Talk:Terraforming of Venus

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  How long 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  shading via comet

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: 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.  Astronomers hatch plan to move Earth's orbit from warming sun, CNN.com"
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)
replies: text: No that would be OR Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rotation Section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Capture in carbonates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terraforming as simple as 2x2! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Burst the bubble 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Changing Venus rotation is too hard 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question to be looked up / at - add an ocean, create a thermal gradient

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ready source of hydrogen 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mass drivers

message: 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)
thread_title: Direct atmosphere ejection

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rotation and Dynamo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Any studies with nanotech? Or a frozen asteroid? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  extrasolar hydrogen??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: What is your point? How can this article benefit from this? --JorisvS (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Cool Down, Venus

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Heat up Venus first, cool down later ?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't get the point of those distinctions--91.231.90.90 (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Retrograde motion?

message: 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)
thread_title: Cooling Down with Chemistry?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original research tag removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Have delta-MV budgets been estimated for the various proposals ? 

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

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified