Terraform Venus

[nexium]

I have several ideas, likely not covered in other treads: Many things are likely necessary to sucessfully terraform Venus. The high speed wind at about 50 kilometers altitude likely spirals in near the North and South poles of Venus. The pressure, and thus the temperature, increases as the air descends converting the algae to algae charcoal. A snow fence on the surface collects algae charcoal and other dust for the same reasons it works with snow. If the fence circles the polar region, the elevation will increase over the centuries just outside the fence. Repositioning the fence will be necessary at least occasionally. The ring of hills will block some of the sunlight reaching the polar region and impede hot surface winds which would otherwise occasionally blow into the polar region from the lower latitudes.<br />The sunshades that cool the polar regions need to be transparent to wavelengths of light that the algae can use is for photosynthesis.<br />To convert the excess carbon dioxide to oxygen in less than a million years, many millions of cubic kilometers of atmosphere need to be maintained at a temperature which allows the algae to flourish. This will require skillful management of the sunshades. The algae cloud will cool the polar region significantly, if it is sufficiently dense. Just before the polar region is cool enough for sulpheric acid rain to fall, the polar region should be covered with an impervious film to keep the acid from soaking deep into Venus, otherwise boiling acid guysers will erupt returning the acid to the atmosphere. The sub-surface temperature of the polar plateau will likely remain at almost 500 degrees c for a million years.<br />The algae has other needs: Phosphorus, potassium, nitrates and water which can be supplied by crashing small comets and asteroids into Venus just North of the Equator. We can build a plateau at the South pole simultaneously, but the North pole already has part of a plateau.<br />As others have posted, incredibly e

 

[ihwip]

Terraforming any planet is going to require complete climate control. We cannot even fathom this on Earth yet but you seem to have some features in your post that would accomplish this to an extent.<br /><br />For Venus I would suggest sending in hundreds if not thousands of drones that could create 'oil' out of the air. Chaining the carbon molecules would quickly dissolve the greenhouse effect and begin the planetary cooldown necessary to make Venus more Earthlike.<br /><br />At the same time we would need to send a sunblocking array to help cool the planet but its primary purpose would be to stop the influx of heat. Any attempt to make Venus more like Earth would require blocking the sun. Otherwise you are fighting and uphill battle.

 

[ihwip]

I highly doubt it would take more than 100 years to terraform Venus with the right technologies. This would include production and launch times. The investment would be expensive but in return we would get a whole new planet to live on.<br /><br />This may seem like a waste of time right now though, we haven't even been able to terraform our own planet yet. In fact we have done the exact opposite w/global warming and all.

 

[MeteorWayne]

You've got to be kidding. Terraforming Venus in 100 years????<br /><br />Do you know what the current atmosphere of Venus is made of? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[heyscottie]

The only semi-reasonable approach for Venus is to build floating colonies in the cloud-tops. This gives many advantages, including possibility of decent day/night cycle, reasonable temperatures and pressures, and less exposure to the worst of Venus' corrosive atmosphere.<br /><br />Of course, it's not without its own problems...

 

[hansolo0]

I've had some more sci-fi ideas about terraforming, so I will steer this conversation in that direction. If you had a Genesis probe like the one in Star Trek II,which could very quickly make any moon or planet 'earth like', which body in the solar system would you use it on and why? In this scenario you only have one probe and that's it.

 

[MeteorWayne]

It might be better if you started a thread in Sci Fi with this subject.<br /><br />Just a suggestion;<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Now and then, this topic rears its ugly head. The notion in and of itself is prohibitively impractical in comparison to colonizing and subsequently terraforming other worlds.<br /><br />I'm not certain why people would be so enamored with the possibility of floating Venusian cities, and attempted terraforming.<br /><br />In the end game, a colony not only has to support itself, but must make a return on investment. As it progresses, it must have an economy. It must have the capability to manufacture all its goods, or at least the critical ones, or be able to offer some product or resource in return for those goods obtained from outside sources.<br /><br />Just keeping a floating city stable requires considerable effort and engineering. It would be subject to less than stable (hydrodynamic?) forces on a constant basis.<br /><br />For comparison, it would be relatively inexpensive, and simplistic in terms of engineering to seal off a cave on Mars and pressurize it.<br /><br />Go a few meters below the surface, and Mars itself protects inhabitants from cosmic and UV radiation. Not so with a floating Venusian city that is above the corrosive part of its atmosphere, I wouldn't think.<br /><br />It's not even that I have objection to such dreamy, pie-in-the-sky (literally) proposals. Rather, I recognize that simple economy, in every definition of the word dictates several extra-terrestrial terrestrial colonies for every floating Venusian City.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

Its a pity that Space.com doesnt really have a good forum for this sort of thing. It doesnt fit into SF because that is really about entertainment media. It doesnt fit into Phenomena because most of those threads immediately abandon our notions of physics.<br /><br />I would like to see more 'science of hard SF' threads where people actually take a stab at the physics.<br /><br />In the case of terraforming a place like venus, obviously calculating cost in terms of shuttle launches (for example) is pointless. We have to postulate something like self replicating machines.<br /><br />Since we dont have self replicating machines, or know if they are appearing in a decade or never, or the cost of customising them, the only thing we can meaningfully discuss is some physics basics such as the solar energy available to transform the atmosphere, the chemical energy required, and the problems of lack of hydrogen etc.

 

[ihwip]

the 100 years concept was intended to imply far superior technology than what we have now on a much larger scale than what we are currently capable of.<br /><br />My basic idea is to create a situation where Venus is allowed to bleed heat. I was thinking maybe somehow utilizing those new generators that work on waste heat (posted somewhere on Space.Com) to maybe LASER the energy off the planet. Maybe even to Mars. Cool down Venus, heat up Mars. A win-win for terraforming both.

 

[nexium]

This sort of topic typically gets the most intellegent responces in Ask the astronomer, inspite of complants that it is too speculative. Neil

 

[nexium]

Laser beams diverge very little, but a beam as wide as the diameter of Mars at a range of 200 million kilometers at 3500 angstrom units = Ultraviolet requires a mirror of what diameter? Is the mirror surface perfection required within grasp of present technology? Neil

 

[nexium]

My guess is nearly all the carbon dioxide of Venus will fall as dry ice snow in less than a century, if the sun shade blocks 98% of the solar energy reaching Venus. I have no idea how to prevent the dry ice from sublinating when we let more solar energy reach Venus. Neil

 

[MeteorWayne]

So you really think the temperature can be reduced well below 0 C in a few decades? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

Could someone throw some maths at this?<br />I never really paid much attention to my thermal physics.<br /><br />I read somewhere that venus reflects 75% of its sunlight, so it must be radiating equivalent to 25% of incident sunlight to balance with heating. But we are not talking about the atmosphere cooling or the core cooling, but the surface, given that heat is going to be coming up from underground for a very long time<br /><br />Any way to avoid a differential equation? ugh. <br /><br />(edit) Actually, even the heat at the surface isnt the be-all and end all. What if the surface (or slightly beneath it) is molten lead hot for hundreds of years? This isnt the same as saying there isnt huge cold only slightly above it.<br /><br />What has suddenly struck me is that removing the sun has not reduced available energy. Rather it has provided us with a huge temperature gradient to exploit.

 

[nexium]

Antarctica cools about 50 degrees c in 5 months of night, so it might cool 200 degrees in 20 months. It might takes Venus 10 times longer to cool 200 degees, because the atmosphere is thick and the rocky surface is about 450 degrees c.<br />200 months is 17 years. Cooling Venus another 300 degrees c might take a century. The dry ice on the surface would cool the surface to a depth of about two meters in a year or two. Since dry rock is a poor conductor of heat, the 450 degrees c a few meters below the surface might be hardly noticeable, but it would be a great source of geothermal energy. Sorry I don't know how to do a proper calculation either.<br />Venus would then be as cold as a typical moon of Jupiter with a one bar nitrogen atmosphere. The dry ice would average about one kilometer thick = a vast disposal problem. What can we do with all that dry ice? Will it react with the sulpheric acid to make CS2 = carbon disulphide and water? What can we make out of a large lake of carbon disulphide? We likely want to keep most of the nitrogen besides. CN2 (CN?) is very poisonous = cyanide. If we import lots of hydrogen we can make an ocean of alcohol out of the carbon dioxide? But then we have too much alcohol. Neil

 

[MeteorWayne]

You really seem to have a knack for resurrecting long dead threads!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[nexium]

I'm desparate for a topic that I know a bit about that has not yet been fully covered. Neil

 

[qzzq]

Not exactly a short time solution, but we could consider moving Venus further away from the Sun. That way, the uphill battle, as Dragon04 calls it, will be won, well, the playing field will become more level. Moving a planet is difficult, but not inconceivable:<ul type="square">They started with a simulated comet or asteroid 62 miles (100 kilometers) wide, about six times larger than the one thought to have killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The solar system has plenty of objects like this -- in the main Asteroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter, and farther out in the Kuiper Belt. The trick is to find one that's headed our way, then use a small amount of energy to guide it, like a spacecraft, onto a new course through our solar system.<br /><br />Here's what you do:<br /><br /> * Using humans or robotic spacecraft, attach retrorockets -- like those that maneuver spacecraft -- to the rock. Alter its course of so that it passes near Earth. The planet then steals some of the space rock's orbital energy and uses it to move into an orbit slightly farther from the Sun. (NASA employs a similar technique to propel spacecraft, sending them around a planet in order to boost them into new trajectories at higher speeds.)<br /> * Send the comet or asteroid back out around Jupiter and Saturn, where it will regain orbital energy by robbing it from the giant planets. (In effect, Earth is ultimately getting its orbital boost from Jupiter and Saturn.) Make the rock continue on a long, elliptical orbit that goes way the heck out there -- 325 times the distance from Earth to the Sun.<br /> * Bring the rock back around Earth every 6,000 years or so, and each time the planet will creep outward a few more miles. The goal: An ultimate retreat of several million miles (kilometers).</ul>OK, replace Earth with Venus. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />link <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>***</p> </div>

 

[shadow735]

Trying to move a planet? Sorry but if we have that technology I think by that time we would have already found earth like planets to move to and have the tech to travel there quickly. <br />If not I think mars would have been terra formed already. Unless you are a sun moving a planet is nigh to impossible al least right now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qzzq]

crazyeddie: --<i>It's already the nearest planet to Earth. How much farther from the sun could you move it before it's gravitational attraction starts to mess up Earth's orbit?</i><br /><br />Obviously, we have to calculate things through carefully. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><i>And then there's still the problem of Venus's slow rotation. It would be impossible to grow anything on it, even if you could cool the planet down enough and make the atmosphere breatheable.</i><br /><br />Well, isn't there a way we could speed it up? Give it a fast moving moon? If we're going to use asteroids to move it to an orbit further away from the sun, we might as well put an asteroid in orbit around Venus.<br /><br /><i>It's these kinds of staggering engineering problems that convinces me that we will never terraform or colonize Venus. It would be far easier to build space habitats if we really need the room.</i><br /><br />Yes, agreed. Although terraforming Venus will become more interesting when we are unable to achieve interstellar travel; then a second Earth would become a high priority. <br /><br />We have already landed twice on an asteroid. Of course changing and controlling their trajectories is a whole other business. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>***</p> </div>

 

[shadow735]

using a asteroid to alter the orbit of venus or move the earth into a habitable zone would take millions of years to do, not to mention the possability of miscalucations resulting in the asteroid hitting the earth.<br /> Anyhow by the time we would have to think about that humanity as a species would most likely already be exploring the galaxy and will most likely have already found other already habitable planets.<br />we have what 3 billion years till the sun becomes a red giant? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bguth]

Any remote chance you'd believe a good 36 radar looks per pixel image, of what seems as though perfectly community rational and otherwise intelligent as is about Venus?<br /><br />Do you realize or are even willing to accept as to how much easily accessible and fully renewable energy that toasty environment of Venus has to work with? <br />-- Brad Guth

 

[bguth]

There's no question that applied physics should work every bit as well off-world as it does right here on Earth. Actually, while on Venus there are many energy related advantages that simply do not exist for Earth, and with such energy there's almost nothing that's insurmountable.<br /><br />Any remote chance you'd believe what can be deductively interpreted from a perfectly good 36 radar looks per pixel image, of what seems as though community rational and otherwise intelligent worthy as is about Venus?<br /><br />Do you realize or are you even willing to accept those regular laws of physics, as to how much easily accessible and fully renewable energy exist within that geothermally forced toasty environment of Venus?<br /><br />Do you think others might understand the basic physics of fluid and gas dynamics? <br />-- Brad Guth

 

[bguth]

Only if the laws of physics do not apply off-world is where there's any weird speculations about Venus that shouldn't work. Otherwise, a well founded conjecture or analogy as based upon the regular laws of physics as well as further extracted from the best available science, as to how other intelligent life might exist/coexist on Venus, shouldn't be pushed off the table as being "too speculative". <br />-- Brad Guth