How Quickly Could Venus Be Terraformed?

[Radrook]

No problem! Yes that is another complication of running mixed gender crews.

But it's not usually a problem in NASA because their astronauts tend to be married and middle aged which makes it a lot less awkward to run a mixed gender setup. Russian astronauts tend to be a lot younger like Yuri Gagarin and some others were only in their twenties and they flew to space!

I would also like to make it clear I'm not rich! I mentioned earlier I have no problems with money in my own scientific research....But that's because I do all the work on my own and improvise/recycle a lot. I only make around the same salary as a clerk.

And if I need to buy anything, I could get if off Ebay very cheap. Reliability is least priority since they are only very short duration tests on the "lab" (my room).

I don't think way more expensive equipment would help at all. I would only need real money once I succeed and build a flying prototype but it's still years down the road. I should have saved enough money by that time. As usual, I'll build the vehicle by myself registered as "experimental aircraft" to avoid bloating the costs.

Well at least the Crew that NASA plans on sending to Mars consist of three men and three women. So there should be no pairing off with one suffering solitude unless something usual happens.

Here is an experiment carried out on a Volcano lansdsacape in Hawaii to mimick a Mars mission.
'Mars Mission' Crew Emerges From Yearlong Simulation In Hawaii

BTW
How does tagging it as an experimental aircraft reduce the cost?

 

[timewerx]

Well at least the Crew that NASA plans on sending to Mars consist of three men and three women. So there should be no pairing off with one suffering solitude unless something usual happens.

What if five of them are already married Crews that get selected for missions like that would be around 40. Someone in their prime at the top of their career. Such person often tends to be married and already have children!

I think the mixed gender crew have more to do with achieving a dynamic environment for the crew, much like an office workspace.

BTW
How does tagging it as an experimental aircraft reduce the cost?

Because you don't have to go through the standard FAA certification for production aircraft:
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_ce...fication/sp_awcert/experiment/expt_operating/
So You Want to Build an Airplane

An aircraft for Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only would save you a ton further on instrumentation. You just need to avoid flying at night or in low visibility conditions or through clouds.

At such stage, I plan on moving to any country way up north and remote enough to facilitate testing without endangering anyone. Dry and very cold weather would bring significant improvement to performance. Could be anywhere in Canada, or Russia.

 

[Michael]

We are definitely very calmly and efficiently Venaforming the Earth as some would express it. Weird since it is comparable to a crew of a spaceship screwing around with the life support system that they depend on to survive. Anyone viewing such a crew would immediately conclude that they were insane. Especially if they tried to reason with them and they still insisted on taking a sledge hammer to the life support system.

BTW
I wish you success on your work. It would be a great contribution to science if you succeed.

Buckminster Fuller would be proud of you for that post.

I think that terraforming Venus would be significantly "easier" than terraforming Mars, but it would be a lot more risky. You'd have to start by building a gigantic sunscreen to at the Lagrange point between the sun and Venus to shield the planet from some of the sunlight to help cool off the planet. The sunscreen could include solar panels to collect solar energy and beam it back to the planet too. As tough as that might sound, that seems infinitely simpler than trying to "heat up" Mars. On the other hand, a big solar storm might wreak havoc on the sunscreen and all hell could break loose in terms of planetary temperatures.

 

[Radrook]

Buckminster Fuller would be proud of you for that post.

I think that terraforming Venus would be significantly "easier" than terraforming Mars, but it would be a lot more risky. You'd have to start by building a gigantic sunscreen to at the Lagrange point between the sun and Venus to shield the planet from some of the sunlight to help cool off the planet. The sunscreen could include solar panels to collect solar energy and beam it back to the planet too. As tough as that might sound, that seems infinitely simpler than trying to "heat up" Mars. On the other hand, a big solar storm might wreak havoc on the sunscreen and all hell could break loose in terms of planetary temperatures.

I guess that solar flare damage to the shades possibility is one that has to be prepared against. What I find rather more difficult is the suggestion that once the chemicals freeze out of the atmosphere and precipitate they should be buried in the Venusian soil. What could appear as rubble on the surface might be solid beneath?

Surface observations

Ten spacecraft have successfully landed on Venus and returned data, all were flown by the Soviet Union. Venera 9, 10, 13, and 14 had cameras and returned images of soil and rock.

Spectrophotometry results showed that these four missions kicked up dust clouds on landing, which means that some of the dust particles must be smaller than about 0.02 mm.

The rocks at all four sites showed fine layers, some layers were more reflective than others. Experiments on rocks at the Venera 13 and 14 sites found that they were porous and easily crushed (bearing maximum loads of 0.3 to 1 MPa) these rocks may be weakly lithified sediments or volcanic tuff.

Spectrometry found that the surface materials at the Venera 9, 10, 14 and Vega 1 and 2 landing had chemical compositions similar to tholeiitic basalts, while the Venera 8 and 13 sites chemically resembled alkaline basalts.
Geology of Venus - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

What if five of them are already married Crews that get selected for missions like that would be around 40. Someone in their prime at the top of their career. Such person often tends to be married and already have children!

I think the mixed gender crew have more to do with achieving a dynamic environment for the crew, much like an office workspace.



Because you don't have to go through the standard FAA certification for production aircraft:
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_ce...fication/sp_awcert/experiment/expt_operating/
So You Want to Build an Airplane

An aircraft for Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only would save you a ton further on instrumentation. You just need to avoid flying at night or in low visibility conditions or through clouds.

At such stage, I plan on moving to any country way up north and remote enough to facilitate testing without endangering anyone. Dry and very cold weather would bring significant improvement to performance. Could be anywhere in Canada, or Russia.

Any time we have a mixed gender crew we have inevitable chemistry which will kick in involuntarily. Hunan needs don't disappear simply because one is in outer space. In fact, the very nature of the mission could very well intensify the need for mutual human comfort between the sexes in order to help reduce stress.

BTW

Why would dry cold weather enhance the aircraft's performance?

 

[timewerx]

Any time we have a mixed gender crew we have inevitable chemistry which will kick in involuntarily. Hunan needs don't disappear simply because one is in outer space. In fact, the very nature of the mission could very well intensify the need for mutual human comfort between the sexes in order to help reduce stress.

That's the complication! I guess they'll just have to leave to fate. I don't think they'll be out looking for singles only. If their most qualified person for the position is married, they'll have to get him or her.

And it's possible they might find married candidates to be favorable in behavioral attributes.

Why would dry cold weather enhance the aircraft's performance?

The nature of the experimental propulsion purely uses electric fields to produce a propulsive force.

And you can produce stronger electric field in air (or just about anything) if it's colder. In gases, better too if with less humidity due to higher ionization energy required.

Stronger electric field = stronger thrust. In perfect vacuum, the maximum electric field is many orders of magnitude stronger than can be produced here on Earth. Just the extreme difficulty of making near perfect vacuum must be postponed for the meantime. Manufacturing in space would make things a lot easier but that is for much much later.

 

[Radrook]

That's the complication! I guess they'll just have to leave to fate. I don't think they'll be out looking for singles only. If their most qualified person for the position is married, they'll have to get him or her.

And it's possible they might find married candidates to be favorable in behavioral attributes.



The nature of the experimental propulsion purely uses electric fields to produce a propulsive force.

And you can produce stronger electric field in air (or just about anything) if it's colder. In gases, better too if with less humidity due to higher ionization energy required.

Stronger electric field = stronger thrust. In perfect vacuum, the maximum electric field is many orders of magnitude stronger than can be produced here on Earth. Just the extreme difficulty of making near perfect vacuum must be postponed for the meantime. Manufacturing in space would make things a lot easier but that is for much much later.

When you mention an electric field I imagine it being generated by a rotating magnet as in an electric fan, flowing metal as in Earth's core or a battery. I'm sure that a gentle electrical discharge in the vacuum of space would be cumulative over time. Or is this thrust of a more powerful kind?

 

[scottyp588]

Since Venus is the only planet in our solar system that provides adequate gravity it's surface would be ideal for permanent colonization since such things as bone loss and blindness due to microgravity effects would be avoided. However we have the atmospheric pressure which is 100 times greater than Earth's at sea level and the corrosive sulfuric acid laden clouds and temperatures extremes capable of melting lead problems that prevent it. What would be the quickest way to transform Venus into an Earthlike habitat if indeed we ever decide to try it?

We are nowhere near capable of terraforming a planet. Plus, if we had the capability of terraforming the disaster of an atomosphere of venus we could also reverse the damage we've done to our own atmosphere.

 

[Radrook]

We are nowhere near capable of terraforming a planet. Plus, if we had the capability of terraforming the disaster of an atmosphere of venus we could also reverse the damage we've done to our own atmosphere.

These are visions of what might be accomplished in the future.

 

[timewerx]

When you mention an electric field I imagine it being generated by a rotating magnet as in an electric fan, flowing metal as in Earth's core or a battery. I'm sure that a gentle electrical discharge in the vacuum of space would be cumulative over time. Or is this thrust of a more powerful kind?

The force of attraction between two opposite charges. The electric field between them, that kind.

I have figured out a way to make the force unbalanced resulting to a net thrust. The major limitation is that before a very strong electric field is setup, an electric discharge would neutralize the charge and the thrust.

To prevent that, a much weaker electric field must be maintained. But a weak field is also weak thrust, not good.

But at least I already have something workable which will be the bulk of my effort in the coming years. How to make it more powerful.

I've already quite a few methods slated to make a much more powerful electric field continuously. Some of the methods would make it stick out and potentially disruptive so requires a remote testing location.

 

[Radrook]

The force of attraction between two opposite charges. The electric field between them, that kind.

I have figured out a way to make the force unbalanced resulting to a net thrust. The major limitation is that before a very strong electric field is setup, an electric discharge would neutralize the charge and the thrust.

To prevent that, a much weaker electric field must be maintained. But a weak field is also weak thrust, not good.

But at least I already have something workable which will be the bulk of my effort in the coming years. How to make it more powerful.

I've already quite a few methods slated to make a much more powerful electric field continuously. Some of the methods would make it stick out and potentially disruptive so requires a remote testing location.

Is the force of the propulsion produced similar to these ion thrusters?
Ion thruster - Wikipedia

 

[timewerx]

Is the force of the propulsion produced similar to these ion thrusters?
Ion thruster - Wikipedia

Ion thrusters are still basically rocket engines using electrical energy instead of chemical energy to produce a high speed exhaust for thrust. Both of them still carry fuel which greatly limits their range since fuel is a non-renewable resource especially in space.

My concept produces thrust by altering the equipotential lines of two oppositely charged electrodes so the coupling of forces is unbalanced.

It does not require fuel so the spacecraft can merrily get around in space as long as it can get its supply of electricity (solar or nuclear).

It produces over 500x the thrust afforded by radiation pressure at the same power level which makes a very promising and practical solution to interstellar travel.

As good as it may sound, it is still barely enough force to overcome the Earth's gravity or accelerate to relativistic speeds in a reasonable time.

A 10x increase in current thrust levels is enough to celebrate about but is still a long way! My conservative estimate would be 10 years development time. 5 years if I get lucky.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Since Venus is the only planet in our solar system that provides adequate gravity it's surface would be ideal for permanent colonization since such things as bone loss and blindness due to microgravity effects would be avoided. However we have the atmospheric pressure which is 100 times greater than Earth's at sea level and the corrosive sulfuric acid laden clouds and temperatures extremes capable of melting lead problems that prevent it. What would be the quickest way to transform Venus into an Earthlike habitat if indeed we ever decide to try it?

Venus couldn't be terraformed. It's issues are too profound.

Mars on the other hand...

 

[Grandpa2390]

Sadly, such fate could also happen on Earth.

Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas. Higher global temperatures means more water vapor in the atmosphere and higher greenhouse gas levels. It could reach a tipping point where an unstoppable runaway cycle can occur and the Earth would undergo a similar transformation to Venus.

fortunately for us, our emissions into the atmosphere aren't enough to tip that scale. So long as we remain in the Goldilocks zone... we should be safe from this particular runaway cycle.

Sure you got all of this from wiki but just in case:
@Radrook because the current thinking is that if Venus had water at some point, it boiled off due to its proximity to the sun. The water vapor, a powerful greenhouse gas, cause the temperature of the planet to rise causing a runaway cycle. Eventually all of the oceans boiled off. The solar radiation split the water molecules and blew the hydrogen into space leaving just oxygen and carbon behind to form CO2

Unless you can move the planet further away from the sun, terraforming Venus will be an ongoing job. You will constantly have to find way to keep Venus cool enough for liquid water. You would also have to bring water to the planet as it doesn't have much hydrogen.
Looking at the wiki, it seems that everyone has pretty much accepted that Mars is the first project, and Venus will be for a day when we have nothing better to do than scoop hydrogen out of the Gas giants and artificially maintain the temperature of Venus.

 

[Radrook]

Venus couldn't be terraformed. It's issues are too profound.

Mars on the other hand...

I agree, Venus is harder to terraform.
Which Planet Would Be Easier to Terraform: Venus or Mars?

 

[Radrook]

That's really cool.

Seems easier and safer to set up shop in that Earthlike environment of the Venusian atmosphere than it does on totally hostile Mars. Trip is shorter as well not placing far less stress on the astronauts.

 

[Radrook]

fortunately for us, our emissions into the atmosphere aren't enough to tip that scale. So long as we remain in the Goldilocks zone... we should be safe from this particular runaway cycle.

Not exactly another Venus perhaps but a serious issue nevertheless for the stress it will place on life. Here is a very informative article which evaluates the pros and cons concerning our present ability to warm Earth's climate.

As nightmarish as a runaway greenhouse seems, whether or not modern Earth is susceptible to it should perhaps be seen as essentially an academic point. Microbes could endure and even flourish on a planet at the brink of runaway, but people would still be steam-cooked whether or not such a hothouse world tipped over into a more Venusian climate. Leaving aside other effects of global warming like rising seas, stronger storms, longer droughts and plummeting biodiversity, Kasting says, “the problem of heat stress alone could become lethal to humans well before any runaway happens, and that danger may be much closer than previously realized. This is serious enough to warrant our full attention.”

Fact or Fiction?: We Can Push the Planet into a Runaway Greenhouse Apocalypse

Fact or Fiction?: We Can Push the Planet into a Runaway Greenhouse Apocalypse

 

[Radrook]

Ion thrusters are still basically rocket engines using electrical energy instead of chemical energy to produce a high speed exhaust for thrust. Both of them still carry fuel which greatly limits their range since fuel is a non-renewable resource especially in space.

My concept produces thrust by altering the equipotential lines of two oppositely charged electrodes so the coupling of forces is unbalanced.

It does not require fuel so the spacecraft can merrily get around in space as long as it can get its supply of electricity (solar or nuclear).

It produces over 500x the thrust afforded by radiation pressure at the same power level which makes a very promising and practical solution to interstellar travel.



As good as it may sound, it is still barely enough force to overcome the Earth's gravity or accelerate to relativistic speeds in a reasonable time.

A 10x increase in current thrust levels is enough to celebrate about but is still a long way! My conservative estimate would be 10 years development time. 5 years if I get lucky.

Well, if no fuel needed be taken along that certainly would be an advantage in long duration space flights requiring repeated use of thrust to alter trajectory or perhaps to gradually attain significant percentages of luminal velocities.
In the Sci Fi film Passengers, the engine is depicted as providing constant gentle thrust. If indeed it were a chemical-dependent one then that would be unfeasible since the ship is described as requiring 220 Earth years to reach its destination. . So since the thrust was constant, perhaps it was theoretically assumed to have been employing something similar to what you are working on?


BTW
The ship in the Sci film was traveling at 50% light speed.

 

[timewerx]

Well, if no fuel needed be taken along that certainly would be an advantage in long duration space flights requiring repeated use of thrust to alter trajectory or perhaps to gradually attain significant percentages of luminal velocities.
In the Sci Fi film Passengers, the engine is depicted as providing constant gentle thrust. If indeed it were a chemical-dependent one then that would be unfeasible since the ship is described as requiring 220 Earth years to reach its destination. . So since the thrust was constant, perhaps it was theoretically assumed to have been employing something similar to what you are working on?


BTW
The ship in the Sci film was traveling at 50% light speed.

It is a good film!

Their starship is actually still using a rocket type of propulsion as depicted in the film. It is probably an ion drive capable of producing relativistic exhaust speed.

The type I'm working on doesn't produce any exhaust. Purely electromagnetic in nature and up to 500x more efficient than a photon drive.

My short term goal is to boost the thrust 10x. In such performance figure, it would become practically suitable enough for manned exploration of all solar system planets significantly faster than present technology but with much higher reliability. Would also dramatically reduce the cost of deep space exploration. But still won't be enough to take off directly from Earth. It would require at least 100x improvement in thrust to be able to take off directly from Earth.

 

[Radrook]

It is a good film!

Their starship is actually still using a rocket type of propulsion as depicted in the film. It is probably an ion drive capable of producing relativistic exhaust speed.

The type I'm working on doesn't produce any exhaust. Purely electromagnetic in nature and up to 500x more efficient than a photon drive.

My short term goal is to boost the thrust 10x. In such performance figure, it would become practically suitable enough for manned exploration of all solar system planets significantly faster than present technology but with much higher reliability. Would also dramatically reduce the cost of deep space exploration. But still won't be enough to take off directly from Earth. It would require at least 100x improvement in thrust to be able to take off directly from Earth.

Did you notice how the starring actress in the film Passengers said that she was going to spend a month on the homestead planet and then return after centuries had elapsed here on Earth? It would be like a trip using a time machine!