Why Don't We Terra Form Venus. Its Way Cheaper?

I suspect I wouldn't like the climate, so I'll stay here, hoping our own ecosystem holds out.

As much as space travel interests me, I find the thought of humans infesting other planets depressing.

Originally posted by tamusan
I suspect I wouldn't like the climate, so I'll stay here, hoping our own ecosystem holds out.

As much as space travel interests me, I find the thought of humans infesting other planets depressing.

"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us will go to the stars!" -- unknown

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I've though about Venus too, as a potential Habitable planet. But there is that Rotation problem...The Day is longer than it's year. Seems just spinning it up, might offer some benefits...I know "Just" spinning it up...like it's a simple thing to do.
Since it's rotation is opposite of the Earth, and slower...How would one go about increasing the speed?

We don't.
I addressed the problem in this post on page 2 of this thread. We use a large sun-shield to block sunlight and cool the planet. By varying the light coming through the shield, we can create an artificial day/night cycle of whatever duration we wish.

reply to post by Saint Exupery


Gotcha, that'll teach me to respond to an early post without reading through,
That would be an interesting experiment unto itself. Seems like the atmosphere would precipitate a lot of it's contents pretty quickly if we could create a large shadow like that. So then we have Venus, maybe clear skies and a controllable climate. I suppose if the reflector had a low enough mass, it could be moved out of the way of large cosmic debris.

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by spacedoubt
I've though about Venus too, as a potential Habitable planet. But there is that Rotation problem...The Day is longer than it's year. Seems just spinning it up, might offer some benefits...I know "Just" spinning it up...like it's a simple thing to do.
Since it's rotation is opposite of the Earth, and slower...How would one go about increasing the speed?

We don't.
I addressed the problem in this post on page 2 of this thread. We use a large sun-shield to block sunlight and cool the planet. By varying the light coming through the shield, we can create an artificial day/night cycle of whatever duration we wish.

So far your idea is the best. It could regulate day and night, heat etc. Well done!

reply to post by winterkill


from what ive heard is venus just suffer a runaway greenhouse affect, if it could be fixed that it would be hotter than earth but possibly habitable

Originally posted by dorkfish87
Mars is closer and it doesn't rain acid there

Venus is significantly closer to the Earth than Mars, it only took the Russians 3 months to get a probe there, and that was in 1961! However it is rather hot, so hot in fact that even probes don't survive long, Mars is much more suitable for exploration, despite being further away.

Im trying to think Terraforming through logically and there seems to be no reason to even attempt it whilst the earth is not in danger of being absorbed by the Sun- for at least within a thousand years of that event.

Just about every man made or stellar incident imaginable (aside from complete planet destruction) would still leave the Earth more habitable than the likes of Venus.
(Over 2000 Atomic bombs have been detonated since the 40's and we're 6.8 billion strong with little or no sign of slowing.)

Overpopulation crazies like to talk about popualtion growth as a pre-cursor to man habiting other planets but hang on a minute, there is over 6 Million Square miles of barely populated Desert alone on Earth.
We could adapt these so called inhospitable areas of Earth at a franction of the cost of terraforming another planet...it just doesnt seem likely to me.

reply to post by Saint Exupery

By varying the light coming through the shield, we can create an artificial day/night cycle of whatever duration we wish.

But the length of Venus rotation is still 243 days. It would take more than opening a shade every few hours.

Venus is closer to Earth than Mars, but also a lot closer to the sun.

Mars is more distant from the sun than Earth - which makes it important from the point of view of the remote future.

In about 3 billion years from now, our sun will begin to die.

The first things that any humans on Earth then will notice is that the sun will get smaller, brighter, and hotter.

So hot that it will boil away the oceans - so, far too hot for life on Earth.

But conditions on Mars will become pleasantly warm, whereas they are now too cold.

That's why there is so much interest in Mars, above any of the other planets.

It will be mankind's new home in the remote future.

Originally posted by Jukiodone
Im trying to think Terraforming through logically...

Well THERE'S your problem!

I don't disagree with anything you say, Jukiodone. As I said before, it's a fun mental exercise. IMO, it actually helps us to think about environmental problems on Earth by coming at them from the opposite direction. People talk about how difficult it is to reclaim a desert, or replant a forest, or restore ground water. Then someone like you comes along and says,

...there is over 6 Million Square miles of barely populated Desert alone on Earth.
We could adapt these so called inhospitable areas of Earth at a franction of the cost of terraforming another planet...

...and that makes the above problems seem a lot more manageable, solvable even.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Saint Exupery

 

By varying the light coming through the shield, we can create an artificial day/night cycle of whatever duration we wish.

But the length of Venus rotation is still 243 days. It would take more than opening a shade every few hours.

Mmm... Good point. We'll need a reflector at the L2 point to put light on the side of Venus facing away from the Sun.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Incorrect, while your timescale is close enough (3-5 billion years), the results will be quite different.

The sun will begin to expand as it runs out of fuel, the core will contract and the outer layers will expand, it becomes a red giant.

Through this process it will devour the inner planets, even if it doesn't get as far as Earth, it would be too hot for life.

I think it takes about 100 million years at this point to burn off the rest of it's fuel before shedding it's atmosphere into space.

After that, all that will be left will be a white dwarf, which will slowly cool down over the course of a trillion years until its temperature becomes close to absolute zero.

reply to post by woogleuk

Incorrect, while your timescale is close enough (3-5 billion years), the results will be quite different. The sun will begin to expand as it runs out of fuel, the core will contract and the outer layers will expand, it becomes a red giant.

No, the process will begin with the sun getting smaller, hotter, and brighter....long before it becomes a red giant.

Anyway, take it up with Prof. Brian Cox.

You don't think I dreamt all this up, do you?

reply to post by CJCrawley


I think I see what you were trying to say, with your "end of life" and "3 billions years", I assumed you meant it's final days.

What you may mean is that as the sun gets older, it's fuel output increases, this is an ongoing process and is happening now.

It's only small increases though, it will take about a billion years for the increase to hit 10% of what it is today.

3-4 billion years it will be at around 40%, that is probably what you were referring to.

It wont get smaller though, just brighter and hotter.

EDIT: Brian Cox is awesome

reply to post by woogleuk

It wont get smaller though, just brighter and hotter.

Brian Cox appears to be labouring under the delusion that it will get smaller too.

reply to post by CJCrawley


Are you sure he wasn't referring to the core?