Thread: Venus

Venus has little to no magnetic field. I believe this is because of it almost nonexistent rotation. If we force the planet to rotate, I believe it will develop its own magnetic field. This would help protect the surface from solar radiation. I believe we can for the rotation to start by slamming asteroids into the planet a steep trajectories.

Originally Posted by George Moll

Venus has little to no magnetic field. I believe this is because of it almost nonexistent rotation. If we force the planet to rotate, I believe it will develop its own magnetic field. This would help protect the surface from solar radiation. I believe we can for the rotation to start by slamming asteroids into the planet a steep trajectories.

Perhaps, but for what purpose? If you mean to make Venus inhabitable, forget it; it's so close to the Sun that no amount of magnetosphere would keep it cool enough for humans to live. If there were intelligent beings living in Venus' natural conditions, molten lead might be their idea of a refreshing cold shower.
So unless we build real big air conditioners, Venus is not our home away from home. Give me Mars over Venus any time.

Venus is located in the habitation belt. It is not too close to the sun. The first stage of terraforming would be to build a magnetic field. Second, install a large moon. Third, create an artificial ice age. Fourth, create a water, and oxygen environment. Fifth, seed the planet with carbon life forms.

Well, if we're slamming asteroids into it enough to cause a rotation, we might also be able to change its orbital distance. Of course, we'd need some very massive asteroids, or a lot of them, and they'd have to be moving very fast in the necessary direction.

.... and after all the heat the collisions would impart, Venus would need a long time to cool off.

Venus is very dry. You would be better using comets and introducing some water.

Originally Posted by George Moll

Venus is located in the habitation belt. It is not too close to the sun. The first stage of terraforming would be to build a magnetic field. Second, install a large moon. Third, create an artificial ice age. Fourth, create a water, and oxygen environment. Fifth, seed the planet with carbon life forms.

Why bother with the moon? Our own has dubious importance to life beyond being another environmental factor to which we have adapted.

If we would like to settle Venus, we can set up a bunch of fairly low-tech atmospheric habitats. Earth atmosphere is a lifting gas in the Venus atmosphere, so we could float some really hefty structures there and they'll settle at the 1 bar pressure level about 50km up from the surface. It'd be very safe for us at that level. Mind you, I'm not sure what you'd do there. If we have a hydrogen or helium economy at that point, I guess that would be a pretty good place to mine it. Very Star Wars.

I agree. Venus would be a good planet to mine, but I couldn't see it being inhabititable.
I know these aren't very scientific reasons but:
1) It's too small. We barely have room on our own planet.
2) What would cause us to flee our own planet enough to settle on Venus?

The sun exploding is one doomsday theory. But that would envelope Venus before us? Or depending on the pressure of the boom, envelope Venus at the same time as us.

Of course our moon leaving orbit, or several other problems that affect only Earth (meteorites, super-volcanoes, etc).

It's a plausible expedition, but it'd most likely be a waste of large sums of money. Possibly being too big a debt for us to actually pay from mining Venus.

Venus is .98 the size of the earth. Yet its atmosphere is dense enough to crush a car. The Earths moon scrapes the upper level of the atmosphere. The moon would help keep the outer levels from acting like a blanket. Remember the planets gravity is slightly less than that of the Earth, yet it still is much too dense. The only workable reason is Earth has a moon and Venus does not. Before anyone says that the moon has little effect on the planet, remember that it causes massive tidal effects on the oceans. As to being too small to colonize, it's a .02% smaller, much larger than Mars, and any debris left from the asteroids, and water based comets pushed into it would cut that down. As for fleeing, we need more space to grow a race.

Depending upon one's reason for wishing to relocate to Venus (I'm assuming it's environmental) I'm afraid this rather strikes me as an inordinately complicated solution to an already complex problem.

There are plenty of compelling reasons to pioneers Venus, exploit it, even permanently inhabit it. But this depends on affordable movement between the two planets' gravity wells. For Earth, space elevators can probably realize a necessary revolution in the cost of reaching orbit. Venus though has an extremely hostile atmosphere, where space elevators may never be possible.

I'm probably stumbling around in the dark here, but if we seeded the Venusian atmosphere with er... carbon chomping plants (help!) or something, wouldn't it take about 200 years before we started seeing results?

Originally Posted by George Moll

Venus has little to no magnetic field. I believe this is because of it almost nonexistent rotation.

What is your reason for postulating this. The commonly accepted theory for the Earth's magnetic field and for similar fields on Venus and Mars earlier in their history is that is arises from a dynamo effect in the core. Rapid rotation of the planet is not necessary to generatee the field. So, what mechanism are you proposing for field generation that does require rotation?

Originally Posted by George Moll

If we force the planet to rotate, I believe it will develop its own magnetic field.

By what mechanism? None of the means of generating a magnetic field in a terrestrial planet depend upon rapid rotation.

Originally Posted by George Moll

This would help protect the surface from solar radiation.

A magentic field would not protect the planet from electomagnetic radiation. It would not protect the surface from particulate radiation since the atmosphere effectively screens for that. What is it you think the magnetic field would do?

The first stage of terraforming would be to build a magnetic field. Second, install a large moon. Third, create an artificial ice age. Fourth, create a water, and oxygen environment. Fifth, seed the planet with carbon life forms.

How do you plan to create an ice age? How do you plan to add water? How do you plan to add oxygen? Indeed, even the order seems wrong: an ice age before you have any water!

The Earths moon scrapes the upper level of the atmosphere. The moon would help keep the outer levels from acting like a blanket. Remember the planets gravity is slightly less than that of the Earth, yet it still is much too dense. The only workable reason is Earth has a moon and Venus does not.

The reason the Venusian atmosphere is so thick is that its carbon dioxide is not tied up in carbonate rocks. It is that simple.

George, I agree that Venus is a potential candidate for terraforming, but I think you need to do a little more research on the topic. Good starting point though.

The planet most likely has an iron core, just like the Earths. It has magnetic poles. To produce a magnetic field, rotation would be necessary. As for the need, the magnetic field limits much of the solar and cosmic radiation. Hence the reason for the fear of a flip flopping magnetic field here on Earth. Plus animals and plant life does better with a night and day cycle. And the point of settling another planet, is that we are running low on unused usable land.

By odd coincidence, last night I just happened to reach the part of my current bedtime reading material which features guess what - a terraformed Venus!
For what it's worth, Stephen Baxter seems to think the solution will be to lock the excess Venusian carbon up in chalk (conversion to be achieved by nanotech - well this is supposed to be 20 thousand years in the future after all).

Originally Posted by War Arrow

By odd coincidence, last night I just happened to reach the part of my current bedtime reading material which features guess what - a terraformed Venus!
For what it's worth, Stephen Baxter seems to think the solution will be to lock the excess Venusian carbon up in chalk (conversion to be achieved by nanotech - well this is supposed to be 20 thousand years in the future after all).

It worked on the Earth.

Originally Posted by George Moll

The planet most likely has an iron core, just like the Earths. It has magnetic poles. To produce a magnetic field, rotation would be necessary.

No it wouldn't. You are not listening. No rotation of the planet is necessary to generate the magnetic field. If the Earth was rotating at the same speed as Venus its magnetic field would be just as strong as it is now.
The idea that rotation is necessary is a common misconception. It probably arises because movement is required, but this movement is circualtion within the molten portion of the core, it is not wholesale rotation of the core.

Originally Posted by George Moll

As for the need, the magnetic field limits much of the solar and cosmic radiation..

And I ask you again, what radiation does it inhibit. Electromagnetic radiation is not affected by the magnetic field (you can still see the sun even though our field is up an running, right!). Cosmic rays and patrticles in the solar wind will be stopped by the thick atmosphere. So, I ask again, what benefit are you gaining from the magnetic field?

Originally Posted by George Moll

And the point of settling another planet, is that we are running low on unused usable land.

Mars, which would be far simpler to terraform, has about the same land area as the Earth.

You are not listening, it's like an electric generator. The iron core spins backwards to the crust. When they spin faster, the fields build in strength. As for the types of radiation. You might want to read up on magnetic containment at http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/MagShield.html. A strong enough magnetic field could block just about all radiation. Read up on it. A weak field like the one on the Earth just keeps the levels down to livable. There would be an additional bonus from the dust clouds thrown into the atmosphere. The clouds would push the planet into an ice age, just like we speculate it would here on Earth. In fact, it could push the temperature so low that we could inhabit the surface without thermal suits.

it's like an electric generator. The iron core spins backwards to the crust.

Where are you getting this from? It is not the currently accepted model, in fact, I am not sure it ever was. What would keep the core spinning in the presence of friction? Maybe you should read up a bit HERE:

"Convection of molten iron, within the outer liquid core, along with a Coriolis effect caused by the overall planetary rotation that tends to organize these "electric currents" in rolls aligned along the north-south polar axis. When conducting fluid flows across an existing magnetic field, electric currents are induced, which in turn creates another magnetic field. When this magnetic field reinforces the original magnetic field, a dynamo is created which sustains itself. This is called the "Dynamo Theory" and it explains how the earth's magnetic field is sustained.".

Nowhere does it say that the core counter rotates relative to the crust.

A strong enough magnetic field could block just about all radiation.

Again, you misunderstand what the broad term "radiation" encapsulates. A magnetic field can only affect charged particles (like the solar wind), not electromagnetic radiation (light).

Remember the planets gravity is slightly less than that of the Earth, yet it still is much too dense. The only workable reason is Earth has a moon and Venus does not. Before anyone says that the moon has little effect on the planet, remember that it causes massive tidal effects on the oceans.

And what would the tidal effects have to do with the density of the atmosphere? Venus' atmosphere consists mostly of carbon dioxide and some Nitrogen. The high temperatures are due to a runaway greenhouse effect, caused by the CO₂. The only way to initiate an "ice age" (even though the planet has no water), would be to create a nuclear winter type scenario, which would involve blocking out the sun. What to do then about the high pressures? The pressure at ground level is equal to the pressure at 1 km under earth's oceans, which no suit we have ever made could protect us from..

The magnetic field, if I'm not mistaken, does significantly protect us from solar wind. HOWEVER failing that, an atmosphere will do the same. So we do like to keep our astronauts in low orbit, but as for making Venus livable a magnetic field is unnecessary.


Convection of molten iron will produce magnetic field. There would be convection even if the core and crust are synchronous (nearly are, for Earth I think?). Venus... I dunno... does it have a solid core? What's wrong with that planet anyway?

Originally Posted by George Moll

The Earths moon scrapes the upper level of the atmosphere. The moon would help keep the outer levels from acting like a blanket.

I'm not sure I follow that... the outer atmosphere extends to about 10,000 km from the Earth's surface. The moon is over 300,000 km away. I get that there could be a tide-like effect but the moon sure doesn't scrape the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by George Moll

Remember the planets gravity is slightly less than that of the Earth, yet it still is much too dense. The only workable reason is Earth has a moon and Venus does not.

Why then does Mars not have a much thicker atmosphere? It has a mass of perhaps 15% that of Venus and has no significant moons, yet the atmospheric pressure at surface level is less than 0.01% that of Venus. I think you are over rating the influence of a moon quite significantly.

Originally Posted by George Moll

Before anyone says that the moon has little effect on the planet, remember that it causes massive tidal effects on the oceans.

Yes but you need to show us the effect it has on the atmosphere. I'm not saying there is none but you really aren't making your case here.

Originally Posted by George Moll

As for fleeing, we need more space to grow a race.

We sure do, but to be honest planets don't seem to me to be the way to go. If we had the technology required to terraform Venus I think we'd be far better off building lots of space habitats. Stanford toruses and such. Using big enough sunlight reflectors we can place them anywhere within hundreds of AUs of the sun. As long as we have materials to build, we have all the space we could concievably need. And why spend all that energy getting out of a gravity well (Earth) only to jump right down into one again? We can get tons of resources from asteroids and minor planets with low gravities. If we really need more then perhaps automated or limited mining on the large planets would be in order. But terraforming and habitation seems rather pointless. What we really need is to free ourselves of planets in general.

First, space habitats require more resources than we have on this planet to double our population. Space habitats also are at least 5 to 6 centuries away from being technical possibilities. Artificial gravity would be a must for a strong muscular and skeletal system, and not just centrifical force. Protection from Solar flares, not yet within our reach. And, protection from space debris. It's just not reachable in the foreseeable future. We are going to need the space, and natural resources in the near foreseeable future.

Second, as for need a moon to keep the atmosphere thin. Venus is just short of 1G. If you were to stand on the planet, you could not tell the difference in gravity from the Earth. Yet, somehow the atmosphere is dense enough to crush a car instantly. Lets look at some simple facts:

Gravity keeps an atmosphere on a planet.
Mars has less atmosphere than the gravity should allow.
Mars lost it's atmosphere about the time that it gained it's 2 moons.
Earth had a denser atmosphere in the beginning.
Earth gained a moon.
Earths and Venus are roughly the same size.

If you stay in the box, you will never do great things. Nothing great has ever been done from inside the box!

Before you yell "The moons of Mars are not big enough to affect the atmosphere!", remeber, Mars is a very small planet with little gravity to fight.

Dude, you are really confident for someone that doesn't know what he is talking about.

Gravity keeps an atmosphere on a planet.

That is true, but it is not as simple as that. There are many factors to take into account, not just gravity. TITAN, for example, is one of Saturn’s moons. It has a mass of only 0.0225 Earths, yet it has an atmosphere that has "a surface pressure more than one and a half times that of our planet". Go take a look.

Mars lost it's atmosphere about the time that it gained its 2 moons.

And how would you know this? You are stating it as fact, yet I guarantee you that you can't provide any evidence for it. You are making it up as you go along to fit your preconceived "theory".

Earth had a denser atmosphere in the beginning.
Earth gained a moon.

More of the same. Again, how do you know this? The currently most accepted theory holds that the moon resulted from an impact between the proto-earth and a mars sized planet, right near the beginning (roughly 4.5 billion years ago).

If you stay in the box, you will never do great things. Nothing great has ever been done from inside the box!

This "out of the box" thing is really a favourite with pseudo scientists. It might be a good idea to think out of the box when the situation calls for it, but that does not mean that you can make up stuff as you go along. The out of the box thinking still has to adhere to the scientific method, which by the way does not preclude radical thinking, but still demands rigorous analysis and substantiation.

Kalster,
I was going to do a point by point demolition of George's nonsense, but you have done it so much more eloquently in a single sentence.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Dude, you are really confident for someone that doesn't know what he is talking about.

George,
I applaud your imagination and your creativity. If you can harness these with a little bit of self ciriticsim you may go far. In the meantime almost every statement you have made has been scientifically inaccurate. There really is no problem with that - all of us make mistakes and we all have almost equal amounts to learn.

The problem is that you are not listening when your errors are being pointed out to you. You are rapidly moving from being perceived as a confident, original thinker with a couple of wild speculations, to being seen as a pigheaded fool. I seriously recommend you start listening.

And please don't give me that nonsense about thinking outside the box. All the great thinkers of the past knew every detail of that box before they ever let their thoughts drift outside it. I recommend you do the same. (Unless you are afraid of hard work.)

Originally Posted by George Moll

First, space habitats require more resources than we have on this planet to double our population.

Which is why we would be far better to take resources from elsewhere, rather than deal with the cost of entering yet another gravity well.

Originally Posted by George Moll

Space habitats also are at least 5 to 6 centuries away from being technical possibilities.

Your plan for terraforming is millennia away.

Originally Posted by George Moll

Artificial gravity would be a must for a strong muscular and skeletal system, and not just centrifical force.

What are you basing this on? Acceleration is acceleration. So far as we can tell at this time, the body can not discern a difference between acceleration produced by gravity versus acceleration produced by a sufficiently large centrifuge.

Originally Posted by George Moll

Protection from Solar flares, not yet within our reach.

To be fair, building an artificial moon for your terraforming idea is rather a larger problem than building some radiation shielding.

Originally Posted by George Moll

And, protection from space debris.

Try using a wall.

Originally Posted by George Moll

It's just not reachable in the foreseeable future. We are going to need the space, and natural resources in the near foreseeable future.

Which rules out terraforming as viable really.

Originally Posted by George Moll

Second, as for need a moon to keep the atmosphere thin. Venus is just short of 1G. If you were to stand on the planet, you could not tell the difference in gravity from the Earth. Yet, somehow the atmosphere is dense enough to crush a car instantly. Lets look at some simple facts:

Gravity keeps an atmosphere on a planet.
Mars has less atmosphere than the gravity should allow.
Mars lost it's atmosphere about the time that it gained it's 2 moons.
Earth had a denser atmosphere in the beginning.
Earth gained a moon.
Earths and Venus are roughly the same size.

Edit: Kalster's covered this perfectly but here we go anyway.

Titan is a fraction of the size of all three, has a very low gravity (0.14g) and yet has a denser atmosphere than Earth by about 50%. It also orbits a planet so huge that by your logic it should have no atmosphere at all. Unless gravitational stripping of atmospheres is only one way?

There are so many more factors involved in atmosphere retention and density that it really makes a nonsense of your moon argument. Find me a primary paper, anywhere please, which states that the Moon is responsible for the difference between the atmospheric densities of Earth and Venus.

Originally Posted by George Moll

If you stay in the box, you will never do great things. Nothing great has ever been done from inside the box!

If you exit the box marked "reality", you're pretty unlikely to achieve much either.

Originally Posted by George Moll

Before you yell "The moons of Mars are not big enough to affect the atmosphere!", remeber, Mars is a very small planet with little gravity to fight.

Sorry man, I don't buy it.

Seconded with vigour.