and a frozen wasteland on the other for most of the year, with a thin sliver of habitable region, like a tidally locked planet. Infact it would almost be better if Venus was tidally locked. As it stands, created vast aerial cities is far more practical, not to mention cool.

[@adams74]

Good show. Both are challenging.

[@InsaneCuriosity]

Thanks for watching!

[@andyhart358]

The easiest planet to terraform is Earth. It wouldn't take much to turn it into a radioactive virtually lifeless ball of melted slag. Look at how well we are doing so far, and some of us are not even trying.

[@denniscraggs8393]

Correction, Mars and it’s core both rotate. Mars’ core doesn’t churn enough to generate a magnetic field. Perhaps we could encircle the equator with a super conducting coil carrying huge amounts of current to generate a magnetic field? Over time, it may even stimulate the core to churn and develop a field of sufficient strength.

[@stupidburp]

Terraform both of them as much as is economically feasible within resource constraints. That can potentially make colonization of them easier even if colonists have to remain inside protected structures. Bringing the atmospheric pressures and temperatures to less extreme ranges might even allow seeding some forms of life outside of protective habitats. That would in turn provide resources to the colonists even if it is just biomass to improve soil quality for domed agriculture.

[@stupidburp]

The chemistry and pressure is more important then the temperature in the short term because these problems can be fixed to a large extent if you change the chemistry enough and are likely to have wild swings during the intermediate stages.

[@fanOmry]

Venus is easier. You mostly need some shade, and remove most of the CO2. Adding hydrogen, would help, but still easier than Mars. That needs *everything* added there, because it barely has anything there, airwise. Edit to add: solar wind. You place a swarm at L1, solar powered, reflective and filtering. The first few years? Barely a drop, but with automation, and possibly Filter mining the sun, you have all the hidrogen you need. And as long as you make sure that the majority of what you take out of the sun is anything heavier than He³ you will be litterally extending our star's life. And frankly, all our needs for the next thousand years will not even scratch its mass. So, a habitat/automated craft swarm in the L1 of Venus-Sun and you reduced significantly the light it gets. Add sky cities that use the heat diferencial of the lower-higher air layers, and you have another accelarating point. And those cities use the atmosphere are a resource for building materials. You know, graphene. Add in hydrogen from the sun/solar wind, and you now have an at first slow, but accelarating, teraforming. As for day/night, we will be better of having a rotating shade/miror. Possibly one that begins as a swarm, and later consolidated into a structure. And yeah, still much easier than Mars. People talk about using A bombs... Would work but raising the heat will mean that the air will escape faster. So you will be litterally better off importing in gasses. To remind, that planet's air is almost pure CO2, just thin. So you need to import in all kinds of comets/filter the sun for elements(litterally faster), for a mass larger than the earths air, just so it doesn't all fly off. Or... bring that mass in solid state, not crash it in, but just, park it out and let it sublimate. In that form, along with a proper magnetic field, you might be able to bring in less than the mass of the earth's full air. If only because Earth has a stronger gravity, which makes Mars lose its air faster. Add to it more mass in the air, and that on its own may make the air stay for longer. So that you have to refill it after longer. Still. You want it to have enough light? You still need mirors. Like venus. But unlike venus, that could handle exporting some mass out, do that on mars, and the only way to live on it would be via planet *stationed* space habitats.

[@erichtomanek4739]

Humans are already terraforming a planet: AquaTerra.

[@GrimmJaw496]

do them both we will need the room!

[@viperswhip]

Crazily I think it works best if you do them both at the same time, because Venus has all the CO2 we would need to increase the pressure and temperature on Mars.

[@blahsomethingclever]

Venus

[@StevenHughes-hr5hp]

The fact that Venus atmosphere would crush any landing spacecraft makes it unterriformable... unless you can conceive of floating cities in the sky.

[@tureytayno3154]

How about living under Mars surface? The future inhabitants would be protected from the irradiated surface.

[@mpbroadcast]

Lava tubes that have already been surveyed from orbit may turn out to be the best place to set up initial settlements on Mars. They are cold, but with a combination of solar and nuclear power for energy, they offer nearly complete protection from the harsh radiation present on the surface due to no magnetic field. Also, it may be possible to seal the insides to create larger pressurized spaces for habitation than would otherwise be possible on the surface.

[@greatvidznaga3183]

It will be difficult to retain the atmosphere on mars coz its escape velocity is very low as well as it dont hv its magnetic field !!! Its atmosphere is likely to lose to the space sooner or later even if we retain its atmosphere

[@paulfri1569]

Swap the Mars and Venus orbit around 🤔

[@morrisirungu8712]

Venus. probably because it will form a thicker atmosphere than Mars.

[@seanstenson95]

I feel that venus would be a better candidate since it has a nice thick atmosphere already and anything we change about it wont be lost to the cosmos, unlike mars. In venus' case it would be more viable to take a rich "deathly" atmosphere and convert it into a plesent one, where in mars case we would have to largely create that atmosphere by pumping pollutants into it to warm the planet.

[@EgguEd51]

I read about possibly building a giant solar shield in orbit around the planet, which can be created to fend off the charged particles stripping away the renewed atmosphere

[@seanstenson95]

@@EgguEd51 correct, but you have to either have 1 humungous satellite or a fleet of average sized ones. Plus it has to closer to the sun than the mars L point. Not to mention the fuel cost to keep it in orbit. Possibly a solution down the line when we can have space fuel depots scattered around the Martian orbit.

[@mondotv4216]

@@EgguEd51So you build a solar shield, you then reduce the already inadequate solar insolation that Mars gets. You need a magnetic field. An artificial magnetic field requires energy and energy is a problem the further you get away from the sun. The only plausible scenario is to use gravitational energy.

[@EgguEd51]

@@mondotv4216 unlike creating an artificial magnetic field for the planet which is basically science fiction at this point in time, the solar shield is a feasible and realistic solution to the problem (although obviously not a perfect solution)

[@ericgolightly8450]

​@@EgguEd51 Hey, have you heard of this really cool thing called a magnet? They're pretty cool, they stick together like magic.

[@keithmcdonnell4485]

Ummm, terraforming has been a staple of science fiction since the early 1940's, with early examples dating back to the late 1800's... the term was not invented in 1982.

[@titolino73]

Very nice upload!

[@vanceamania]

Great video. Gave me a lot to think abt

[@LeeMacMillan-v6i]

Think about the logistics required for such an undertaking. With Venus were talking about building sunscreens and mirrors that would cover a plant almost as large as earth! With mars we have to build an atmosphere and somehow retain it with Mars low gravity and no magnetosphere. Both are incredibly difficult and expensive!

[@InsaneCuriosity]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[@larryyoderlarryyoder353]

Look at it this way..of the sun grows in size,would you want to be closer to the sun or farther out on mars ?

[@kipkipper-lg9vl]

gravity is the most important thing, earth is the only habitable planet

[@goncal7099]

How much C02/methane or water is stored in the polar caps? I am pretty sure you need A LOT more than melting those to get an atmosphere were we could live. I think you missed multiple things in this video

[@linz8291]

Both of planets had started terraforming process since last century, which one is better or easier? None of them but all of them.

[@InsaneCuriosity]

Terraforming both Mars and Venus has its challenges and benefits. Neither is truly easier; both have unique difficulties.

[@Zeder95]

Advantages of Mars: Mars already had water ice and CO2 ice, we would only need to find a way to heat it up, possible with super-powerful mass-produced greenhouse gases combined with an artificial magnetic shield to melt the CO2 ice and water ice. We would then need to find a way to remove the CO2 and get oxygen. We could first get some hydrogen from the water by doing an electrolysis reaction with it to produce oxygen and hydrogen, and then put the hydrogen and CO2 into a Bosch reaction which would produce water and graphite (elemental carbon). Mars also has a similar day-cycle and seasons to earth. Disadvantages of Mars: Due to lower gravity, Mars might not be able to hold a thick atmosphere forever, which would mean we would need to bring new water, oxygen and nitrogen from somewhere else in the solar system after thousands or tenthousands of years. Also Mars is only half the size of Earth, so it has less surface area to inhabit than Earth or Venus. We also don't know if the low gravity can be harmful to the human body over time. Also since Mars has no magnetic field we need to artificially generate one. Advantages of Venus: It has a similar surface area and gravity to Earth, and it is able to holds onto a thick atmosphere just like earth and won't lose it into space. Disadvantages of Venus: Since we would need to remove almost all of the CO2 from the atmosphere, this would take a lot more effort than Mars. The best way might be to bring hydrogen from Jupiter, react it with the CO2 in a Bosch reaction to produce water and graphite. Due to the density of the atmosphere it would require a lot of hydrogen and take long. We would also need to find a way to get rid of the sulphuric acid. We would also need to produce oxygen from some of the water by electrolysis. And because Venus receives more sunlight than earth, to cool it down to earth temperatures we would also need to install some kind of giant mirror/filter floating in space in front of Venus that filters out part of the sunlight. The slow rotation of Venus might also be a challenge, although I think plants and animals that are adapted to seasons on earth could also adapt to the Venus day and night cycle, since day and night would be more like summer and winter to them. In the polar regions of earth, plants and animals are already adapted to phases of permanent sunlight or permanent night.

[@Alexu_lalas]

Let’s terraform earths desert 🏜️

[@prabaharanaece]

why waste earth's resources to terraform another planet??

[@alexhigginbotham8635]

Considering that neither have a magnetic field it would be pointless to terraform either one.

[@ericgolightly8450]

Put a magnet between it and the sun.

[@angelhd7446]

How about build the floating cities on Venus with Algae as the main lifeform in the beginning. These Algae farms can then be harvested and collected into reusable spaceships. Then we send the Algae filled spaceships to Mars where we can release the algae into low Mars orbit where it will eventually deorbit and burn up in Mars atmosphere releasing more carbon into Mars atmosphere to begin warming it up. I know this might take thousands of years and thousands or millions of reuseable spaceships, but it's something that space colonists may be able to do in the beginning to get the balls rolling.

[@luciusirving5926]

Terraforming Titan or exoplanets would be a better idea. Maybe future generations will move moons from gas giants elsewhere.

[@johnmorelli3775]

Assuming we could create oxygen, how tall does Mars' atmosphere have to be in order to create the same (i.e., earth-normal) air pressure? Sea-level air pressure on Earth is 1,013 millibars and on Mars maybe 6 to 7 millibars. Would Mars atmosphere have to be 45 kilometers tall in order to achieve earth-comparable air pressure? Simple?

[@JazzGaming26]

It might not be possible to terraform Venus and Mars in our lifetime but it may be possible within a few hundred years.

[@ukaszgrzegowski4220]

It would be interesting if it were possible to move Venus from the sun, for example, from the current distance of 108 million km to about 130 million km. If that were the case, Venus in Earth's sky would be even brighter and longer visible because it would be slightly further away from the sun in Earth's sky. The Earth-Moon distance is about 1/3 million km, the current shortest Earth-Venus distance is 40 million km, so hypothetically you need to fly the Earth-Moon distance 120 times to reach Venus.

[@TheRealRedAce]

Would it then be in an unstable orbit due to gravitation from other planets? It would be awkward if Venus ended up in France or Kansas.

[@ericgolightly8450]

Paul Birch talked about it once.

[@dvongrad]

The correct choice is obvious-take a fraction of the trillions needed to terraform either and use that to clean up our home world. Simple, right?

[@musicman8270]

Nothing wrong with our homeworld. You've probably been told carbon is poison. Its not. Its plant food

[@kevinskoien6165]

Neither is likely, although Venus would be somewhat easier. Mars has such a weak magnetosphere that it could never sufficiently protect the atmosphere, or water, let alone any non-microbial life from the solar wind and various types of radiation. Venus has an adequate magnetic field, but since its rotational duration is almost three times longer than its orbital duration, everything will fry without adequate shielding. And without a substantial moon to affect tides, even large bodies of water will most likely be stagnant be stagnant. Just have to lower the ambient temperature well below the current 850 degrees Fahrenheit, the incomprehensible atmospheric pressure, oh, and deal with that pesky sulfuric acid rain, then you are good to go.

[@bidav2114]

Let's work on terraforming Venus, it's closer and less complicated in my opinion. Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere so too much radiation

[@paulsypersma7165]

its an energy tranfer problem ,defletive lazer to mars,deflectors unknown

[@kingwesleyXIV]

Besides the mentioned problems... Mars is less "energy rich" than venus sinds solar panels are way less effective as would wind energy

[@paulsypersma7165]

asteroid orbiter high speed, a tractor beam on mars,towed where it belongs,the gravity is to low to be viable elsewhere.

[@johnmorelli3775]

While Venus may be harder to terraform, the benefits are far greater. The planet is much bigger than Mars therefore more resource rich. Venus is closer and easier to get to. It offers the same gravity. It is doubtful that humans can live long term in such a low gravity environment - we know how damaging a zero gravity environment is. 38% earth gravity while substantial is probably inadequate. Mars would lose its atmosphere (especially oxygen) over time given its smaller size/lower gravity. That would have to be replenished continuously. The CO2 at Mars' poles is not enough to materially heat the planet.

[@ericgolightly8450]

Mars can hold oxygen, it can't hold water vapor though for super long though.

[@johnmorelli3775]

@@ericgolightly8450 If you assume we want to heat the planet (I do), then maybe it can't hold on to the oxygen, right?

[@ericgolightly8450]

@@johnmorelli3775 What I described is with an artificial magnetic field, and full earth temepatures. I don't think oxygen randomly reaches escape velocity when it wants to.

[@ericgolightly8450]

@@johnmorelli3775 You are right about the CO2, we will need stronger, and heavy greenhouse gasses like SF6. Or we could use mirrors to reflect light onto mars. Things like ammonia and methane are to light to stay in mars' gravity for very long.

[@johnmorelli3775]

@@ericgolightly8450 I assume if we heat Mars & give it a much thicker atmosphere the dust storms will be phenomenal!

[@senseihitmanwayofkempo8305]

Lets keep earth

[@derekwilliams6271]

Lift hydrogen off the Sun and shoot it at venus. If you also build a modular solar shield then you begin to block out the sun and reduce the temperature. As carbon drops out of the atmosphere due to reactions between the hydrogen and atmospheric CO2 it could also lower the albedo and temperature. Once the temperature and atmospheric pressure are low enough for liquid water then you can introduce oxygen producing bacteria and algae.

[@geraldarquizal5388]

If we Earthlings finally terraform Mars to habitable environment to us then the challenge is on the terraform Venus. As some scientist predict that if we look at the youth of our planet they are the future Martian.

[@geraldarquizal5388]

Or Venusian.

[@abstraction6212]

Venuses melting atmosphere to the point of melting metal means that planet is way harder to adapt. Mars is dryer and that planet seems like well have and easier time terraforming.

[@Reyajh]

I think that as time goes on, through automation AND other advances, we will find that it is quicker to terraform Venus than Mars. I think Mars will have people living on it first (Including counting people living in the clouds of Venus as ON it). But I think Venus will win the terraforming race. To be clear, I think the challenges to overcome for terraforming Venus will be eliminated/surmounted/what have you, quicker, and that it's greater size and reward will help to make it the superior choice AND FOCUS!

[@erichtomanek4739]

Would you need nitrogen for the atmosphere and surface? Where to get from?

[@Daryanplays]

We can get it from titan and earth or just create factories that produces nitrogen that can get nitrogen into the atmosphere.

[@danieltustison822]

I think get poeple living in floating citys on Venice and if they find ways get to live on ground so be it if not they still can stay afloat

[@paulsypersma7165]

knock high speed asteroids,in orbit of venus,this will break the tidal lock.and move it out,tractor beam

[@botortamas]

I can’t believe these comments. It’s not even a debate. Do these people even realise that soon as you set foot on Venus you would not only vaporise from the heat but pop like a balloon due to its surface pressures being the same as in the oceans miles down. That’s space stuff 101.

[@Eazy-ERyder]

IKR. Mars can be colonized. We would stand a MUCH better chance on TITAN than either of them though..

[@ericgolightly8450]

The point is to make it not that. I don't think you read the title.

[@8achter8]

😀 terraforming is not hypothetical. It's delliousional!

[@asldfjkalsdfjasdf]

I would feel safer in floating cities on Venus than having a machine powered magnetic shield protecting the atmosphere from being blown away from solar radiation.

[@Straigo]

Why does this video’s thumbnail show a reddened image of The Moon in place of Mars?

[@muffinjunior1280]

But before we start cooling down Venus, could we start with earth instead?

[@davidwachira5606]

This is excellent

[@100percentSNAFU]

Assuming we could remove the toxic atmosphere and terraform on Venus, I wonder how comfortable temperatures would be there for humans, being about 25M miles/40M km closer to the sun than earth. I would think we would have to be near the poles and even those would feel like tropical climates on earth.

[@ericgolightly8450]

Not speeding up its rotation, clouds would form over its surface and reflect light. The highest temperature would be about 35°C.

[@stupidburp]

Ancient Venus was already close to Earth like conditions, including large water oceans.

[@johnmorelli3775]

We could install AC right?

[@banks615]

Venus is probably harder to work with but it might have more potential in the long run. Either way this is likely to be something developed a.i and robots take on, we're not built to handle space in the ways we would need to be to terraform a planet.

[@FlamespeedyAMV]

It's only possible with robots and AI, and probably would speed up the process by centuries