We know what to do with Venus. We need to get the temperature down there to start terraforming in earnest. So we got to shade the only source of heat, i.e. the sun. How do we shade the sun? Well, with a massive sunshade.
But we got to put a large number of small sunshades into space to form a large sunshade to shade Venus. This requires us to develop cheap access to orbit for non-human cargo. Only non-rocket orbital access can do that.
What can society do to develop non-rocket orbital access? Can it really be done by capitalism alone, or do we need socialist programs like the Moon landing program?
>spend thousands of years trying to tame an inhospitable rock, mostly in vain >instead of building rotating habitats for equal living space for a tiny, tiny fraction of materials
Why thousands of years? Honestly, how do you get that number?
How are you going to deal with the stresses on rotating habitats? What power source will you use? Why don't you think a whole new planet is better than small tin cans of space stations?
Mason Wood
>believing in space and all that colonization star wars lvl fanfic
Yikes, try and get it together Hans, life is short but we can do amazing things here, in our actual objective reality. No need to fantasize in something that I guarantee you will never happen, might as well start believing in dragons if you honestly think we are ever getting off this grid or reality called earth
Lucas Wilson
Genetically engineer bacteria and archae. Some extremophiles can metabolize sulphur.
Jace Perry
Terraforming is pointless, we should colonize nearby systems first.
Carson Flores
NO.
Genetically engineer humans instead.
Carter Rodriguez
>we should colonize nearby systems first. Tell me how you get there. Honest question, any thoughts on how we do that?
Liam Brooks
The venusian atmosphere is the first problem. Need to burn it off or something (satellites or throw rocks at it?).
Jaxon Lewis
Sun shades won't diminish the atmospheric pressure nor the caustic atmosphere itself. Terraforming Venus has no advantage whatsoever considering it would take half a millennia to see the first results... Mars on the other hand would be easier but still stupid to think the long term efforts would be worth it.
Listening to Science Fantastic and watching The Expanse?
Aiden Martin
There's no getting past Mars weak magnetic field. You'd need some way to heat up the core.
Juan Lee
Step 1: send the jews Step 2: send the blacks Step 3: send the mutts Step 4: send the arabs Step 5: watch as the earths science and culture booms like never before. Step 6: profit
Robert Ortiz
Crash a large meteor into it and wait 200,000 years. Still faster.
Not a bad plan but I think it would be easier to bombard it with hydrogen bombs. The atmosphere is mostly CO2 & that combined with hydrogen will make water. The clouds will turn from acid to water and the suns rays will be blocked bye that.
Julian Long
better question is how do we terraform the sun so we can live on the sun?
Camden Morris
Floating cities on Venus would be feasible. The elevation similar to Earth pressure is also similar to Earth temperature.
Human society is too subverted and corrupted to spread yet, though. If ayylmaos are around they'd probably BTFO any attempt to do so. I would if I were them.
>Sun shades won't diminish the atmospheric pressure Sure they do. Basic school physics. See pic related. CO2 liquifies at high pressure once temperature falls to around 38C.
>nor the caustic atmosphere itself. What "caustic atmosphere"? It's 99%+ CO2 and N2.
> Terraforming Venus has no advantage whatsoever Except for having a new planet which is pretty much a sister planet to Earth.
>considering it would take half a millennia to see the first results... Link? You can calculate yourself that it takes just a few decades for getting temps down to Earth temperatures and pressure falling to around 7 bar. Perfect for surface colonies by 2070 or so.
> Mars on the other hand would be easier but still stupid to think the long term efforts would be worth it. One word: gravity. We can rule out Mars. It's impossible to colonize and will always be impossible.
I remember seeing a show that said that was the reason Mars has a weak magnetic field in the first place. That it just heated up the crust causing the core and outer crust to have closer temperatures.
After all the thing that creates the magnetic field is the currents in the magma. As I understand it works like a giant lava lamp.
Fake science based on derived narratives... you can't argue with me unless it's been done and it hasn't so both our points are mute.
Logan Ward
How will you remove the CO2 from the atmosphere? Where will the water or hydrogen to make water come from? How are you going to get the rotation of Venus to be similar to Earth's?
Parker Thomas
Thanks, will check this out.
Wyatt Smith
Point out the flaws you see in the calculations. Thanks.
Julian Morales
Calculations are made up until actual controls exist to compare them too... we can't do that on a planetary scale currently.
Samuel Richardson
>Why thousands of years? Honestly, how do you get that number? Mostly guessing, if I am being honest, as terraforming relies on either a lot of ideas and tech we either do not have so we have no idea, or more conventional methods that WILL have to take place over thousands of years. Solar shades are easy enough, sure. But how to you begin to tackle the atmosphere's composition? Build a fuckhuge launch loop-particle accelerator hybrid and shoot excess stuff to somewhere else where it may be useful? Probably better than space-trucking it all away, but let's not underestimate the sheer volume of a planet's atmosphere. Then there's the reverse issue, introducing stuff that you do need - and every asteroid you slam down into the surface or delivery of materials by ship WILL deposit more heat. You can get a lot of O2, just by getting it out of oxides on the planet, but you will need to keep it from reacting with other things, and every chemical reaction that you use to make the planet more liveable will take time and energy, some of which WILL be wasteheat. And then we haven't even begun thinking about manufacturing the right kind of soil and the microbe cultures in it, making sure you have the exact right composition of minerals dissolved in the oceans you are (somehow) creating.
Not saying it is impossible, but honestly just with a first pass a few thousand years is likely an optimistic figure, barring a wonderful new technology that bypasses every issue mentioned above. But Venus is our best shot, because at least the gravity is just about the right amount. How long do you think this might take with her, never mind Mars or other places?
Robert Sullivan
If we are doing things at that scale Id just wrap a few wires around the planet pole to pole, then charge them based upon their relationship to the sun, and turn the entire planet into an inductance motor...
Kayden Myers
Venus cannot be terraformed. It's too close to the sun. Too much radiation and gravity at work there.
Nathaniel Edwards
>How will you remove the CO2 from the atmosphere? CO2 liquifies above the triple point (high pressure, low temperature). Once pressure drops enough, temps can fall further and CO2 goes from gas to solid (CO2 snow). You can thus "freeze out" pretty much all CO2 from the atmosphere and can get to a 3bar atmosphere within a few decades.
> Where will the water or hydrogen to make water come from? From the atmosphere, there is enough water in the Venusian atmosphere for global greenhouses. Of course, not enough water for oceans, for that you would need an external source like an icy moon (which is kind of sci fi to get to Venus).
>How are you going to get the rotation of Venus to be similar to Earth's? You wouldn't. If you can shade Venus completely with a sun shade, you can also simulate 24hr day cycles through a "soletta" shade concept.
>How are you going to deal with the stresses on rotating habitats? Most of the actually serious proposals work with perfectly mundane materials like steel (that we can now surpass if need be). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Frontier:_Human_Colonies_in_Space
>What power source will you use? In space, solar ceases to be a meme, with the eventual end goal of working our way up to a Dyson swarm. But there's also fission or (and this is the only real point where you go past currently known tech) fusion, in which case the universe is absolutely your oyster.
>Why don't you think a whole new planet is better than small tin cans of space stations? Most of a whole planet's matter is not going to be habitable, but a habitat's is. The location of a planet-bound people is restricted, even with tricks like giant mirrors or solar lenses to get some decent light, and in most cases it will be difficult at best to get a 24h day / 365 day year, never mind mostly shit gravity that you won't really be able to address unless you have artificial gravity, which is currently impossible.
Also, whereas a planet's development will take a long-ass time with hideous amounts of matter and energy investment, and so will a massive project like building an equal area's worth of rotating habitats, each habitat you finish is done, liveable and ready to go, probably prospering in part due to the next one's construction generating some extra business. Can't do the same compartmentalisation with a planet.
And finally, thinking really long term, when the Sun roasts the inner planets, it's all gone. a space station you can move, and hopefully by then you will have the tech to do so safely. It's the ultimate future-proofing for your species, at least with what's possible under our know/know-to-be-feasible tech.
>Calculations are made up until actual controls exist to compare them too.. How so? We know how much energy Venus absorbs per second from the sun... because we can measure that right now. We also know the Venutian atmosphere is in balance, which means the same energy it absorbs per second is radiated off into space every second. Which means we can calculate how long it takes to radiate enough heat into space to lower the overall atmospheric temperature to a certain level based on constant emission rates. Of course, where we are in a guessing game is how much the rate of emission changes as temperatures slowly fall, i.e. we can assume the rate of radiation into space slightly falls as the overall Venutian atmospheric temperature falls, slowing the overall process slightly.
Matthew Peterson
>How about you fix your country first Hans Can't fix what is permanently broken, Ruskie.
