B Terraforming Venus: Why Nobody Discusses It?

[Stephanus]

Dear PF Forum,
Why nobody ever thinks of terraforming Venus? Many propose Mars, even as far as Europa (not the continent!) or Titan. Mars has very little atmosphere compared to Earth. Titan has thick atmosphere but too cold.
I once read that Carl Sagan proposed the idea by spreading bacterias in upper atmosphere, where the temperature and the pressure are not so high.
If I'm not mistaken the equation of photosynthesis is:
6CO₂ + 6H₂O + Sun light -> C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂
This process will surely eliminate greenhouse gas(CO₂) The only problem is that it needs water/hydrogen.
But most of the material are there. Sun, CO₂.
And once the atmosphere is diminished then there's no abundant greenhouse gas, the planet temperature will drop. And the planet are left with many glucose residue on the "soil". Which is suitable for at least insect and other simple organism. After that we can introduce simple plants, algae, moss?
All this only involved biology tools, not mechanical tools to convert Venus.
Considering that Venus mass is almost like Earth mass and its gravitational pull close to Earth's, it's a suitable planet for habitation.
Is this terraforming idea possible?
Why nobody ever discuss it? Does the lack of hydrogen/water in the photosynthesis process makes it difficult?

 

[DEvens]

Does the lack of hydrogen/water in the photosynthesis process makes it difficult?

Well, that's one of the things that makes it difficult. Finding bacteria that could live in the conditions are another. Lots of chemicals that are unwanted is another, since there is rather a lot of sulphur. Plus, the atmosphere is something like 50 times as dense as Earth's. So there would be something like 600 pounds per square inch of material that would have to precipitate out to get the atmosphere close to Earth's. Since little of it is water, that is an interesting surface you have produced. Sulphurous candy floss many meters deep it seems like, even supposing you could get enough H and O.

As an exercise: Suppose you had an atmosphere on Venus similar to the Earth's. What would be the average surface temperature?

 

[Stephanus]

Well, that's one of the things that makes it difficult. Finding bacteria that could live in the conditions are another. Lots of chemicals that are unwanted is another, since there is rather a lot of sulphur. Plus, the atmosphere is something like 50 times as dense as Earth's. So there would be something like 600 pounds per square inch of material that would have to precipitate out to get the atmosphere close to Earth's. Since little of it is water, that is an interesting surface you have produced. Sulphurous candy floss many meters deep it seems like, even supposing you could get enough H and O.

As an exercise: Suppose you had an atmosphere on Venus similar to the Earth's. What would be the average surface temperature?

You mean 80% Nitrogen, 20% Oxygen and 1% other? And 1 bar atmospheric pressure, (earth bar).
The average surface temperature? Frankly I don't know. .
Axial tilt is 2.64⁰, compared to Earth 23⁰. I suspect the wind is slightly mild, less hurricane than earth. If the pressure is 1 bar. Summer/Winter is similar. That will heat the planet more than earth. In winter, most of Earth surface are covered by ice, so it reflects sun light. If summer/winter in Venus is similar, then Venus winter doesn't create too much ice, except in the pole.

Venus distance as I read in Wiki is 104/107 millions KM. Compared to Earth 150 millions km. Further reading it's just slightly beyond habitable zone. Some estimates it's in the range of 0.725 AU to 1.24 AU. And frankly I have no idea if the Earth is moved to Venus orbit, what will its surface temperature, much less Venus. Can you give me a rough estimate. Just for curiosity sake.
[Add: Move Earth to Venus orbit, but preserving axial tilt, rotation period (sidereal day must be adjusted, because now Earth will orbit the sun at 224 days, if my math is correct its sidereal day, supposed rotation is 24 hour, is: 23 hours 53 minutes]

Btw you say, "Finding bacteria that could live in the conditions are another", you imply that finding bacteria that could live on Venus atmosphere is probable or even simply possible? I mean in the upper atmosphere where the pressure/temperature are not so high. Many CO2, there. But I'm afraid there are only CO2, non sulphur or hydrogen, nitrogen. Vital for carbon base life like earth.

 

[rootone]

The Venera landers sent by the Soviets lasted less than an hour before breaking down due to extreme conditions at the surface.
Air pressure is equivalent to about 1km deep in the Earth's oceans, temperature is hotter than the maximum of a domestic oven, it will melt some metals, lIquid H20 is impossible. (It's not significantly cooler at the poles due to circulation and a very thick blanket of cloud), in addition to which it rains sulphuric acid.

Converting that to something which could be survived by Earthlike life forms would at least require removing most of it's atmosphere.
In it's present form Venus is a place which guarantees rapid sterilisation and the extinction of any Earthlike life.

 

[DrStupid]

Why nobody ever thinks of terraforming Venus?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus

 

[Stephanus]

The Venera landers sent by the Soviets lasted less than an hour before breaking down due to extreme conditions at the surface.

So I read. There are many probes even robots in Mars (Sojourner, Spirit, now Curiousity 2012), but less for Venus. At least less popular than Mars Rover.
Some movies show life on mars:
- Red Planet
- Capricorn One
- Total Recall 1991
- The Martian,
Interest in Mars is greater than Venus.

Air pressure [..](It's not significantly cooler at the poles due to circulation and a very thick blanket of cloud),

Yes, air circulation and convection is much faster than water/ocean.

in addition to which it rains sulphuric acid.

Good sign. There are hydrogen and sulphur, building block element for carbon based life.

Converting that to something which could be survived by Earthlike life forms would at least require removing most of it's atmosphere.

I mean by "removing" is to convert CO₂ to something like glucose C₆H₁₂O₆ by bacteria, not removing CO₂ to outer space

In it's present form Venus is a place which guarantees rapid sterilisation and the extinction of any Earthlike life.

Of course.

 

[Stephanus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus

Terraforming Venus was first seriously proposed by the astronomer Carl Sagan in 1961

1961 eh. I read Carl's book in 1980s he mentioned terraforming in 1 chapter, not the whole book. Still got the book at the attic.

Solar shades could be used to reduce the total insolation received by Venus, cooling the planet somewhat.[2] A shade placed in the Sun–Venus L1Lagrangian point also serves to block the solar wind, removing the radiation exposure problem on Venus...

Highly technical problem, Sagan's idea is much simpler.

A method proposed in 1961 by Carl Sagan involves the use of genetically engineered bacteria to fix carbon into organic forms.[1] Although this method is still commonly proposed in discussions of Venus terraforming, later discoveries showed it would not be successful.

That, I didn't read in my book. That's why people abandon this idea?

Venus rotates once every 243 days – by far the slowest rotation period of any of the major planets.

That's the biggest obstacle of all. Lower latitude will be impossible for 121.5 days light. I imagine colonization in higher latitude with its axial tilt 2.64⁰, perhaps somewhere at 75⁰, like 17:00pm or 07:00 am. It will be suitable for 121.5 days light. But it will be very cold at 121.5 nights. Even though it can cause tremendous hurricane and as it is written, "which could prove difficult for most known Earth species of plants and animals to adapt to."
I should have read that Venus rotation is 243 Earth days.
Another link from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus
Are they serious?

 

[Chronos]

The atmosphere of the infant Earth was probably quite similar to the atmosphere of Venus. Lava outgassing was primarily responsible for the atmosphere of the infant earth. And that mix of gases would not be conducive to life. The major difference is early Earth had far greater amounts of water vapor in its atmosphere - probably delivered during the heavy bombardment period. Perhaps Earth intercepted far more icy bodies that delivered primordial water than did Venus. Perhaps Earth possessed far greater indigenous water reserves than Venus. Either way, water influenced the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in dramatic ways. Just seeding microorganisms into the Venusian atmosphere would probably be hugely ineffective. Injecting vast amounts of water appears to be a better terraforming strategy. See here; http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/g...lectures/Perry_Samson_lectures/evolution_atm/, for discussion.

 

[Stephanus]

The atmosphere of the infant Earth was probably quite similar to the atmosphere of Venus. Lava outgassing was primarily responsible for the atmosphere of the infant earth. And that mix of gases would not be conducive to life. The major difference is early Earth had far greater amounts of water vapor in its atmosphere - probably delivered during the heavy bombardment period. Perhaps Earth intercepted far more icy bodies that delivered primordial water than did Venus. Perhaps Earth possessed far greater indigenous water reserves than Venus. Either way, water influenced the evolution of Earth's atmosphere in dramatic ways. Just seeding microorganisms into the Venusian atmosphere would probably be hugely ineffective. Injecting vast amounts of water appears to be a better terraforming strategy. See here; http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/g...lectures/Perry_Samson_lectures/evolution_atm/, for discussion.

Good link. Thanks. I wonder why Venus haven't experienced "Heavy Bombardment Period" It's 4.5 billions years ago, right? Water from comets. And as I read the ratio of water is "just right" so Earth can have ocean 70% of its surface, or we wouldn't be discussing it.

 

[Chronos]

The most likely explanation is Venus was unable to develop and retain sufficient water reserves. Perhaps due to its proximity to the sun, lower gravity, slow rotation, or combined effects of other factors.

 

[DrStupid]

Solar shades could be used to reduce the total insolation received by Venus, cooling the planet somewhat.[2] A shade placed in the Sun–Venus L1Lagrangian point also serves to block the solar wind, removing the radiation exposure problem on Venus...

Highly technical problem, Sagan's idea is much simpler.

Another idea are metal coated balloons floating in the upper layer of the atmosphere, reflecting sunlight and emitting thermal radiation.

That's why people abandon this idea?

Yes, bacteria simply doesn't work without hydrogen. And with hydrogen they wouldn't be required. That's explained in the following paragraph.

Another link from wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus
Are they serious?

Yes, this is a possibility.

 

[Dr.Physics]

Also I would like to point put the sheer fact that Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth. Even if we could terraform Venus so that it was habitable, this would not be an ideal location in the long run as scientists are trying to colonize other planets to escape this growing star. This is why planets further away from the Sun such as Mars offer a more viable solution to our problems. Also Mars actually has the ability to contain water (as seen by the ice) and other vital elements to human life.

 

[Stephanus]

Also I would like to point put the sheer fact that Venus is closer to the Sun than Earth. [..]this would not be an ideal location in the long run as scientists are trying to colonize other planets to escape this growing star.

Come on. How long do you suppose it will be. In the next 2 billions years the sun will become red giant. I'll bet in the next 1000 years, with advanced 1000 years technology, human can terraform, at least, every planet on solar system. I see an episode in star trek (300 years from now), there's is a character whose job is terraforming.

This is why planets further away from the Sun such as Mars offer a more viable solution to our problems. Also Mars actually has the ability to contain water (as seen by the ice) and other vital elements to human life.

Yeah, if we can build a nuclear reactor such as in Total Recall. But Mars' atmosphere is very thin compared to Venus. At least there's something to start.

 

[vladpaln]

Would a nuclear winter cool the planet, and by how much??

 

[Stephanus]

Would a nuclear winter cool the planet, and by how much??

That's not what I had in my mind. You can't live there, either.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I see an episode in star trek (300 years from now), there's is a character whose job is terraforming.

This is not very good evidence of anything.

 

[Tollendal]

I can imagine some sort of engineered bacteria that could float in the upper atmosphere, where the temperature isn't so extreme. With genetic engineering I suppose even in Mercury we could put modified forms of life.

 

[Stephanus]

This is not very good evidence of anything.

Sure, Star trek is not evidence of anything.

I can imagine some sort of engineered bacteria that could float in the upper atmosphere, where the temperature isn't so extreme. With genetic engineering I suppose even in Mercury we could put modified forms of life.

Mercury is too close to the sun, and it does not have atmosphere.

 

[Nik_2213]

If you check out Martin Beech's extensive work, you'll see that terraforming Venus would be 'hard, but do-able'. Blowing off even a significant fraction of that appallingly noxious atmosphere by direct or grazing mega-impacts would need far too many icy objects to be worth-while. IIRC, Beech's 'papers' in 'Journal of British InterPlanetary Society {JBIS}, dating back to ~ 1991, covered many other options, including progressively building a balloon-lofted lid over Venus and living on that...

 

[Chronos]

Venus has a problem similar to mars, making it a poor candidate for terraforming - it lacks an intrinsic magnetosphere. Assuming you could reduce atmospheric density to a level compatible with Earth life forms; the sun would begin stripping away its now thinner atmosphere with a vengeance - much faster than the depletion suffered by mars. The thick atmosphere of Venus generates an induced magnetosphere which protects it from the solar wind. There is no free lunch on Venus.

 

[bahamagreen]

There is something nice about Venus that makes it one of the most likely of places to colonize.

From Wiki...

Geoffrey A. Landis of NASA's Glenn Research Center has summarized the perceived difficulties in colonizing Venus as being merely from the assumption that a colony would need to be based on the surface of a planet:
“However, viewed in a different way, the problem with Venus is merely that the ground level is too far below the one atmosphere level. At cloud-top level, Venus is the paradise planet.”
Landis has proposed aerostat habitats followed by floating cities, based on the concept that breathable air (21:79 oxygen/nitrogen mixture) is a lifting gas in the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere, with over 60% of the lifting power that helium has on Earth. In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 kilometres (31 mi) above Venerian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the Solar System – a pressure of approximately 1000 hPa and temperatures in the 0 to −50 °C (273 to 223 K; 32 to −58 °F) range. Protection against cosmic radiation would be provided by the atmosphere above, with shielding mass equivalent to Earth's.

At the top of the clouds the wind speed on Venus reaches up to 95 m/s (340 km/h; 210 mph), circling the planet approximately every four Earth days in a phenomenon known as "super-rotation". Colonies floating in this region could therefore have a much shorter day length...

 

[jackwhirl]

As @bahamagreen stated, if you want to colonize Venus, just build a city in the clouds. That could probably be done with near future materials and technologies.

If you really want to terraform it...
[wild speculation follows]

Spoiler

1. Drop a really really big solar array on the sunward side of the Venusian L1 point to shade the planet.
2. Let Venus cool off until the atmosphere is reduced to a layer of dry ice.
3. Use mass drivers powered by that honking great solar array to launch 90-95% of the dry ice and 2-5% of the rock into orbit.
   1. This will work much better without the atmosphere.
   2. Launch them in whichever direction increases the angular velocity.
4. Use laser or microwave propulsion to circularize the orbit of the launched material
5. Build a Deathstar moon with the orbiting material.
6. Defrost the planet.
7. Pelt it with water-ice comets.
   1. This is another good opportunity to increase the angular velocity.

There. One planet with Earth magnitude mass and Earth magnitude atmosphere plus one moon with Moon magnitude mass. Keep the solar array as a partial sunscreen. If the planet still spins too slowly and the backside remains a frozen wasteland, add a really really big reflector near the L2 point to warm it up.

To be honest though, anything after point 5 would be a terrible waste. Just keep building Deathstars space habitats. They're much more efficient.

 

[Stephanus]

Venus has a problem similar to mars, making it a poor candidate for terraforming - it lacks an intrinsic magnetosphere. Assuming you could reduce atmospheric density to a level compatible with Earth life forms; the sun would begin stripping away its now thinner atmosphere with a vengeance - much faster than the depletion suffered by mars. The thick atmosphere of Venus generates an induced magnetosphere which protects it from the solar wind. There is no free lunch on Venus.

Hmm..., too bad. I thought off all planet in solar system, Venus was the best planet for colonization.
I have a book, "Planet" written by Carl Sagan. I read it in 1985, perhaps Carl wrote it before that. He mentioned about terraforming Venus with bacteria in the upper atmosphere to convert CO2. But I think he already dropped the idea.

 

[sophiecentaur]

If you really want to terraform it...

This idea always makes me smile. We don't seem to be able to 'terraform' Earth satisfactorily so how could we ever expect to do it somewhere where the conditions start off so unsuitable?

 

[Herald Swegart]

Dear PF Forum,
Why nobody ever thinks of terraforming Venus? Many propose Mars, even as far as Europa (not the continent!) or Titan. Mars has very little atmosphere compared to Earth. Titan has thick atmosphere but too cold.
I once read that Carl Sagan proposed the idea by spreading bacterias in upper atmosphere, where the temperature and the pressure are not so high.
If I'm not mistaken the equation of photosynthesis is:
6CO₂ + 6H₂O + Sun light -> C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂
This process will surely eliminate greenhouse gas(CO₂) The only problem is that it needs water/hydrogen.
But most of the material are there. Sun, CO₂.
And once the atmosphere is diminished then there's no abundant greenhouse gas, the planet temperature will drop. And the planet are left with many glucose residue on the "soil". Which is suitable for at least insect and other simple organism. After that we can introduce simple plants, algae, moss?
All this only involved biology tools, not mechanical tools to convert Venus.
Considering that Venus mass is almost like Earth mass and its gravitational pull close to Earth's, it's a suitable planet for habitation.
Is this terraforming idea possible?
Why nobody ever discuss it? Does the lack of hydrogen/water in the photosynthesis process makes it difficult?

The atmosphere is largely composed of sulphuric acid H2SO4 .I propose sending seeding rockets loaded with microbes from deep sea black smokers, they are known to eat sulpuric acid. This would leave H2O3 Trioxidane , instability in trioxidane makes it break down to water and 1 oxygen singlet.While the organic bodies of a feeding frenzy would rain down on venus surface while pressure from all the water in atmosphere would go down to nominal. Then introduce phytoplankton for the water now on the surface of Venus. We could watch the planet change from Earth Slow but sounds very feasible.

 

[jackwhirl]

The atmosphere is largely composed of sulphuric acid H2SO4 ... all the water in atmosphere ...

That's... not quite right. While there is sulfuric acid, it is only in trace amounts. The same goes for water vapor. The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2 and 3.5%N, which adds up to 100%. There's some wiggle room in the rounding error for 150 ppm sulfur dioxide and 20ppm water vapor plus other trace items you can read about here.
What little water vapor you could form would never reach the surface. It would probably be broken up by UV and blown away by the solar wind like we think happened to the rest of the water that is speculated to have once existed there. All rather depressing, really. :<

 

[rootone]

While it might be feasible technically, what is the point of having a colony floating high in the atmosphere while the surface is still inaccessible because the environment there is lethal. ?
All the supplies needed to operate the colony would have to be shipped from Earth.

 

[Herald Swegart]

I have been reading and wondering about the amounts of sulphuric acid it would take to make the acid rain and clouds known to be on Venus. Seems there is much we still are unsure of about that atmosphere. Surely it would take more than the proposed 20ppm to make clouds as thick as those on Venus.While I was very wrong about the atmospheric make-up , The idea I suggest might still be workable on one level or another. Venus seems at least more feasible than Mars. Thanks for talking to me. I am not a scientist.

 

[Frost Dragon]

Venus has a much stronger gravity so whould it really deplete faster then Mars?

 

[rootone]

Venus has a much stronger gravity so whould it really deplete faster then Mars?

What do you mean by 'deplete'?
Venus' gravity is a bit less than Earth, and quite a lot more than Mars.

 

[Frost Dragon]

Venus has a problem similar to mars, making it a poor candidate for terraforming - it lacks an intrinsic magnetosphere. Assuming you could reduce atmospheric density to a level compatible with Earth life forms; the sun would begin stripping away its now thinner atmosphere with a vengeance - much faster than the depletion suffered by mars. The thick atmosphere of Venus generates an induced magnetosphere which protects it from the solar wind. There is no free lunch on Venus.

I was replying to this. I missed the second page when I replied.

 

[Frost Dragon]

While it might be feasible technically, what is the point of having a colony floating high in the atmosphere while the surface is still inaccessible because the environment there is lethal. ?
All the supplies needed to operate the colony would have to be shipped from Earth.

Not necessarily you can still build a self contained colony similar to the bio dome idea.

That's... not quite right. While there is sulfuric acid, it is only in trace amounts. The same goes for water vapor. The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2 and 3.5%N, which adds up to 100%. There's some wiggle room in the rounding error for 150 ppm sulfur dioxide and 20ppm water vapor plus other trace items you can read about here.
What little water vapor you could form would never reach the surface. It would probably be broken up by UV and blown away by the solar wind like we think happened to the rest of the water that is speculated to have once existed there. All rather depressing, really. :<

It would be a good experiment though. Throw water at it and observe what happens. This would useful for both terraforming and studying how Venus got to where it is. Also good use of a colony, besides vacation spot.

 

[Ratman]

'Cloud City' concept is possible and actually some folks at NASA are seriously considering balooning on Venus:

 

[Ratman]

Venus has far too much mass in the atmosphere for any successful terraforming attempt. And the problem is much more than just converting CO₂ to organic matter. We may plant airborne algae or even more complex plants on some kind of floating platform above the sulphuric acid cloud deck on Venus and it is plausible that some may survive and even reproduce. But what happens next? The algae are carried by the wind everywhere, including deep into the atmosphere. And all living things die. While on Earth it means that carbon is just stored in the ground, on Venus all those dead organisms would ultimately fall to the region of extreme temperatures. Wouldn't they release carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere?

 

[jackwhirl]

Wouldn't they release carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere?

That's an interesting question. There's not a lot of oxygen available so they might just be pyrolysed.
At the same time I think the lack of hydrogen would be the limiting factor at any attempt to use biology to tame Venus.
Perhaps we'd have better luck making it rain carbon fullerenes or diamonds.

 

[Stephanus]

The atmosphere is largely composed of sulphuric acid H2SO4...

That's... not quite right. ...The atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2 and 3.5%N, which adds up to 100%.

Yep, mostly CO2, the greenhouse gas. That's why venus is hot.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Can we take a step back on this one. Why would we want to colonise Venus? Is there something that says the human population has to keep expanding?
If we needed to leave the Solar System because of some cataclysmic event then that would be an entirely different matter. Even then, it would only be a small proportion of Earth's population that would be involved (not you and me, for a start) and would the whole population be prepared to fund an elite number of escapees?
People tend to confuse the idea of 'Go West, young man' with 'Go to Venus'. Where is the net cost/benefit advantage?

 

[Stephanus]

I'm just curious to find out, whether terraforming Venus is easier than Mars. Mars has no atmosphere. But lack of hydrogen I think that makes Venus hard terraformed.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I'm just curious to find out, whether terraforming Venus is easier than Mars. Mars has no atmosphere. But lack of hydrogen I think that makes Venus hard terraformed.

Oh yes, I agree. I always wonder, though, why there are so few posts about terraforming Earth. That would be a really excellent idea.

 

[jackwhirl]

Oh yes, I agree. I always wonder, though, why there are so few posts about terraforming Earth. That would be a really excellent idea.

That was one of Neil deGrasse Tyson's gripes about Interstellar, iirc.
It's not a bad idea. But personally, I would rather see the Geo-engineering practiced somewhere other than our home world, first.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I was being ironic. We have been 'practicing' here for millennia and look where it's got us.
I am an Engineer and I look at cost before vanity. Reversing global warming on Earth would / could cost a fraction.
But there's nothing wrong with a whatif and it could apply for the planet Zog when we have to 'bud' humankind.

 

[Frost Dragon]

We would colonize it for the same reason we colonize any other planet, research, vacation spot, and it would make it easier terraform, which can tie back to research. If we can learn more about other planets, we can learn more about our own.

 

[sophiecentaur]

We would colonize it for the same reason we colonize any other planet, research, vacation spot, and it would make it easier terraform, which can tie back to research. If we can learn more about other planets, we can learn more about our own.

What planet do we colonise at the moment?
Vacation spot? How many weeks or months would you be prepared to take on the journey?
Research would be laudable but only if it produced data that couldn't be obtained on Earth or by robotic means. In a world of 'money no object', things could be very different but is that a realistic assumption? The value for money of manned landings is not proven. For the number of 'Research Scientists' who could be placed on Venus, it would hardly be worth terraforming. Expensive pods would be the obvious solution.
Even if they found substances worth mining and bring back to Earth, that would hardly require changing the whole planet. Bad value from an Engineering point of view.
I cannot help but think that Dan Dare, Star Wars and Star Trek and Hollywood Westerns have an unhealthy effect on the judgement of 'Space Enthusiasts'. And what about those idiots forming a long Queue (or Line, Mr Obama) who want single way tickets to Mars? You couldn't make it up.

 

[Frost Dragon]

I am just talking about living there not changing it. We wouldn't get anything from changing it. It may happen over time, anyway, probably not. Terraforming any planet is a very long process, thousands of years or close to a thousand. I don't see the value of terraforming other then to have other planets like Earth.

We are a long ways off from terraforming any planets or even colonizing them. Our next steps are developing a space industry so we can get to space and build in space cheaper. That will lead to more plausible colonies.

There are things that would be easier with people there. I have seen many scientists say this, so a colony is not out of the question, probably not in our life time though.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The title of the thread has the word "terraforming" in it and that's what I'm addressing.
PF has conversations about all sorts of unlikely (at the moment) schemes but the romanticism of 'space' seems to make people lose all their sense of proportion. Every proposed scheme - whether it's 'harvesting' energy from Radio Waves passing through houses, a space elevator or terraforming- should, imo, include a compulsory COST estimation in the proposal. That, unfortunately, would inhibit the more adventurous posts and could take some of the fun away from PF. But it's what you have to do if you want government money for a project so it would make good sense.

 

[Frost Dragon]

if the terraforming was done slowly over a long period of time, the cost would be more economical, and the research we could out of it would, in my opinion, be worth it.

 

[sophiecentaur]

You have to remember that it's not just a matter of making changes but controlling the conditions. It can't be a one-off operation (as with the Earth's biosphere) but it needs a suitable set of feedback controls to maintain that narrow range of parameters. It's really arm waving to an unacceptable degree without much much more actual evidence. The evidence that I can see is that the situation on Earth is out of control and we have not a clue what to do about it. And that is on a planet where the conditions arrived at a very viable combination, without our help. Numbers numbers numbers - before anything else- in my opinion.

 

[Frost Dragon]

I really like the idea of a cloud city on Venus and I think it would be a good starting point for terraforming. At least we can collect data to see if it would be viable. The question is which would come first Venus or Mars?

I think more can be done on our planet, most of what I hear, when it comes to climate change, is more of stopping the oil industry then trying to remove green house gases. But that may be a topic for a different thread.

 

[rootone]

Engineering an entire planet, either one, is dramatically expensive with dubious returns, and has a timescale of at least hundreds of years.
Putting that aside though, I'd say Mars would be a better candidate, it is at least plausible to operate a surface base there.
It's probably more realistic to consider engineering some of the deserts on Earth to make them fertile, and that is within the scope of presently available technology.

 

[Stephanus]

Oh yes, I agree. I always wonder, though, why there are so few posts about terraforming Earth. That would be a really excellent idea.

You tell me.
If only we can stop deforestation. A small step, but a giant leap in our environment.