Talk:Terraforming of Venus

How long

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)[reply]

From start to finish? Preparations for Mars terraforming would be shorter (we could start in five years), but overall length of time spent and resources invested would be greater (on the order of hundreds of years). Terraforming Venus would take longer to prepare for (70 years) but once begun the actual terraforming process would be much shorter than even half a human lifespan (20-50 years). All that is needed for Venetian terraforming is a large source of hydrogen such as H3 or H2 commonly found on cryogenic bodies which would need to be broken apart into small chunks and shuttled towards Venus over the course of a few decades. After that, resulting carbon and H in water can be used for bacterial food, with bacteria pushing forth nitrogen fixation and releasing some oxygen from the water with small scattered lakes remaining. The result is a fertile surface rich in organic molecules (bacterial remains), with a good seal against losing water, fixed nitrogen and an atmosphere where carbon and nitrogen have been removed and replaced by oxygen. Really the only thing needed to so it is a large amount of hydrogen, nitrogen fixing bacteria as well as seeds, animals and people to colonize it. It would be just like earth with a bit higher solar radiation. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Though there was talk of snagging a comet for extraterrestrial mining off Earth. It would also cause gravitational fluxutations. This may lead to a shortening of the day/night cycle.

They really would only need to shade the equator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by File077 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

^ [1] Astronomers hatch plan to move Earth's orbit from warming sun, CNN.com

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This could be terrible, messing with slight gravitational pulls, lagrange points, asteroids in motion... not to mention that it is impossible unless you believe in a benevolent God. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think it works like that. Their is no 'bubble', and the entire 'surface' of the atmosphere is already exposed to the 'vacuum' of space. All of the ougassing you are gonna get by doing that, is already occurring naturally. naturalnumber (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Changing Venus rotation is too hard

Establish a day/night light cycle shorter than Venus's current 116.75 day solar day.

Can we do without changing Venus rotation? Make a thick cloudy atmosphere with equal temperatures all around the Venusian globe, not unlike the current situation but much thinner and colder? --Atitarev (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much you could make such an upper atmosphere out of, maybe huge huge quantities of ozone 99.236.221.124 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but it seems the only valid conclusion, the 'mirror-thing' sounds costly in the long term, and the fact is every precious ray from the sun counts, deflecting solar energy with atmospheric manipulation is incorrect for maximum biomass potential... it works as another bio-world, then there is less pressure on Mars to be a bio-world, it can be used mainly as a place for mining and machine-life, which is useful to have a machine-world close to bio-worlds, taking various pressures off the bio-worlds... adapting the chemistry of a bio-world to be compatible with the chemistry of mass-mining & machine-existence is as we know not easily done in the short term, as the visa-versa, yet, it can happen... yw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.43.46 (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

or one can use Mars as the bio-world... either way there would be a significant # of self-contained bio-habitats on the other, for various purpose, but you don't necessarily need to set both on fast-track terraforming programs, one could be set fast-track for machine-life, mining, industry, & bio-support instead, with an option for medium or long term terraforming... the decision which to use as which has many calculations, with many variables not even considered, more geologic data for both would help, & feasibility of access reports for various components of interest taking to consideration modifications that would be carried out to the world, then there is the lack of reports of efficiency calculations to creating bio-worlds dissimilar in this or that respect from Earth chemistry, altho in this situation something similar that is close to the primal-settlement on Earth is more likely 'useful', efficient what have you, can't help but mention the lack of full solar-system-utilization reports as being contrary to making accurate calculations, although those are tough without more geologic data from a variety of objects, & other data, still, primitive reports are useful, or what about the lack of greater-system planning? calculations on all nearest systems? Ooma Huntress-Protectress (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we may further contend, altho counter-argument best prepared, at least at 1st, Mars is more suitable for a multiplicity of "contained" bio-habitats, rather than a connected planetary ecosystem, as in manner of location & gravitational resistance more suitable for launch further out system, thence allowing a variety of bio-permutations to be practiced for allowance & tolerances otherwhere Ooma Huntress-Protectress (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as well, in terms of launch back earthwards, of bioform developments deemed suitable & of need, Mars enacts a reasonably close & gravitation-eased companion as EarthMoon bio-habitats & laboratories Ooma Huntress-Protectress (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-NPOV? (an informal peer-review)

I hate to be a stick in the mud here, especially since this is actually a cool and decently written article (although, stylistically, it could still use some copy editing). It's clear to me however, that the subject matter here is nothing more then science-fiction... It's good, interesting, and cool hard sci-fi, and I enjoyed reading it, but... it's still sci-fi. Are the stake holders in this article really certain that this is a credible article as is? The one issue that spring immediately to my mind, which I dont' see any mention of at all, is the total lack of a Venusian magnetosphere (which, theoretically, is one major reason for the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus...). I'm not saying that this article shouldn't exist (I'm likely one of the most inclusionist editors on Wikipedia), but I am saying that this article definately needs to be balanced with a more realistic view.

I hate to do this, but in order to better illustrate what I'm talking about I'm going to mark up the current article with a bunch of {{fact}} and other inline marks as needed. my normal mode of editing is to remove them whenever I can, but... I'm not adding the tags willy-nilly. I really thing that attention is neede dwhere I've added the tags. I hope that those of you who have shepherded this article to this point will be motivated to improve the article rather then become discouraged. (actually, I stopped after the Solar Shades section. If most of those are taken care of, we can address the rest of the article later)
— Ω (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not scifi; it's highly speculative science. Everything in here that's not basic physics has some published reference backing it. Well, OK, one section references hard sci-fi, but only one.

I took out the tags related to solar sails (that's basic physics; if you insist, you can reference the Birch article that touches on solar pressure but it's really unnecessary IMO). I re-wrote some other things to deal with the tags. I took out the planetary ring section; I don't know who put that in and I don't know if it has a reference.

FWIW, the lack of a magnetosphere is mentioned in the rotation section. It's also tangentially touched on in the solar shade section. - Atarr (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points, Ω, I just don't agree with Wikipedia's policy. This is, after all, an "encyclopedia" that allows any number of articles to say that a woman is the most beautiful in the world -- simply because some magazine held a poll coming to that conclusion. In this article, we have, not importance justified by some financially-motivated process, but science and technology that's logically abstracting well-considered ideas from one context (Earth, Mars, Moon), to another. It's not speculative that a space elevator that works on Earth would not work on Venus. It's a simple application of unbiased fact, and not under dispute.

Moreover, and here again I'll disagree with an aspect of Wikipedia policy, there is no equally suitable place on the Internet to place this discussion. NASA and JPL sites can be extremely difficult to do research in, and very often Wikipedia editors have taken that information and reprocessed it into a form suitable for general readership. Ω, you may choose to stand on principle here, but it's rather a matter of which principle you've selected to stand upon. Leptus Froggi (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question to be looked up / at - add an ocean, create a thermal gradient

Two reasons Venus may not have a magnetic dynamo and plate tectonics may be affected by the addition of an ocean. That is, tectonic lubrication (which I'm told is important) and the induction of convection due to a thermal gradient in the core (which would be affected by the changing geology). This is pure speculation on my part, but has anyone seen anything that looks into the effect of such massive changes in this way? naturalnumber (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably terraforming will induce greater tectonic activity, but at present Venus sees very little weather, and therefore very little atmospheric mixing and surface cooling compared to Earth. The surface is hot enough to be much more plastic than Earth's crust, so you don't see the tectonic plates that Earth has developed, and the lower thermal gradient does not drive robust mantle currents as far as we can see. Sorry, don't have references here but they're out there. 149.168.132.18 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ready source of hydrogen

Crash (gently) a comet like Hale-Bopp into Venus... problem solved. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/art/comet.html. Probably could be done in our lifetime. Steer a comet with a controlled heat source ... exploiting the reserves of reactive gasses in the comet itself. Outgassing=thrust. Simultaneous (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venus needs in at least 10²⁰ kg of water (i.e. thousands of such comets) to complete the terraforming. Krasss (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The solar wind is full of hydrogen. Wouldn't it be possible to use satellites to collect it and then transfer it to the surface?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Even if you had some sort of combination ion ramjet solar shade at Sol-Venus L1, it would likely take a millennium to notice any effect. Nydoc1 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Nydoc1[reply]

But isn't terraforming a very long-term process anyway?--135.196.181.166 (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

could be cheaper import method, as shipping on craft between celestial objects is pricey, so is offloading goods onto small asteroids using them as the shipment craft, not much would be shipped except a few things valuable enough, certainly not for a while, information is the main thing that would be shipped for quite some time Ooma Huntress-Protectress (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mass drivers

Given sufficiently advanced technology to construct rigid towers from the surface to above the top of the atmosphere, there's a way to get a 'double shot' from using mass drivers at their tops to export excess atmosphere and speed up the rotation.

The first energy addition would come from capturing the kinetic energy of the millions of incoming pressure tanks filled with compressed hydrogen, oxygen or ordinary water. The emptied tanks would then be filled with compressed carbon dioxide and hurled outwards to comets brought in to a Solar orbit between Earth and Venus. The CO2 would be vented out there and the tanks refilled to send back. Think of giants repeatedly catching and pitching baseballs, with each catch and pitch pushing the giant back a little. More kinetic energy transfer could come from loads of cargo staying on Venus. Of course such mass drivers would require large amounts of energy, most likely nuclear power plants on top of the towers. If 'simply' exporting most of the atmosphere using mass drivers could bring Venus up to a 30 day rotation, reversing the process to transfer energy via incoming loads caught by the mass drivers ought to get the rotation going a bit faster, perhaps 20 days. Depends on how much mass would be imported. Upon reaching the end of the project, fire all the tanks in at the top designed catch speed then send them to the surface for recycling into various stuff. Keep a few of the better condition ones for the museums. The towers could remain for use as space elevators and over time the mass drivers, still being used for interplanetary cargo, would continue speeding up the rotation. If it ever gets to 24 hours, switch to launching and catching half the loads in each direction.

The last thing Venus needs for terraforming is *more atmosphere*. Aerobraking random chunks of natural space ice could cause extra work for getting rid of undesired gasses, though any useless gas added that way would give more mass for the mass driver system to kick away and make the final day shorter. The basic composition to aim for would be approximately 70% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen, 4% water vapor and 0.03% carbon dioxide, and little enough of the total to produce close to one Earth atmosphere pressure. Of course that still leaves the need for extreme SPF sunscreen if speeding up the rotation doesn't jumpstart a magnetic field.

Direct atmosphere ejection

A different method would use the same style of towers as the mass driver system, but would have nuclear rocket engines using the atmospheric gas as reaction mass. The gas would have to be accelerated significantly above escape velocity and only at points in the rotation where the likelyhood of Venus scooping it back up in its orbit would be minimal. Once started the process might work without requiring any moving parts, giant nuclear powered siphons. For even more kick, antimatter powered venturi siphon jets. Fire a high speed jet of fluid through a venturi and fluid can be sucked through an opening in the side of the venturi throat. (One mundane application is a water siphon jet used to empty water bed mattresses. Using antimatter to empty a water bed = insanity.) The antimatter reaction with the atmospheric gas to create the jet would need to be tightly controlled. any unused antimatter would rather dramatically 'erode' pieces of the equipment. Another problem with that method might be radiation. Wouldn't want anything getting in the path of the exhaust streams.

but the issue is you don't necessarily really ideally want to lose whats in the atmosphere, i'll take a look, but 'adding more' to Venus by crashing things into it to adjust the rotation can be the ideal for full value, if thats cost-effective & manageable to do so, then you capture the components of the atmosphere you wish somewhere else and use them so as desired... yw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.43.46 (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

zip-cord method

Completely crazy spin-up method. Make two really long cables, one end of each attached to opposing points on the equator. Wrap around Venus several times then pull, gently. What to pull them with? Who knows, some sort of rig that can thrust away for a very long time. Handling the cables as they fully unwind and have to be detached could be quite a 'fun' problem. Re-attaching and re-winding for another pull if needed would be even more fun. If anyone wants to use this or any of the two ideas above it in a SciFi story, be my guest. This third one might have potential for a comedy.

Rotation and Dynamo

First of all, if we used nuclear bombs to hit Venus at an appropriate angle with a couple of KBOs, would that speed up its rotation? Second, don't the tidal forces generated by the Moon at least partly help keep Earth's core spinning? If so, then if we put a rather large body, such as Eris, in orbit around Venus, would that restart its dynamo? FlamingCobra (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the research on Mars of a magnetic shield on L1 orbit. This could be applied to Venus to provided it with a magnetic shield, no need to kickstart the rotation.Quantanew (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any studies with nanotech? Or a frozen asteroid?

Wondering if there have been any studies on terraforming with nanotechnology. At the rate our tech is progressing, there's a good possibility of having functional nanites by the end of the century. They could take the carbon from the atmosphere and compress/store it (maybe use all the carbon to create a space elevator).

Also, what impact would dropping a large asteroid/comet onto Venus have (assuming it was frozen and made of something like hydrogen)? 216.160.181.242 (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single one wouldn't have much impact. You could see some temporary cooling due to dust or water vapor in the atmosphere, but it won't last long enough to produce long-term effects. For that, you really need hundreds of comets or asteroids, many very large indeed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see two article about terraforming with nanotechnology in JBIS but both in an issue I don't happen to have right now. Anybody with back issues want to look at these and see if it talks about Venus, and if so, if it's worth adding? Morgan, Charles R., "Terraforming with Nanotechnology," Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 47, 311-318, 1994, and Freitas, Robert A., Jr., "Terraforming Mars and Venus Using Machine Self-Replicating Systems", Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 36, 139-142, March 1983. Michael-Zero (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

extrasolar hydrogen???

In the section about adding hydrogen to Venus's atmosphere, we read "possibly from an extrasolar source" Why?? Would be far cheaper to get hydrogen fm eg. Saturn. May I delete that part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.58.119 (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The practicalities

How practical would terraforming Venus be?

Whatever means are used to 'block most incoming solar energy' (at least until the cooling process had got underway) and to create 'heat sinks into space' (for want of a better term): how long would it take the surface to cool down and create a surface that even a heat-resistant robot could move around on?

To the casual observer Mars seems much more practical - setting up the machinery to create Terran-life-supporting atmospheres,' 'water recycling plants' and 'dust storm protection' would be the main requirements and within current technological capacities.

Did any earlier science fiction predict boiling Venus? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

♠"Did any earlier science fiction predict boiling Venus?" None that I've ever seen, except, perhaps, Larry Niven's story (name I don't recall :( ) with the "Donovan's brain" ref. Most of the "life on Venus" stories tended to be written before the surface temp & pressure were known to be so high.

♠As for practical, it really depends on how. Automated machinery able to withstand the heat & pressure could be designed & built. And diverting comets or astroids to help cool things down is a lot simpler. By that point, tho, IMO orbital habs will be standard, & colonizing a gravity well will look pretty stupid...

♠Mars, IMO, fails for the same reasons: the delta-vee requirements alone are nuts. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the energy and other resources required it would probably be more practical to establish SpaceBaseMars and SpaceBaseEris (dwarf planet) (last service station for x lightyears, and we hope you enjoyed your visit to the Solar System) than cool Venus down (especially given the limits of 'political and other forward horizons' and the case that would be put that the runaway greenhouse would start off again).

There also seems to have been an absence of predicting the Wikiverse. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

♠Mars is about as big a dead loss, enough to make Mars impractical. The MGO-surface-MGO delta-vee isn't as bad as VGO-surface-VGO, but the MGO-GEO is bad enough. Given a choice between Mars & any of the NEAs, I'd take the NEAs (with the possible exception of the ones with extremely eccentric orbits). Eris, IDK: I have serious doubts you can supply it, & the delta-vee to do that would be insanely high, both in transit & orbit-surface-orbit. The key problem in all the proposals is the gravity well: once you're out, it's absolutely crazy to climb back down. Put science stations there, maybe, but no more.

♠And we are getting pretty far from the subject, aren't we? :) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a thought experiment of the 'compare and contrast' type.

It would be practical with current technology to establish a computer and robot run mineral extraction base on Mars; and Hubble 2, signal repeater and enhancer, and even a spacecraft repair and replacement facility on Eris or similar. The costs, resources required, and 'the complicated calculations and organisation involved' would be a fraction of that required for cooling Venus down.

Is there a suitable place to decamp to to discuss this thread of future science and technology? Jackiespeel (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Down, Venus

Sulfur Dioxide is a very convenient refrigerant. How nice of Venus to have an enormous quantity of it in its atmosphere. If we can cool the whole planet, we have a lot less to worry about.

Venus also receives TWICE the amount of sunlight. How convenient for solar powered technologies that will provide Terra-forming functions. CR5 (http://phys.org/news178203219.html) will provide necessary fuels and more, although it would be nice if we could know if Venus contained the same amount of iron oxide as Mars. Additionally, if we can make the atmosphere of Venus full of oxygen at the right pressure and temperature - we MAY conjecture that unpaired hydrogen floating in outer space can eventually supply the planet with water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.116.35 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? How can this article benefit from this? --JorisvS (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heat up Venus first, cool down later ?

If the atmosphere was heated up much further, applying some highly efficient greenhouse gases or space mirrors, could that make the atmosphere disappear into space rather quickly (like a boiling tub of water), i.e. over a few millennia? If much of it was gone, the process would slow down anyway due to loss of "natural" greenhouse gases and a controlled cooling should occur. However: How much of all the carbon and sulfur dioxide would end up on earth? Meerwind7 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Venus would have to be a lot hotter before heating the atmosphere would have much/any effect. Since some of Venus's atmosphere leaks continually anyway due to it having no magnetic field, and that is a negligible effect, boiling away the atmosphere probably wouldn't be workable.--91.231.90.90 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also heating up a planet is not viable, (not just a couple of degrees) if the sun can't do it then we certainly cannot--135.196.181.166 (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrograde motion?

User:Mevagiss apparently believes inaccurate language such as his is preferable. I disagree. In the first place, there is no "opposite" side of Venus; the planet rotates. In the second place, shade is not "cast"; it is created. Shadows are cast. In the third place, I'm not at all sure cooling is "achieved" in this context as much as "effected" (& I should have corrected that mistake, but didn't...). As for "The construction", that's being fussy; "the" isn't grammatically necessary. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me get this right - it's the other guy who is being fussy?--91.231.90.90 (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I think, on "the construction". On the rest, I think he's lexically wrong: I think his usage is wrong. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the point of those distinctions--91.231.90.90 (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does this help to deal with the issues listed at the top of the article?--46.208.208.7 (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to disagree, but the article is not yours to adjudicate on - see WP:OWN. The points you make are subjective and your criticism simply opens you to the same responses from others--Mevagiss (talk) 10:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't belong to you, either, contrary to what you seem to think, & since you're the one making the changes from a stable, accepted version, it's incumbent on you to defend them, not me. I don't see anything like discussion from you. All I see is rv & claims my edits are "unhelpful". You'll notice, I'm the one who started the discussion. You'll also note you've made no contribution to it beyond accusations of ownership. Who's "unhelpful"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true; you made no attempt to discuss, simply reverted my edit. I was the one to justify my points on your talk page which you responded to by rudely deleting without further comment. No discussion. Repeatedly telling somebody else "you're wrong" does not count as discussion. Your vehemence on this issue does not give you authority. You have no answer to the comments above. "Usage is wrong" and "lexically wrong" are unconvincing points to anyone. You also reverted the article again without waiting for any reponses. Finally, it is remarkable that you would describe the article as "stable, accepted" when it is obviously not (See the multiple issues warning!) and you seem to be unaware that articles are not "stable". Please familiarise yourself with the relevant WP policies on article editing and behaviour towards other editors before proceeding--Mevagiss (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obliged to discuss before reverting, despite what you think. You reverted several times with no discussion here (& it's here discussion is supposed to take place). What I do on my own talk page is my own business. I found your arguments unpersuasive then & still do, & your efforts to shut me up with accusations of edit warring do not change my mind. Your own arguments of my error are no more convincing or substantive, & I notice you haven't actually made them here. The fact you don't agree with them does not mean they're "unconvincing points to anyone". (I don't see anyone but you finding them unconvincing.) As for articles not being "stable", I suggest you don't know what you're talking about, since I've seen many that are; in any case, that's not really germane. As for "multiple issues", I don't see any of the raised issues as directly impacting on the edits you've made, which makes that another red herring. You started with the claims of "unhelpful" edits & accusations of edit warring in an effort to get your way, not me. If anyone needs to examine policies on editing behavior & treatment of other editors, it's you. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. I thought this was the discussion page but it seems to be the argument page. There's a very good quote from Mark Twain that applies here. I'll be off; you can stop growling now and reclaim your cave.--Mevagiss (talk) 09:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling Down with Chemistry?

Can they cool venus by introducing Iodine to the atmosphere to interact with the sulphuric-acid atmosphere for an endothermic reaction? The result is oxygen and hydrogen, which we could use as a fuel, to run machinery that also combines these to make water, introducing clouds to cool the surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by File077 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original research tag removed

I think I've added sufficient citations that the tag "This article possibly contains original research. (September 2015)" can be removed, so I did so. If you disagree, feel free to mark the appropriate sections, and I'll try to put in citations. (there certainly are places where I'd like to add some original research here, or at least some editorializing, with remarks like "this idea doesn't seem practical"-- but I tried to avoid that temptation.)Michael-Zero (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have delta-MV budgets been estimated for the various proposals ?

If the effort (eg delta-MV) for the various proposals have been estimated it would be great to see them so the ideas can be ranked by some proxy for cost or practicality. - Rod57 (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solar heat shield at the L1 orbit (Venus-Sun)

In light of the research on Mars of a magnetic shield on L1 orbit. Can someone find a credible source for the calculation of the size/cost of a solar heat shield at the L1 orbit. Maybe achieving similar heat radiation levels as the Earth. Space sunshade Space flight forum on the subject Quantanew (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terraforming of Venus. 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/20071117054317/http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4741 to http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4741

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps detonating hundreds if not thousands of hydrogen bombs in Venus's stratospere might speedily tame the atmospere 2600:100E:B072:8C64:D8D0:573C:707D:9AD9 (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1] Astronomers hatch plan to move Earth's orbit from warming sun, CNN.com

[1]