Talk:Terraforming of Venus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Low

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Space Colonization WikiProject edit

Core concepts

Colonization and terraforming

Organizations

Assuming that intra-Solar System space travel becomes a practicality - how long would it take to make Venus a habitable planet?

While a fairly hypothetical question at them moment, money invested in Martian terraforming would probably be better spent.

Jackiespeel 16:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Very true. There have been several articles on terraforming Venus in the JBIS, and it's apparent that the 200 atmospheres of carbon dioxide present a far greater problem than anything on Mars. Even Titan might be easier to terraform than Venus. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 23:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Venus is very difficult even settle, not to mention terraform (which is factually impossible). Settling Venus is much more difficult than settling Mercury or Ganymede or something in Kuiper Belt.--Nixer 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read the article? Terraforming Venus is not impossible, merely very difficult. The question is whether it is practical, or worth the effort. (67.87.115.207 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC))

I have several ideas, likely not covered: Many things are likely necessary to 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. The sunshades that cool the polar regions need to be transparent to wavelengths of light that the algae can use is for photosynthesis. 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. 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. As others have posted, incredibly expensive and may take a million years to terraform just the polar regions. After most of the sulpheric acid is stored below the surface of the polar plateau (1000 years?) genetically altered humans with a carbon dioxide removing prosthesis can likely work otherwise naked on the polar plateau. Plants can likely thrive in an atmosphere 1% oxygen, 1% water vapor and 90% carbon dioxide, at about 89 atmospheres pressure. At that high a pressure more than 1% oxygen is a fire hazard, so iron asteroids are now needed to convert the excess oxygen to iron oxide. Alternately, a million tons of imported hydrogen will make nine million pounds of water from the excess oxygen. Ccpoodle 15:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Proposed move

I suggest to move the article to Terraforming of Venus by analogy with Colonization of Venus--Nixer 09:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] shading via comet

I just removed this from the article:

A comet at the Sun-Venus L1 point could produce a coma which could provide at least temporary shade for the planet, possibly allowing enough time for atmospheric processing to be done. Keeping a continuously decaying comet in a stable position could prove to be a difficult feat.

It's uncited and doesn't seem plausible to me, but just in case anyone else has heard this proposal and can come up with references for it I'm putting it here in talk. Bryan 08:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead links

The two linked PDFs to the NASA site do not work anymore and I can't find to where they moved. Can someone find them again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terraforming_of_Venus&oldid=136168050#References

82.83.247.0 23:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotation Section

Mdbrownmsw removed the following from this article:

"In a paper by Korycansky, Loughlin, and Adams, it is suggested that close flybys of sufficiently sized asteroids could be used to speed a planet's rotation. [1]"

Stating "Rotation - source does not discuss Terraforming of Venus, topic of this article."

Granted that as it stood, it didn't directly apply to the article, but the logical inference I made, and hadn't made explicit was that this procedure, as referenced in the article can be used to speed up the rotation of a planet, and is a technology much more readily accessible to our time than creating huge solar shades and mirrors. Could it be reworked and re-incorporated into the article? Bo-Lingua 02:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No that would be OR Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capture in carbonates

Why consider only calcium and magnesium metals when sodium and potassium are also available? These alkali metals are very reactive with carbon dioxide and would appear in any ocean that might be created later. In the right proportions they would be vital to any marine life that might be sown, and potassium would be a welcome addition to any soils that develop. - Tony (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the reaction chemistry allowing some reactions involving magnesium and calcium to proceed more easily. Read the referenced paper for details. If you can find another reference that discusses reactions with alkali metals, feel free to add that in as well. - Atarr (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The online document Investigation of sodium - carbon dioxide interactions with calorimetric studies at http://www.inspi.ufl.edu/icapp07/program/abstracts/7547.pdf. indicates that sodium metal is a promising agent for the removal of carbon dioxide from Venus's atmosphere. The surface of Venus is a favorable environment for Na - CO2 reactions, which are facilitated by high temperatures. - Tony (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ca and Mg are relatively abundant in the solar system-- I have no idea where you'd find the amounts of sodium and lithium needed to convert carbon dioxide to carbonate in the amounts needed. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

Should the name of this article not be "Terraforming Venus" or "Terraformation of Venus"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.36.223 (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terraforming as simple as 2x2!

The article does not mention the most obvious solution: move the entire Venus to Earth's orbit, but exactly to the opposite side of the Sun. This would get rid of the excessive light influx problem, which Venus currently suffers from due to its closeness to the Sun.

Of course, if you are mighty enough to do this, you are probably good enough to spin up Venus's day to 24 hours, the same as Earth's and add a strong magnetic field.

Venus is a better place than Mars, it is so Earth-equivalent in size, The Supreme Reason obviously intended it to serve as hummankind's second home. It would be a show of hubris not to do our utmost to accept this gift as quickly as possible! 82.131.210.162 (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Burst the bubble

Drop some insulated space stations down there, run a tube up out of the atmosphere into space. Simply "poking a hole" in the balloon of an atmosphere is more than enough to cause very rapid outgassing. Simultaneous (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive light & heat? We love it!

Stirling engines on venus would work without even needing concentrators. Just set one out in the sun, and watch as it generates enough excess energy to pay for its trip. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine) Simultaneous (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A heat engine (such as a Stirling engine) needs a temperature difference to operate: the laws of thermodynamics requires that a heat engine must reject waste heat, and this waste heat must be rejected at a temperature lower than the temperature at the heat source. (see Carnot efficiency).
You can't run a heat engine from the temperature of the surface of Venus; there is no temperature difference there-- it's pretty much all the same temperature; there's no place to reject waste heat to.
(also note that the surface of Venus is clouded all the time-- you can't really "set one out in the sun". Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)