Talk:Terraforming

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Ethical issues

message: 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)
thread_title:  Colony 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: According to Robert Zubrin in Entering Space (), 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Venus Terraforming 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Earth-like planet 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Yes, the idea is to add a lot of greenhouse gases. You don't have to use CO2; artificial super-greenhouse gases like SF6 or perfluorocarbons would work even better. The atmosphere would escape, but only very slowly (IIRC millions of years). And a thick atmosphere would be enough to protect from radiation even if a magnetic field is absent – consider Titan. Double sharp (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossible! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I don't get it 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonization 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: By all means, feel free to replace that information :) Judgesurreal777 06:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ocean albedo? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Theoretical methods of terraforming" section is planet-specific

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Popular Culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Importance to Space exploration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1942? 

message: I propose replacing:  275px  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)
thread_title: Terraforming Image

message: 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)
thread_title:  Double article? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There should be at least a short paragraph about it and a link to an appropriate article. IMHO.--95.91.15.32 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Terraforming Earth?

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Venus easier to terraform 

message: 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)
thread_title: Copyvio pic

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cost and problems with Terraforming 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Who is the one?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Paraterraforming the moon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ozone layer

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cold Mercury 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Before Venus 

message: The following sentence makes no sense:
"Even this would be seen as a type of terraforming to the strictest of ecocentrists, whom would say that all life has the right, in its home biosphere, to evolve at its own pace as well as its own direction, free of any outside interference."
It is impossible for something to evolve "at its own pace as well as its own direction, free of any outside interference". If there is no outside interference, how can there be mutations, and how can there be natural selection? And what does "at its own pace as well as its own direction" mean, as if there's some intrinsic future evolution for different organisms? 86.170.39.5 (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the strictest of ecocentrists are afflicted by the teleological fallacy. —Tamfang (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illogical sentence 

message: It's much more likely that we'll just be genetically/chemically engineering organisms to suit these environments rather than changing the entire planet to suit the organisms.  Is there a name for this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.70.126 (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See pantropy. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic engineering 

message: * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11137903
This BBC article details efforts by Charles Darwin, Joseph Hooker, Kew Gardens and the Royal Navy to transform Ascension Island. In the article the author describes the work as the 'world's first experiment in "terra-forming"' and Dr Dave Wilkinson, an ecologist at Liverpool John Moores University, "thinks that the principles that emerge from that experiment could be used to transform future colonies on Mars".
Anybody have any objections to adding this to the article? I was thinking a possibly renamed History of scholarly study section would be the best place. LunarLander // talk // 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin, Hooker, Kew, Royal Navy 

message: : The structure is terraformed to support an Earthlike ecosystem, and by the end of another Halo game, Halo: Reach (2010), a planet known as "Reach" is terraformed after a alien organization (covenant) glassing.
If I knew what "a alien organization (covenant) glassing" means, would I find it relevant? —Tamfang (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halo 

message: This article contains several issues, that is why I have lowered its assessment status and requested improvements.--Novus Orator  09:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting your changes.  You appear to be confused about the maintenance template usage and the assessment process.  Feel free to discuss it further. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Soapbox

message: IF this article is wholly true in its saying that Venus has an atmosphere too thick, and Mars an atmosphere too thin, then, what would it take to "bottle-up" Venus' atmosphere, and release it on Mars? Both planets could be terraformed at the same time. A series of "interplanetary train-cars" could be on a continual route between Venus and Mars, say, 20 or so, with one each at their respective planet, and 9 en route to Mars to de-gas, and 9 en route to Venus to re-fill?
Mr. RUDOLPH
76.90.229.237 (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Venus too much, Mars too little

message: Is either Forerunner (Halo) or The Ark (Halo) relevant to this article?  Am I enlightened by knowing the name of the fictional technology or the fictional agent that carries out the fictional task? —Tamfang (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halo again 

message: Would it be easy to terraform a gas giant like Jupiter?
--68.103.31.159 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Utterly impossible would be more like it, except for partial paraterraforming. --JorisvS (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jupiter? 

message: What Zod and his lackeys are doing towards the end of Man of Steel certainly is planetary engineering, but it is in no way TERRAforming/Earth-shaping. It is actually Krypton-shaping, a process with entirely different goal.
195.250.144.226 (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Terraforming" in Man of Steel 

message: There is no proof that any of this speculation about terraforming would actually work, and absolutely no way to prove it without undertaking an impossible planet-wide transformation. Might as well lump this with UFOs and the Loch Ness monster. Kortoso (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is based on current scientific theories without positing anything speculative and therefore it is part of the realm of science, not pseudoscience. To give you an idea of why it is not even that far-fetched: We are currently changing Earth's climate by massive emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily . --JorisvS (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is scientific testing? Permit me a degree of skepticism here. Kortoso (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding what exactly? The first sentence explains why it is science, not pseudoscience. The second sentence is merely an illustration. --JorisvS (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience? 

message: This article has random snippets of miscellaneous articles throughout it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.154.38 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error with format 

message: The TV show & Video Game Defiance should be mentioned as the whole backstory revolves around Terraforming.
--Mando Salama (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defiance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Terraforming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060310222704/http://www.space.com:80/missionlaunches/missions/europa_colonies_010606-1.html to http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/europa_colonies_010606-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Unless I have misread it, there appears to be a conservative, 'no can do' bias in the article (albeit perhaps reflecting that of the outside world, the scientific community, and the latter's funding/priorities/current intellectual fashions). It seems to emphasise the impossibility/difficulty/expense of terraforming because of the inhospitality of other planets to humans. But this anthropocentrism obscures the existence of extremophiles, documented elsewhere in Wikipedia, for whom these conditions are tolerable, and overlooks their possible role in gradually terraforming other planets almost naturally, therefore.--81.135.29.129 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Transplanting extremophiles can be considered one step on an aspect of terraforming, but it does not address all the environmental and chemical requirements for habitability. Assuming a favorable temperature, energy sources, and liquid water are available, cosmic and solar radiation are critical too; so it does not matter you drop fresh pizzas and beer on the surface if the planet has no atmosphere and magnetosphere to stop the ionizing radiation. Yes, the article has a conservative tone, and it leaves the fringe as a footnote, as it should be. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter.  Throughout human history, people were told they couldn't do something and then went ahead and did it anyway. Please refer to Clarke's first law. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: When somebody does it, update this article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you guys insist on using 'terraforming' to mean 'making an environment habitable for humans' I suggest you use another, more specific term, such as 'humanising.' Meanwhile, Clarke's second law is also worth a gander.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative bias? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Terraforming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110228204329/http://www.terraformers.ca:80/ to http://www.terraformers.ca/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091229045854/http://nintenball.ifrance.com:80/telechargements/tpe/la-terraformation-de-mars_v3.01.pdf to http://nintenball.ifrance.com/telechargements/TPE/la-terraformation-de-mars_v3.01.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This reference:  "Mercury. The Society. The Society. 29. Retrieved 10 January 2017."
is very unclear.  The link seems to go to the German version of Google books. No author or date is given, and it's not even clear what the link is to: a magazine? A book? Michael-Zero (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Terraforming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117011137/http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g1.html to http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Terraforming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427034520/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2369/solar-wind-ripping-chunks-mars to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2369/solar-wind-ripping-chunks-mars
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100803052204/http://terraformers.org.uk/ to http://www.terraformers.org.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I've added the term "terraformation" to the lead. It is a valid alternative form of "terraforming" used by various sources. The article itself uses a source whose title uses the term: http://www.nexialquest.com/The%20Terraformation%20of%20Worlds.pdf 
Plus:
* https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=terraformation There are several mentions in English-language literature
* https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Terraformation Many uses by periodicals can be found at the bottom of this entry
- Alumnum (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terraformation 

message: * Greek: < γεωδιαμόρφωση < γεω- + διαμόρφωση
and superior: γεωμόρφωση
** http://archive.fo/hg1PO
** http://archive.fo/QA2pL  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4113:9D00:3D9C:B241:6A14:5A3 (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations 

message: The section on solar radiation strikes me as rather biased and misleading. "This also makes any kind of travel to Mars (or anywhere else) near impossible. Humans staying on Mars for even the shortest time would be reduced to living well beneath the planet's surface. This issue is conveniently left out of interstellar travel discussions among NASA, Space X and other organizations that rely heavily on the prospect of future travel to Mars." The problem is that NASA absolutely has addressed the issue of interplanetary and Martian radiation. Most forms of this radiation are easy to shield against; for instance, alpha particles. For more dangerous and penetrating radiation, such as gamma ray bursts, NASA has proposed that something as simple as a small shelter on the spacecraft would be sufficient. On the Martian surface, NASA has also proposed sending modular buildings to the planet before astronauts even arrived. Should technology develop, they've even suggested using robots to build shelters out of the regolith on the planet, providing sufficient shelter against radiation. I would suggest at least providing some counter-evidence to this paragraph to be more representative of the issue. TheBarracuda99 (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar Radiation 

message: — Assignment last updated by MethanoJen (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Biogeochemical Cycles

message: Hi everyone—I am the student editor assigned to this page. I will be working on expanding the "Terraforming Venus" section. I appreciate getting a chance to work on this article with you all. Ebhughes20 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indroduction 

message: Is it just me, or do all of the "artist conceptions" appear to be a different formatting of Venus? Maybe someone just got lazy with the cloud patterns, but that's a pretty obvious problem, given how they all have the same giant cloudy chevron... Cory of Earth (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everywhere is Venus!