Talk:Terraforming

Terraforming vs. Planetary Engineering

In the spirit of a neutral point of view, this article should be moved to Planetary engineering. The term, terraforming, is inaccurate and anthropocentric. --Viriditas 21:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is about making various planets and other astronomical bodies more Earth-like, which is what terraforming is. I see no reason why one would also want to include information in the same article about Venusforming, Marsiforming, or whatever else; much better to create an entirely new article dedicated to that specific type of planetary engineering to hold the details. If you want a generic overview then planetary engineering would be a good place for it with a link to terraforming, Venusforming, etc. for the specifics. Bryan 00:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Terraforming has arrogant, homocentric connotations which you have indirectly acknowledged. The very notion of forcing alien worlds to be more "Earth-like" is a sisyphean task. These planets will never be "Earth-like"; they are unique in and of themselves in every way. I suppose it is difficult to think outside the current paradigms which structure our language, but others have tried and succeeded. Haynes suggested the word ecopoiesis. Once a rival to the concept of terraforming it is now enslaved as a subset, which is ironic (and insulting) if you consider that terraforming was a lowly, specialized subset of ecopoiesis; a grander, more inclusive term which forces the mind to think beyond the confines of its own point of view and embrace distant alien worlds as homes to inhabit and explore, not as foreign lands to conquer into submission. --Viriditas 13:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If "terraforming" has arrogant, homocentric connotations, then we have a section for discussing the problem in this article: "Ethical issues". Feel free to expand that section, and add a note and link to the more general planetary engineering. As Bryan is saying, this article is about the very specific concept of making planets Earth-like, not modifying planets in general.

As a side note, this article looks quite good to me. Maybe a featured article candidate? The problems I can see are the duplicated sentences about fiction in the lead section / the fiction section, and the previously mentioned "Ethical issues" section perhaps being a little short. Also, although the article has images it has no GFDL image. I could easily "remake" at least the one at the top showing a transformation, though unfortunately that wouldn't be too original... Fredrik | talk 14:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I support planetary engineering. The arrogant, homocentric connotations of the word "terraforming" is what I was objecting to in that context. While the two of you (and many others) might claim that terraforming is about making planetary bodies more Earth-like, the process of introducing ecosystems will be a unique process which will depend on the systems already in place. Ecopoiesis is at the root of any serious terraforming operation, and this does not entail or an imply an earth-like form. I am suggesting that the word "terraforming" is limited in scope, and interferes with the vision required to succeed in this task. The steps towards these goals are essentially described as homocentric, not ecocentric. When people use the word "terraforming" they are not talking about making worlds more Earth-like, but more conducive to human habitation. This is in sharp contrast to, ...the process of establishing an ecosystem, or biosphere, on a lifeless planet is best termed 'ecopoiesis.'(Haynes RH, McKay CP, Adv Space Res. 1992;12(4):133-40.) Ecopoesis (creating an ecosystem) is a prerequisite for generating atmospheric oxygen (Fogg, J Br Interplanet Soc. 1995 Oct;48(10):427-34.). Ecopoiesis is usually referred to as ecosynthesis in the relevant literature, due to NASA's penchant for that term. The process of making Mars habitable for terrestrial organisms is called terraforming or planetary ecosynthesis. (Graham, Astrobiology. 2004 Summer;4(2):168-95.). I intend to update the page to reflect the history of the term and its usage. --Viriditas 04:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, the term "terraforming" is indeed limited in scope compared to "planetary engineering" or "ecopoesis". But that's quite proper, because the subject of this article is limited in scope in the same way. It's all about making various planets more Earthlike, which is what terraforming is. If you want to write an article about creating ecosystems on non-Earthlike planets or about modifying planetary environments in general, I really think you should simply create the articles ecopoiesis and planetary engineering and do it there, rather than hijacking this existing terraforming-focused article for that purpose. Some of the material from here could be split off into those new articles (geoengineering, for example), which would allow this article to become even more focused on the subject of its title. Bryan 05:50, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please explain to me how an update consisting of at most, an insertion of a paragraph or two in the history section, can be construed as an act of "hijacking"? Again, terraforming is not about making planets more earth-like. If it was, terraforming would be mostly concerned with creating liquid oceans and propagating vertebrates with gills. The term is a misnomer. Terraforming is really about creating ecosystems and niches for life, which is why terms like ecopoiesis and ecosynthesis are more exact. At the very least, some mention should be made of these terms in the article, which is exactly what I have proposed. I am not interested in wikiterrorism, nor edit wars of any kind. I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have fostered.--Viriditas 07:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean it in that strongly a negative sense, sorry if you took it as threatening. By moving the article, all this material on terraforming would wind up under an article that was about a more general subject and the "terraforming" article would be left with nothing but a redirect. Since in my opinion most of the material here does belong under the "terraforming" label, I'd have to either move the stuff back or recreate the current article from scratch - hence my description of a move to a different title as being "hijacking" of the content. Obviously we disagree about whether the term is a misnomer, I think it's quite clear that most of the stuff talked about in this article currently is about making planets more Earth-like. Not all of it, though - I've already mentioned the geoengineering section as one such. Tell you what, how about I go ahead and start articles on planetary engineering and ecosynthesis myself and we'll see if they can all coexist to the satisfaction of everyone concerned? Bryan 17:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At the very least, I do think that the article should be categorized under engineering. You seem to have avoided my point about expanding the history section to include other terms and processes. Some of the material does indeed belong in terraforming, and you would not have to recreate the article from scratch to include it. Like I said before, an addition to the History of scholarly study section, the Ethical Issues section, and the Theoretical methods of terraforming section are needed. This addition is not meant to change any of the existing information but merely to add content (see above) that is missing. As for starting the other articles, I think that's a different issue. If you want to do that, go right ahead, but the terraforming article still needs an update. --Viriditas 19:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Once those other articles exist, then their relation to terraforming and links to them should definitely be included in the intro to terraforming. I'll create them and see how it goes in an hour or so. Bryan 00:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ethical issues

The ethical issues section should begin with responsibility. Terraforming science and engineering has not yet been demonstrated on Earth. Worldwide, scientists and engineers confronted with increasing climate changes, recognize their incapacity to understand, model and even help in the maintenance of planet Earth. The planet we live on is loosing its healthy balance because of our ignorance. What good would be that ignorance in terraforming other planets. The emergency for intelligent ideas and actions is right here on this planet Earth. Unless this earthlings responsibilty ethical issue does not apply on wikipedia, another planet alltogether? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.50.153 (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have added some more information to the ethical issues section, but it needs clarification and references to noted authors (claimants). In the near future, it may be worthy to export this section to a new article (Ethics of terraforming) which is why I'm in the process of summarizing and distilling each view to their main points. It's actually a little more difficult than it looks since there is some overlap between each position and they are not as sharply delineated as they might first appear. --Viriditas 23:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ethics section is only three paragraphs long, IMO it'd have to get a heck of a lot longer to justify breaking it off into its own article. How much were you thinking of writing on it? Bryan 00:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't know how much I could write on it, but I'm sure it could reach at least 12 paragraphs. I'll try and add some attributions later, but other than that, I probably won't extend it all that much, at least not until more work is done on the environmental ethics article. I'm still interested in creating ecopoiesis (also known as ecosynthesis) and adding those elements to the terraforming page. Also, how do you feel about including citations? -Viriditas 01:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good, 12 paragraphs sounds like a good size to consider splitting off. As for citations, a "references" section is great but I'd recommend being careful not to put lots and lots of citation numbers into the text itself; too many superscripted or bracketed numbers make text less pleasant to read IMO. But that's a personal preference, so don't let it hold you back. :) Bryan 03:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Bryan. Terraforming is the heading most users will think of and they will likely give up before they find it under other titles.Ccpoodle 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

This is the place to discuss the article. Where would be a place to discuss the subject as such?
(Speculate about methods of terraforming, discussing the conditions and mecanisms by which they work or the obstacles that would make them fail.)
84.160.196.73 11:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) Terraforming, in my opinion, is a minor ethical issue. To counter the first post, I'd say that 'messing with another planet' can be very easily managed, because it is not being conducted by a company looking for a cost-effective means of accomplishing his goals. What I mean to say is, if NASA, or even Virgle goes to, say Mars, they're doing it for the sake of exploring the planet, and will only use terraforming to make it easier to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.101.6 (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Colony

This should probably go under planetary engineering, but for the section about ethical issues somebody should discuss Rick Wernli's short story Colony, which appears in the anthology A Gathering of Flowers, edited by Joyce Carol Thomas. AGOF is published by HarperTrophy of HarperCollins Publishers. --Fighter 23:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Venus Terraforming

The article speaks of using comets. However has anyone any information on using ice-comets and let them rain down on Venus? Could an ice-comet (used from the Kuiper Belt maybe) be carefully brought over, broken in smaller pieces and brought down into the atmosphere? This would add water to the atmosphere and bring about a cooling and add to the creation of oceans. Which in turn help regulate a moderate temperature. Can anyone verify or correct this? Gryffindor 18:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It would add water, but not necessarily help cool things down. In fact, it could make things even hotter since water vapor is a greenhouse gas. I've read speculation that Venus had a water ocean way back when the solar system was still young but that the slow increase in the Sun's temperature over time caused a runaway "humid greenhouse" effect, boiling them away. Greenhouse_effect#Water_vapor_effects and Greenhouse_effect#Limiting_factors have some information on this. Bryan 00:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

According to Robert Zubrin in Entering Space (ISBN 1585420360), it would take some 92 million "iceteroids" (i.e. objects composed primarily of ice, in this case water ice) with a mass of a billion tonnes each to create oceans on Venus large enough to absorb the CO₂ (equivalent to a world ocean 200 meters deep). In short, it's not really a practical option. siafu 01:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Saying about anything here as "it's not really a practical option" is completely missing the point of this, no? Its more like a series of thought experiments anticipating what problems would come up assuming x,y, and z are possible with future technology. The billion tonnes sounds credible-- but where does one come up with the number 92 million? Is this from averaging out average amounts in observed ice objects? How about transporting the ice of Europa to Venus? 76.19.29.52 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

But what about a oblique asteroid impact to get Venus rotating in order to create a magnetic field? How big would it need to be and how fast would it need to be going? And say Venus has enough of an iron core to generate an adequate magnetic field, would a magnetic field, along with the help of some photosynthetic cloud seeded bacteria, be able to capture enough solar hydrogen in a reasonable period of time to start precipitating the Carbon out of the atmosphere, release the Oxygen and form water? It would be just the small matter of nudging an asteroid or comet at the right time onto a collision course with Venus with enough precision to make it an oblique hit and then to seed the clouds with a type of bacteria that could stay aloft long enough to convert the atmosphere to Oxygen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psoreilly (talk • contribs) 09:30, 6 March 2006

Re the part about Venus being usuitable for space elevators: wouldn't it be possible to have the space elevator rotate with respect to the winds, rather than the surface and stop the tether before the surface (and maybe the sulfuric acid clouds as well)? Here is a suggested rewrite for that sections: "Venus' extremely slow rotation means that space elevators would have to rotate with respect to the 100 metres per second winds, requiring a tether on the order of 100,000 kilometres long..." if people think that's reasonable someone could stick it in. Felix Dance 07:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It would seem to me that space elevators that would be anchored at a fixed surface point would indeed be impossible, but space elevators that wouldn't be anchored to any fixed surface point (in effect dangling lines from above) would (as far as I can tell) be feasible. Samy Merchi (Talk) 23:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Such elevators might have balance problems, though. When payloads climb a space elevator the extra kinetic energy needed to boost it into orbit come from the rotation of the planet, transmitted through the anchor point - the planet's rotation actually slows down infinitesimally when a car climbs the elevator cable and speeds up infinitesimally when it descends. A free-hanging space elevator would either need to balance payloads rising and falling or it'll need some form of propulsion to compensate. Bryan 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Free-floating space elevators (usually called "skyhooks") would need careful orbital maintenance anyway. The tether dangling into the atmosphere would create drag, even without moving payloads. Orbiting Venus, solar energy is greatly increased, so the skyhook could likely take advantage of that, either through ion propulsion or solar sails. Of course, we're just venturing off into tangential theory here (i.e., OR), but all this does not negate the fact that because of Venus' exceptionally slow rotation, simple GEO (VEO?) isn't really feasible to begin with and therefore the traditional space elevator concept is equally unfeasible. siafu 00:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What portion of Venus' temperature is a result of incoming solar radiation? Would there be any benefit to reducing it by some degree, e.g. by placing an occulting device in orbit for some degree of time, perhaps something along the lines of a solar sail? Even a small degree like 10 or 25%? I was recently reading of the work on [nanoFETs] and thought they might provide an ideal combined solar-cell and station keeping thruster for a lightweight sail. Kfsone 08:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it not theoretically possible to entirely vaporize Venus' atmosphere? What would be the effect of a 1000 km radius meteorite/asteroid hitting Venus for example? perhaps what might be classified as a small moon? Or perhaps a smaller (but still large) object propelled to velocities yet unobserved in the solar system? I think it might be a fairly small margin between causing the surface crust to turn into rock vapor and completely destroying the planet, however... There might also be problems of whether this would change the orbit of Venus. I think it would be a lot of fun to run some calculations on this. I am also assuming the crust would cool within a few years/months. 76.19.29.52 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Earth-like planet

This isn't so much a question about the document itself, but instead about the subject of it.

I need an expert opinion on whether or not an Earth-like planet (in other words, one capable of supporting human life) could form on its own WITHOUT having any indigenous species on it, seeing as how thats how Earth got its current atmosphere, and to some extent climate.

I would prefer an "expert" of some sort to answer my question, but if this is impractical, than anyone who can contribute a fairly decent answer should do so. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.170.90.50 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 February 2006

I'm not an "expert", but from the sounds of it, there would probably need to be microbial life of some sort, and possibly something akin to plant life (plants have something to do with the production or recylcing of oxygen on Earth, I forget what exactly). - RW 63.21.80.200 17:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The atmosphere is not in a chemical equilibrium. Without photosynthetic organisms to produce free oxygen, it would quickly be bound into solid substances by chemical reactions. Only relatively inert gases like nitrogen and carbon dioxide would survive very long without replenishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.55.254.106 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 July 2006

You know, Ganymede (moon) has a thin oxygen atmosphere and it doesn't have life, so maybe it is possible. It has somethign to do with all the Jovian radiation screwing with the water ice on Ganymede and spliting it into hydrogen and oxygen, where the hydrogen is lost to space because it's so light. Couldn't this happen on another planet, too? When you say oxygen would "quickly be bound into solid substances by chemical reactions", do you mean things like iron? What if this hypothetical planet didn't have that much iron? I'm no "expert", but I think this just might be distantly possible. Anyone care to tell me why I'm wrong? Nick Warren 08:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Iron, carbon compounds, silica compounds, phosphorus, a whole array of chemicals can react with and bind oxygen. If a planet lacked all reactive chemicals, it probably would be unsuited to life anyway. Noclevername 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as known, there is no way any human habitable environment would not, (at least eventually) generate life. Every environment observed on Earth that can support life has been populated. From volcanic deep-sea vents, to icy depths of Antarctica, to the darkest acidic cavern pools-- life seems to arisen. Humans can only live in conditions much milder than this. Plus, the vast majority of our atmospheric oxygen comes from the action of photosynthesis and respiration of algae. 76.19.29.52 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but that's because they're on Earth. As far as we know, Life has only arisen once on Earth and the descendants of that life has come to populate every corner of the planet. As far as we know, life only started once int he entire Universe, though it's very likely that it's shown up in other places as well. I'll be that when we do discover alien life, we'll find that it's extremely different form Earth life and it may cause us to look for an alternate definition of life.

As for chemicals bonding with oxygen. what if there was some continuing non-biological process on a planet that constantly generated more oxygen than that which became bound to elements in the ground? They've detected Methane gas in Mars' atmosphere, yet it shouldn't be there since there is nothing producing it. It's likely that that methane is being produced by non-biological forces that we don't know about and it's being produced at a rate that's faster than it's being broken down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars#Methane

So couldn't some weird geological process create oxygen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Warren (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good!

I'd like to see this as a featured article. How about submitting it for peer review? Mithridates 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. This is an exceptional article and it should be brought to the atention of the general public, who seems to not be very knowledgeable on such subjects and would be delighted to hear that things like this just might happen in the not-so-distant future. This is a great article.Nick Warren 09:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I listed the article at Wikipedia:Peer review as a result of the suggestion here. I also added a source to the article (Zubrin) to the article, as it seems sourcing is this article's biggest shortcoming, IMHO. We'll see what comes out. siafu 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

One fact that can be updated: the term "terraforming" was invented in 1942, not 1949; see http://www.jessesword.com/sf/list/?page=11 and http://www.jessesword.com/sf/list/?page=12 which list Jack Williamson quotes for different forms of the verb and noun. I'll do the update if no one else does; don't have time just this second. Mike Christie 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Impossible!

I am of quite other opinion than Mithridates. I think it is almost 100% certain, that it is impossible, so the whole subject is mere science fiction. Why? Mars is about 1,5 times more far away from the sun and therefore gets 1,5 x 1,5 times less solar energy per square meter than we. This is the basic reason, why Mars is about 60 degress colder than earth. It is mainly not due to lack of atmosphere or such. Assumed, Mars would be for one day of same temperature as earth, by whatever methods achieved, this would go within one day and one night. Mars nights are colder than -100 centigrades! --Hans W 16:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Low insolation is a difficult, but not impossible, hurdle. Insolation also falls off per an inverse square, so if Earth is taken as one, Mars would be 1/(1.5^2)=0.44444..., slightly less than half the insolation of Earth. It's certainly possible that a sufficient amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere could create an environment with average temperatures in a tolerable range for humans. siafu 22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not possible because of the gravity there's not enought gravity on mars to keep a larg ammount of atmosphere. And it has no magnetic feild so you would just have your atmosphere blown away not to mention solar flares. 14:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.1.202 (talk)

Even if you could manage to find a way to hold the atmosphere to the planet, the lack of a magnetic field would mean that any life on the surface living out in the open would be subject to unhindered solar and cosmic radiation. Life would become unviable very quickly. Wrey 9:52 p.m. Feb 7, 2008

I agree, but there are still two ways to get around this: first, I'm pretty sure that the mars atmosphere would blow away relatively slowly, allowing us to add water and other gasses periodically to sustain life. Another way would be to live in lava tunnels underground, where we would be able to encase ourselves with a breathable atmosphere to survive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.101.6 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it

The article doesn't really delve into how Mars gets all this water. From by understanding, water molecules are locked in the ice caps and some of it underground. Yet these artist impressions show it with as much water as Earth. Could someone take a shot at explaing this to me or directing me to an article that has already explained this? Also, this article focuses mainly on Venus and Mars...but I heard that Europa could also be a candidate...is this true? Sean WI 02:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is no, Europa is not at all a likely candidate for terraforming, though there are some plausible scenarios for colonization involving enclosed habitats. Europa's orbit is well within the magnetic field of Jupiter, meaning that its surface is constantly bathed in radiation levels that would be lethal to humans in minutes. Aside from that, it's exceptionally far from the sun (i.e., not much energy is received from the sun for a biosphere) and has insufficient gravity for an atmosphere of any noticeable density. Of course, the very concept of terraforming is still speculative, but at present the only real candidates are Mars and Venus. siafu 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

One question to be considered is the practicalities/cost. All other things being equal, Mars (some atmosphere, possibility of some permafrost etc) would be significantly cheaper to terraform than the Moon (no atmosphere) or Venus (get rid of heat, unpleasant atmosphere, excessive ground level pressure etc).

Some level of landscape development/transformation would be possible on most worlds with a solid and stable surface - setting up a base (whether or not involving domes), mining and mineral extraction etc. At what stage does landscape/atmospheric transformation become terraforming?

Going back to the ethical question mentioned above - what would the ethics be of an extraterrestial world that was somewhere between Earth and Mars - ie conditions are sufficient to let simple life (single cell etc) develop but are deteriorating?

Jackiespeel 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The water also comes from Permafrost according to a PBS video. The rising tempurature would cause the permafrost to melt and water would rise. Rk589 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

--Um, excuse me, but I hope I'm not intruding If I answer the question in this section. :P To answer, I'm pretty sure you are right. Mars does not have as much water as earth. However, there are ways getting water on Mars ourselvs. First, Mars is also abundant in CO2 and other compounds, which we can use (at first) to get drinkable water. TO get water in vast quantities, we have only to look to space. The rings of Saturn are made up of ice and rock, which we may be able to transport across the solar system to Mars. (What do ya think about that for an answer?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.101.6 (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization

A few of us have been trying to start up a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization (shortcut WP:SPACE) to organize work on topics of direct relevance to Terraforming. Hop on over if you're interested. - Reaverdrop 16:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ceres

Due to recent events, shouldn't Ceres be labelled as a Dwarf Planet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.182.167 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 26 August 2006

Ocean albedo?

Something in the section "Theoretical methods of terraforming", subsection "Converting atmosphere" is confusing me. A sentence reads:

Oceans would increase the planet's albedo and allow more incoming solar radiation to be reflected back into space.

Forgive a the ignorance of a layman, but doesn't an ocean decrease a planet's albedo? According to the article on albedo, oceans are one of the most light-absorbing features a planet can have, with an albedo of around 3.5%. Wouldn't introducing an ocean to most planets allow less solar radiation to be reflected back into space? The assertation of this sentence strikes me as false. Is there something I am not understanding here? Kevyn 03:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right. The statement is in error. Oceans absorb a great deal of sunlight. In fact, they serve as one of the primary means our own planet uses to gain heat from solar radiation, with ocean currents then redistributing this thermal energy towards the poles. For a quick, simple, and easy-to-understand explanation of the concept, you might consider Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth. The film itself is arguably highly politically charged, but the explanation of how increasing ocean area on Earth will absorb more sunlight and accelerate icemelt is both a good explanation of the concept and a position of scientific understanding not in dispute.--Azriphael 22:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to replace that information :) Judgesurreal777 06:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I don't have a good source for a citation, and there are more than enough un-cited references in this article already. This is part of my general knowledge, and I'm sure if I were to go dig through my bookcase I'd find a couple of sources I could feel confident about citing, but at the moment I don't know off the top of my head where I read this. If somebody has a reputable source to cite, I'd be happy to re-write the relevant material. Azriphael 14:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what the heck, right? I went ahead and made the change, allong with a "citation needed" link. If anybody can dig up a good source, please link it. Azriphael 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Theoretical methods of terraforming" section is planet-specific

At some point articles for individual terraforming candidates (Venus, Mars, etc) got split out of this article, but it looks like much of the detail was left behind. Many of the subsections of the "Theoretical methods of terraforming" section are written with specific planets in mind. I'm going to start redistributing that material now, this section should probably instead focus on more general concepts rather than specific plans. Bryan 04:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No source provided

"There is a conspiracy theory that an alien race is terraforming Earth through the emissions of our internal combustion engines and the resultant global warming." Why is this there. There is no link, nothing. I'm getting rid of it unless anyone thinks it should stay

spam

I removed phenomenon.org and the {{cleanup-spam}} marker.--Jimktrains 20:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I know of a couple more examples of terraforming in popular culture (Trigun and Red Planet, but looking at the Popular Culture section I started to think that maybe it should actually be cut down. Thoughts?--DavidFuzznut 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also in the movie Total Recall, aliens built a device to melt Mars icey core and turn it into oxygen but didn't activate the device because it would of destroyed Mars natural resources. 75.68.242.254user:daedalus779|Shawn May 10th 2007

Why include the Doom mention over one of the many other possible examples? I get that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but it sure looks like that example should be either expanded or changed. Hezekiah957 14:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Hitchhikers Guide reference. In this storyline, the earth was completely built by the magratheans. From the ground... er... core up. And thus is not a terroformed planet.--Captaintim 14:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the Dune_(novel) serie from Frank Herbert not containing at least a hint of terraforming like type of actions on planets (at least on Arakis)? Tourist.tam (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance to Space exploration

I propose lowering the "Importance to Space exploration" setting for this article from "High" to "Mid". Although the topic is of great importance to the future of human activity in space, it is not an "exploration" topic per se, and there are no terraforming missions currently scheduled for the next decade or so. Would anyone object to this? Sdsds 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

1942?

The term was probably coined by Jack Williamson in a science-fiction story published in 1942 in Astounding Science Fiction,[1] but the actual concept pre-dates this work.

Was it really 1942? In the german Wikipedia its published in 1951. Who is right? --84.154.213.159 18:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's 1942. I have that issue of the magazine; the link in the references gives the full details. Mike Christie (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Terraforming Image

I propose replacing: with:

I'll come back in a week and check the feedback and decide the outcome.

• Support The second image is higher resolution and contains more detail. Also it's square so more of the planet is shown for the same width. Ittiz 03:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support The second image is much, much nicer.--C.Logan 03:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support What the two before me said. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Replaced Ittiz 15:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ittiz 03:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Double article?

What's going on with this "double article"? I.e., it has two tables of content, etc. Is there a reason for this, or should some attempt be made to combine these into one? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Terraforming Earth?

Less than 30% of the Earth's surface is inhabitable by humans. Would a section on terraforming regions of the Earth which modern humans find quite uncomfortable/inhospitable (deserts, shallow seas, etc.) be appropriate here? The Zuiderzee was terraformed into Flevoland (often called "reclaimed", although the area had not previously been human-occupied); there have been various ideas for irrigating the Sahara, etc. samwaltz 22:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say no. The first section in this discussion debates whether or not the meaning "terraforming" is anthropocentric or not. Since the opinion by the authors of this article appears to be that terraforming is not anthropocentric, then altering earth does not fall under the meaning of terraforming as earth is already earth-like, whether or not it is hospitable with human life. Alterations to earth probably fall under the definition of planetary engineering. Jason P Crowell 20:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Venus easier to terraform

By placing drought resistant algae in the upper atmosphere of venus it would be possible to reduce some of the CO2. When the algae increase in numbers they will function as a solar shield.T.Neo 10:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that, or is that just your own research?--C.Logan 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is kind of my own research and I wasnt planning to add it anyway. It makes sense, venus has 0.0002 percent water in the atmoshere (cite: encyclopaedia britannica 2006 digital thing). Is this enough to support hardy desert microbes? T.Neo 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Water isn't really the main problem. For example, there is no phosphorus whatsoever in Venus' atmosphere, and many basic biological molecules require it. Furthermore, even if a population of high-altitude microbes were established, it wouldn't change the overall composition or volume of Venus' atmosphere. Whenever the microbes drifted down into the hot lower levels they'd decompose back to carbon dioxide again. You'd need some other approach to sequester carbon permanently. Bryan Derksen 23:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... you are right. But putting a huge solar shield to cool it would probably be impossible (similar sheilds have been proposed to cool the earth). And "disrupting an ice moon of saturn"? Even with far fetched technology this would (probably) be impossible, nevertheless the thought of vandalizing the moon system of saturn. I have realized where all the hydrogen on venus went: sulfuric acid. Have a method of putting zinc in the atmospere and it will react to the sulfuric acid and realese hydrogen. Then mix the hydrogen with oxygen and produce water (get oxygen from the CO2). The carbon could then be made into some sort of building material. Only one problem: will the product of the zinc- acid reaction (zinc sulfate, I think) degrade in the low altitude conditions? T.Neo 09:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Think about this: using carbon dioxide from venus to create an atmosphere on a moon of jupiter. Then, use nuclear fusion reactors to heat up the atmospheres. Similar to the idea of turning a gas giant like jupiter into a star to warm its moons but much more feasible. The carbon dioxide traps heat so the whole moon could be brought to earth like temeratures. These object are to far from the sun to be heated by it,so add temperature to it artificially. T.Neo 15:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio pic

The image that was just removed ("Is there life on Europa?") is apparently a copyright violation; see this New Scientist page. If someone can tag it, that would be great; I'm at work and can't take the time to dig out the right tag. I'll get to it if nobody else does. Mike Christie (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cost and problems with Terraforming

The cost for a project of this scale would be ridiculous! Would it really be worth it to spend maybe trillions of (currency) to work on this project? It does seem possible but we humans should be focusing on events today and do terraforming as a last resort. Another thing to note is the amount of time it will take. 100-500 years apparently. Also we should notice that the human body experiences a loss in bone and muscle mass while in extended periods in space for the body has no need to fight gravity anymore and stops "exercising". I'm all for Terraforming but the econimcal strain it would put on us and the harsh atmosphere of Mars surely would make this a near immpossible project. Still we can try. Rk589 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your points. 1) The cost depends on the time to completion. If you are willing to wait 10,000 years, the cost would be relatively cheap. However, if you want to bump that down to 500 years, technological investment would be great, which brings us to the next point. 3) Contrary to a strain on economy as you propose, terraforming is the natural consequence of continued economic growth and would benefit every major industry on Earth. In fact, if you were to replace "war" with "terraforming" and all that goes along with it (habitat creation, tourism, exploration, pioneer living, etc.) you would find that the military-industrial complex could be easily retooled to create worlds, rather than destroy them. In other words, this is neither ridiculous, impossible, or a drain on the economy - it is reasonable, possible, and economically stimulating, but more importantly, it is inevitable. You see, if we don't attempt it, by every calculation, the human species will be extinct in less than 10,000 years anyway, so there is no reason not to do it. Furthermore, we already have the tools, it is merely a question of application. —Viriditas | Talk 09:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We are of course, making gigantic, enourmous assumptions about future technologies, tech capabilities, and of course future economics-- but I see no reason not to! The amount of time needed is also completely theoretical-- no one can imagine what kind of scientific advances might be made in, say, 100 to 500 years from now. Not long ago human flight, and of course human moon landing were seen as quite impossible too... It also seem entirely possible that unforeseen climate change, either natural, man-made or a combination, may create problems on Earth that might make colonizing other planets necessary. Sharing and recording the information for the what physical changes are necessary to accomplish terraforming might be very valuable-- and at least of educational value! 76.19.29.52 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is the one?

I read somewhere, that some US office is sponsoring such "research". I think that more information about that is very interesting. If we all go bankrupt by such project, we taxpayers want to know about the people. --84.136.196.222 (talk) --Hans W (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong. Get yourself over to Space Research and Technology Transfer and educate yourself about the benefits of space research. BTW, in the time you read that it cost US$25,000 ($5,000 a second) to fight the war in Iraq. Enjoy your day. Viriditas (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Paraterraforming the moon

I was wondering that along with asteroids that wont burn up since the moon has no atmosphere wouldnt solar wind make problems for colinization of the moon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.219.178 (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

Added merge from request for Ecopoiesis and Planetary ecosynthesis to the history section. Those two articles have remained stubs for far too long, and I don't see any way to expand them outside this article. I'm open to other suggestions. —Viriditas | Talk 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ozone layer

I've looked in the detailed articles and none of them seem to mention the problem because of a the lack of an ozone layer. Is it just because the other problems are so massive that no one has bothered to really consider the nitty gritty of stuff like the lack of an ozone layer or am I missing something or what? Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cold Mercury

Currently as written:

Other possible candidates for terraformation include Titan, Mercury, Ganymede, Io, Callisto, Luna (Earth's Moon), and even the dwarf planet Ceres.

In addition, aside from the Moon, most of these worlds are so far from the Sun that adding sufficient heat would be much more difficult than even Mars would be.

Last I knew Mercury wasn't cool but Very Hot, as I think, its closest to the sun. Or at least thats what they led me to believe in school. So why does Mercury need more heat for terraformation?

I would say it should be dropped Larek (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

the side that isn't facing the sun is VERY cold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.147.39 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Before Venus

Colonisation or terraforming certain planets seems a much easier task compared to Venus, although the final result may seem a far better choice. The Moon, Callisto, Ganymede, Titan and Mercury will be settled long before Venus. It's only Mars that is usually put ahead of Venus. I even think that the Moon will be colonised before Mars, Venus and other planets.

Should there be a comparison of groups of planets with similar difficulties or based on gravity, temperature, atmospheric pressure and structure? --Anatoli (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Terraformation and the Manifest Destiny

Terraformation, I believe is comparable to the #REDIRECT Manifest Destiny of America. Many Americans believed it was our country's destiny to expand from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean. Well, what I believe is that it is our species' destiny to expand from the Earth to the other end of the #REDIRECT solar system, and beyond. I would say the first step would be to colonize the #REDIRECT Moon. That seems simple enough, doesn't it? From the Moon, I would suggest heading over to #REDIRECT Mars for colonization. After that occurs, we should then colonize the larger asteroids of the #REDIRECT Asteroid Belt, preferably #REDIRECT Ceres. From there, we move on to the Jovian system (#REDIRECT Jupiter and its moons). From there, we move on to Saturnian system (#REDIRECT Saturn and its moons). From there, we move to #REDIRECT Uranus, then #REDIRECT Neptune. After that, we start colonizing #REDIRECT Pluto, #REDIRECT Charon, and the other #REDIRECT dwarf planets. We can use #REDIRECT Eris as a way to get over onto #REDIRECT Sedna, and from Sedna we are close enough to the edge of the solar system to leave it. Of course, if Sedna is too far out of reach, then we could also go from Eris out of the solar system. #REDIRECT Quaoar, #REDIRECT Haumea, #REDIRECT Makemake, #REDIRECT Orcus, and #REDIRECT Varuna should only be colonized if they could provide a faster route to Eris/Sedna. Once we leave the solar system (which will now merely be referred to as Sol), we shall attempt to colonize #REDIRECT Alpha Centari, and other star systems. Mercurian-Venusian colonization (colonization of #REDIRECT Mercury and#REDIRECT Venus shall only be done as emergency for overpopulation, and shall be moved out as far as possible whenever space becomes available. No, we do not intend on colonizing the #REDIRECT Sun. But anyways, this method could be a good one in order for us to get on the way out of the #REDIRECT Earth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.128.37 (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)