Venus terraforming /how to make oceans/ editions

That was discussed in previous threads. Of course the sunshade placement requires a new way to get non-human mass into Earth orbit on the cheap (1 dollar per kg or less).

Make it out of mined minerals from the moon, retard. Do you even bootstrap into space industry?

Also since it's a simple device, it could be railgunned into space rather than launched in a rocket if you really wanted to do it on the cheap.

2019 is a shit year, petty problems outshine possibilities in space

Not to mention the mirrors needed to propel the ice moon into Venus. We are talking millions of tons. How do you even get them in orbit, even excluding all other problems of them and the shade being pushed around by solar winds, being hit by micro meteorites and torn to shreds in 10 years, etc.

Not gonna lie I have done zero actual work on the idea. I just read it in one of the Red Rising novels specifically about Venus. I assume it's doable on a long enough timescale with enough asteroid mass thrown at it but again I haven't done the math on it.

So your entire theory's building block is something we can't do in the foreseeable future? K den
I don't see any base on the moon with any production capability whatsoever, much less production capability needed for something the size of a planet.
>lol just use railguns bro
You fuckers need a reality check. We are no longer even able to send a 70kg person to the moon, what makes you think we are able to build a whole industry there?

>Not gonna lie I have done zero actual work on the idea
And it shows. You sound like a 1960s science fiction book

The shades double as solar sails and can be placed at the Venus-Sun L1 point using solar wind pressure. You need to hold them in place by a counter pressure... i.e. sun shades close to the Venus-Sun L2 point which reflect sunlight towards the sun shades to push them back into position constantly. These “counterweight” mirrors are themselves held in place by stationing them not at L2 but closer to Venus (where they would be drifting inwards would it not be for the solar wind). Only 1/5th of the area of the sunshade, which only deflects light rather than blocks it, is required as the “counterweight”.

>So your entire theory's building block is something we can't do in the foreseeable future?

We can do mass drivers, “dumb unreliable, but high frequency launch” rockets, airship to orbit etc. concepts. It’s not like we don’t have the tech for these things, it is just that fragile satellites and humans don’t work with these merhods except the airship to orbit concept.

Real life isnt a videogame
Mining materials from the moon, processing them, and setting them into orbit on Venus is a massive project way beyond anything humanity has done before.

How will you reduce Venus' atmospheric pressure? Last I checked, it was stupidly high.

Also, does Venus even have an ozone layer? Isn't it outside of the Goldilocks Zone? This is a terrible idea, just terraform Mars instead.

>We are no longer even able to send a 70kg person to the moon
Wrong, we CAN do it, we just can't do it with zero chance of killing people while we do it. And railguns are absolutely suited for launching non-delicate payloads into orbit and beyond.

To be fair to 1960s scifi authors, Asimov was really smart and actually did do the math to confirm it was possible. It was really the 1970s authors like Frank Herbert who started making up shit.

So you would need two shades, a planet sized and one "only" 1/5th of a planet sized. Let's say you can get them in orbit (you have no way of doing that) how do you precisely maneuver them in place? Solar wind alone isn't enough for precise placement. How do you shield them from space debris and micro meteorites and that it doesn't get torn to pieces in the long run, reverting Venus to its original status? How do you make sure the captured co2 on Venus stays in deposits and doesn't gas off if the shade is slightly out of position? What absorbs the co2? How would the impact of an ice moon change the rotation speed and orbit of Venus? How do you manouver the ice moon into colliding with Venus even if you have planet sized mirrors in orbit?
There are tons of assumptions you make that turn this into an impossible project, at least on a reasonable enough time scale

>in the foreseeable future?
I think this is a ridiculous concept. Did you see smartphones becoming so popular 20 years ago? No you didn't. The future is never foreseeable. You have to make it happen. Elon Musk and Steve Jobs show this perfectly.

Post me an example of a mass driver that can put even a kinder egg in orbit. Pro-tip: there isn't. You guys read too much science fiction and played too much kerbal. That's not how things work.
>Wrong, we CAN do it, we just can't do it with zero chance of killing people while we do it.
So you can't actually get the delicate machinery and people needed to extract resources from the moon (never mind the sheer number of people and machinery you'd need, let's just assume a small scale experiment), gotcha.
Again, post one railgun able to even get a few grams in orbit

Are you really comparing miniaturization process in technology to something the scope of what OP proposes?

>So you can't actually get the delicate machinery and people needed to extract resources from the moon (never mind the sheer number of people and machinery you'd need, let's just assume a small scale experiment), gotcha.
Again, yes you can, but a percentage of the people and material will be wasted due to accidents. The Soviets understood this. It's the cost of doing business in an unperfect world.

>durr it isn't commercially available RIGHT THIS FUCKING SECOND it doesn't count
Fuck off naysayer. You're the kind of person who shits on Space X even though they've made huge strides in rocket technology just because nobody had done what they've done before them.

Yes I am. Because nobody's talking about teraforming Venus TOMORROW. Or even this decade, or likely this century. It's a multi-century project, and if you take that to mean 300 years, keep in mind that 300 years ago ships sailed around under wind power, there was no heavier than air flight, and people didn't understand germ theory. Technology is advancing ever faster and in the next hundred years I full expect orbital launches to become orders of magnitude cheaper, a moon base, and space industry to take off.

It's too close to the sun. Even if you did convert the entire atmosphere to Earth-like composition and pressure, the temperature would still be over 100C at the poles. Liquid water couldn't naturally exist.

We should build bases on the Sun instead. If we go a mile down, we would never be found.

>errmerrgerd globlol werming
>I know let’s move closer to the sun
I dig it bro, show us de wey

>Again, yes you can
Then why hasn't a single person been on the moon since the last time you went there? Why isn't there a single piece of infrastructure on it if we can get them there? Why isn't there a single autonomous working machine if we can easily get them there? If everything is as easy as you say, a guy who read a science fiction book once, why haven't scientists done it already?
>durr it isn't commercially available RIGHT THIS FUCKING SECOND it doesn't count
I asked you for 1 fucking scientific prototype that can lift a single gram into orbit even spending billions of dollars in doing so, not for a commercially available product already able to left the millions of tons you'd actually need.
You compare this to the smartphone, but the difference is that the basis of the smartphone was already there, weak, expensive, gigantic and crude. So I ask the same for a railgun that can put things in orbit since it's so easy.
And I don't shit on Musk, he has done good progress on some things like reusable boosters, but nothing even remotely close to what you and OP are proposing

See My last paragraph. You really can't compare this to the smartphone. If it happens it will happen in a timescale of millennia, since no one can predict that far. But forget your moon base with extraction capabilities within a century, you delusional fool

>terraforming planets instead of dismantling them to create trillions of space habitats.
Planetary Chauvinists BTFO'd

>Then why hasn't a single person been on the moon since the last time you went there? Why isn't there a single piece of infrastructure on it if we can get them there? Why isn't there a single autonomous working machine if we can easily get them there? If everything is as easy as you say
Did you pay any attention at all in school, you drooling retard? There's been nothing to DO in space since the space race, and the only reason to even do THAT was for SPYING during the cold war (and after) because spy satellites are heavy and you need an excuse to put shit in orbit when everybody's paranoid about ICBM launches.

Currently the space race between Space X and others is about putting mass in LEO or MEO/HEO as cheaply as possible, mainly for commercial/government purposes. Eventually Musk wants to go to Mars to establish colonies for risk mitigation purposes (spreading humanity to more than one planet in case something happens to Earth), but there's little economic reason to do so NOW or in the last 60 years because the technology wasn't really there.

If you want to see a near term future for space exploration, read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or the Ben Bova novels.

>I asked you for 1 fucking scientific prototype that can lift a single gram into orbit
I don't have one. But that doesn't mean one couldn't be built. And even if one existed, you can't just put mass into LEO without coordinating with the government because of concerns for ablative cascade. If you start firing test loads into orbit willy nilly, you could hit a satellite and start a cascade of collisions that makes LEO impassible to human flight for CENTURIES.

Why are you even in this thread, just to be a naysayer? It's obviously a misplaced /sci/ thread but you could just leave if you want to rain on everyone's parade.

>But forget your moon base with extraction capabilities within a century, you delusional fool
I'm willing to bet a bitcoin on a chainlink smart contract that there's a permanent moon base and commercial mining on the moon by 2100. That's only 80.5 years from now, not even an entire century.

>Did you pay any attention at all in school, you drooling retard? There's been nothing to DO in space since the space race
Holy fuck you are legitimately idiotic. There is plenty to do in space concerning scientific research which is why we still do plenty of space exploration launches every year. And if building a moon base is an ovjective, that's even more reason to do so.
>If you want to see a near term future for space exploration, read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress or the Ben Bova novels
A fucking novel really? Not even a wikipedia article? Come on
>I don't have one. But that doesn't mean one couldn't be built
In theory everything can be built. But again, if you claim something is so easy and that it will surely be done on a large enough scale to build a moon base withing the next century, you'd think scientists, which actually have a clue about what they are doing, unlike you or me, would already have some sort of prototype, scaled down in terms of capabilities but still able to make it. Otherwise you are just speculating out of the ass, and at that point anything is viable, even a multidimensional portal opening on earth tomorrow and teleporting all of us into a realm of marshmallow and candy.
>If you start firing test loads into orbit willy nilly, you could hit a satellite
Christ, it's almost as if there was already a procedure in place for this sort of thing since we regularly put things in orbit, I dunno. It's almost as if space agencies coordinate rocket tests and are not complete morons that shoot down satellites.
>Why are you even in this thread, just to be a naysayer?
No, just to see if anyone has actually any reasonable ideas that don't involve hypothetical progress billions of times more complex than putting a man on the moon

Oh you are a bitcointard. Nevermind, carry on buddy

>There is plenty to do in space concerning scientific research which is why we still do plenty of space exploration launches every year. And if building a moon base is an ovjective, that's even more reason to do so.
Building a moon base is not a scientific objective, it's a commercial/imperialistic objective. Profit motive drives exploration, not the love of science.

>A fucking novel really? Not even a wikipedia article? Come on
Reread what you wrote and re-evaluate your standards for plausible near term future scenarios. Alternatively, you could read some of the business plans that have been incorporated for space exploration/exploitation in the last few decades. There are several space mining companies incorporated in Europe and the USA, even if they're not actively mining yet.

> just to see if anyone has actually any reasonable ideas
Let me save you some time. No, nobody has any ideas that meet your autistic standards for reasonableness. Feel free to go back to other threads to waste their time with your pedantry.

Attached: DCEA1623-9FE6-432A-A239-B718FB0D6B14.jpg (225x225, 11K)

>Profit motive drives exploration, not the love of science.
Tell that to the hundreds of space missions doing mostly scientific research. You are ignorant if you claim that we haven't been back to the moon because "there is nothing to do there"
>Alternatively, you could read some of the business plans that have been incorporated for space exploration/exploitation in the last few decades
Post one example that isn't a state funded program which does this to evaluate a scientific approach first. Post one private company focus on space mining that is turning a profit, so I can get an idea of how people that actually risk capital on this plan to do things.
>autistic standards for reasonableness
Is demanding to have something other than pure speculation on hypothetical future scientific progress too stringent of a parameter? Lmao you'd really be a bad investor

>Solar wind alone isn't enough for precise placement.

Actually it is.

>How do you shield them from space debris and micro meteorites a

You don’t. Small holes and degradation is built into the system. Lifespan is say 50yrs per shade.

>How do you make sure the captured co2 on Venus stays in deposits and doesn't gas off if the shade is slightly out of position?
Because you cover the CO2 ice at the poles. They gas off either by being heated or by not being covered or both. Look up Mars CO2 ice below the surface at equator areas.

>How would the impact of an ice moon change the rotation speed and orbit of Venus?

First, you don’t crash the moon, you crash small junks of it over decades. Second, even if you crash a 300km diameter Moon, the orbit of Venus won’t be affected.

>How do you manouver the ice moon into colliding with Venus even if you have planet sized mirrors in orbit?

the solar shades are at L1, not in orbit of Venus.

If you can shade the whole planet, you can have only so much light get through to match what the Earth gets from the sun.

essentially no axial tilt. 100+ day long rotation cycle. this is astronomy 101.

>Actually it is.
Proof? Otherwise we'd have plenty of solar sail based space exploration vehicles with nothing but a sail and no manoeuvering thrusters
>You don’t. Small holes and degradation is built into the system. Lifespan is say 50yrs per shade
So every 50 years you'd have to remake both shades, get them to orbit and precisely reposition them again? That's an undertaking several orders of magnitude larger than what you are proposing in the OP
>Because you cover the CO2 ice at the poles.
I wasn't clear enough with my question. How do you ensure that damage to the shade/placement errors/it moving around slightly or anything else that can potentially increase slightly the temperature of a terraformed venus doesn't result in massive offgassing of CO2 and in a chain reaction that releases all the CO2 back into the atmosphere? Think global warming but much faster and much larger. You are basically sitting on a very sensitive bomb that can turn the planet back into an unhinabitable high pressure cooker.
>the solar shades are at L1, not in orbit of Venus
I'm still not clear on how mirrors would be maneuvered around to cause gassing and sort of a thruster effect on an ice moon

On the third point of CO2, let's also not forget that frozen CO2 isn't nearly as stable as the vast majority of CO2 on earth which is deposited in rocks, which in turns takes millions of years to happen not to mention much more rock than what is available on the first 20 kilometers of Venus' crust

>Proof
Proof that you can use solar wind to position solar sails? Look up mathematics. The reason we don’t do it right now is because solar sail wind is too weak for any sensible payloads. So it makes no commercial sense to use solar sails today.

>So every 50 years you'd have to remake both shades

Both structures would consist of billions of individual shades, each with a control chip. You don’t need to replace all of them in 1 go after 50yrs, you just replenish the total structure by continuing to send individual shades which replace the dead ones. It’s like a swarm that is comstantly renewed.

>How do you ensure that damage to the shade/placement errors/it moving around slightly or anything else that can potentially increase slightly the temperature of a terraformed venus doesn't result in massive offgassing of CO2

It takes years for temperature changes. If theoretically, you would let the Sun fully hit the CO2 poles for a day, nothing would happen. Why? A. because the poles are covered and B. a day of sunlight at the poles doesn’t melt several km thick ice sheets. Right now we know from Mars that at equitors, CO2 ice just a few centimeter below some sand/soil doesn’t gas off even well above its sublimation point. Why? Because it’s covered.

>I'm still not clear on how mirrors would be maneuvered around to cause gassing and sort of a thruster effect on an ice moon

The icy moon sun mirrors concentrate sunlight on spots on the icy moon. That energy melts and heats up water to steam, the steam is channelled in steam “engine” structures (essentially steam channels) on the surface which eject the steam at high speeds powered by the steam’s energy itself. That speed provides delta-v for the Moon to be slightly pushed out of its orbit.

>Implying they will ever let you genocide races of people again

dont steal my thread hans

Attached: PROJECT BLACK POL.jpg (2036x2376, 1.41M)

dont steal my thread you kike

Shut up Tavistock

we dont need or want a artificial day night cycle, it would prevent venus from becoming earth like, the increased build up of clouds on the sun facing side due to slow rotation increases the albedo and reflects alot of the heat. making a day night cycle even artifically like earths at the distance of venus would cook the planet to 75 celcius

You could actually live on Venus's upper atmosphere right now. It has the same temp, pressure and gravity as earth.