Terraform Venus?
Steve
Make a great big robotic rocket ship and put
it in orbit and then load it with about a
thousand of the 3600 warheads that the US is
supposed to have in our stockpile.
Shoot it off to orbit around Venus.
Nuke the crap out of Venus.
The resulting nuclear winter ought to be
able cool it down as the first stage in
a terraforming process.
The question is.
Is it possible to make a very high yield
warhead that doesn't really have
that much fallout?
ji...@specsol-spam-sux.com
> What do you think of this idea...
> Make a great big robotic rocket ship and put
> it in orbit and then load it with about a
> thousand of the 3600 warheads that the US is
> supposed to have in our stockpile.
> Shoot it off to orbit around Venus.
> Nuke the crap out of Venus.
> The resulting nuclear winter ought to be
> able cool it down as the first stage in
> a terraforming process.
Since Venus is already totally covered with clouds, how is creating
more going to cool it?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Igor
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my take on nuclear winter is that it puts
sufficient smoke and particulates into the atmosphere to block a
significant portion of sunlight from getting through (on a planet such
as earth that relies on the sun for heating), thus cooling the planet
down. How could this work on Venus, which already has large level of
clouds surrounding it that are already holding a large amount of heat?
I don't the problem on Venus is with the heat getting in. It's
already there. The problem is how do you remove it? I really don't
think this would work.
Robert Finch
of life there ?
> > Make a great big robotic rocket ship and put
> > it in orbit and then load it with about a
> > thousand of the 3600 warheads that the US is
> > supposed to have in our stockpile.
Or many smaller ships with a smaller payload over a long period of time to
reduce the risks.
> > Nuke the crap out of Venus.
> >
> > The resulting nuclear winter ought to be
> > able cool it down as the first stage in
> > a terraforming process.
> >
The dense atomsphere of Venus is part of the problem. Maybe nukes could be
used to blow away part of the atmosphere so that it doesn't trap so much
heat. It'd be nice if there was some way to change the atmospheric
composition. Maybe something as simple as a boatload of dye would have an
effect.
I like Venus because it is similar in size, mass, thus gravity to earth.
I question the idea of terra-forming Mars, because I think it would be
difficult to maintain an atmosphere there for a long period of time Mars is
much smaller than Earth and only has about 1/3 the gravity.
The problem with Mars would be the lack of resources I think. It's easier to
throw away excess resources than it is to add them.
I think we could try living on the moon first. It's a hard place to survive
in. Living anywhere but Earth is bound to be extremely difficult. If that
domed city ever gets a crack in it and the atmosphere leaks in or out.......
ji...@specsol-spam-sux.com
<snip>
> I think we could try living on the moon first. It's a hard place to survive
> in. Living anywhere but Earth is bound to be extremely difficult. If that
> domed city ever gets a crack in it and the atmosphere leaks in or out.......
Or if you run out of toilet paper, or the relay that controls your
ventilation blower craps out and resupply has to come from Earth...
Charlie Gibbs
robf...@sympatico.ca (Robert Finch) writes:
>I like the idea of terraforming Venus, but what if there is already a
>form of life there ?
Why would we worry about that any more than we worry about other
life here on Earth?
"Earth first - we'll pave the other planets later."
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Steve
> Subject: Re: Terraform Venus?
> From: "Robert Finch" <robf...@sympatico.ca>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics
> Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 21:42:58 -0400
Now that's a better idea. Just blow off some of the excess atmosphere. The
may be no need to touch the ground at all.
I know that attempts to push asteroids out of the way with nukes are
likely doomed to failure because the small mass of the nuclear warhead
even though highly energetic won't have anything to push against.
But in the case of a dense atmosphere like Venus all you have to do is
allow the bomb to drop the desired distance into the atmosphere and then
blast away before it gets all that far into the atmosphere. The bomb will
have plenty to push against and if you pick the depth right you can remove
a good chunk of atmosphere.
It ought to blow a decent chunk of atmosphere into space everytime you
fire a bomb. You could even use some real block buster bombs that we
would never dare to use on earth.
Plus it may be beneficial just to have a hole in the atmosphere that will
cause a mixing action that may allow heat to escape from the lower
atmosphere up to the higher atmosphere where it can more easily be
radiated away into space. It's possible that once you blow a large
enough hole in the atmosphere a lot of heat may begin to automatically
begin to cycle up just due to the thermodynamic chimney effect. I am right
in thinking that the lower atmosphere on Venus is much warmer than the
upper atmosphere right? Even though the gasses below may be more dense if
there is a large enough temperature differential it may be possible to
start a continuous circulatory cycle and the excess heat would be bled off
into space.
Someone has to have thought of this before. We must be missing something.
I guess what I really want is the typical pyros dream... The chance to
blow up a bunch of bombs or even the biggest hydrogen bomb ever
and to have it actually do some GOOD for humanity.
Why do so many of us like the idea of blowing stuff up but at the same
time we don't want to hurt anyone in the process. Paradoxical I know.
If there weren't so many people that think like that then there wouldn't
be so damned many A-bombs. Even more than "national security" I think it's
that sort of destructive "intellectual curiosity" that allowed us to
create so many bombs to begin with.
I am not smart enough to make a hydrogen bomb (a good thing too) because
I have to admit that if I had one (and I could actually find a totally
"safe" place to blow it up) I would be tempted to fire it just to see
it go.
Just like a big kid with an M-80 looking for something cool to blow up.
Most of us eventually grow out of that stage but when we do we may start
making pumpkin chunking catapults and Tesla coils and such "harmless"
mayhem.
Just watch out for those guys that NEVER seem to grow out of the
firecracker up a frogs butt stage.
Especially when they put them in charge of the country.
Alfred Einstead
> Nuke the crap out of Venus.
>
> The resulting nuclear winter ought to be
> able cool it down as the first stage in
> a terraforming process.
Abian's back (almost)!
Forwarded from June 10, 1995 in reply to Abian.
Add to the list of applications and reasons for the venture
described there, that of developing the technologies & research to
prevent/roll-back the Dust bowl taking place on the fringe
of the Sahara and the one about to hit the fan in the US
heardland. Technologies: such as agricultural robotics
capable (via web-linkup and pattern-recognition detection,
soil sampling, etc.) of scheduling crop rotations, navigating,
planting as many as 100 different crops simultaneously throughout
spaces as small as an acre (as is done, for instance by the
people living at the base of Kilimonjaro; who maintain high
yield agriculture, no plowing, no fields, population density
of middle american suburbs nestled entirely within a forest).
See also, from The Fourth Wave (draft version):
http://www.csd.uwm.edu/~whopkins/FourthWave/Part17.htm
==================
From: Mark Hopkins (ma...@omnifest.uwm.edu)
Subject: Re: REORBITING VENUS -- SAHARA FIRST!
View: Complete Thread (2 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: 1995/06/10
Abian:
In order to accomplish the remarkably and unprecedented feat of terraforming
an entire planet, humankind has first got to prove that it has the capacity,
will and resources to do the same on a much smaller scale. No big project,
no matter what the ambitions, involving things as large as a planet or moon
(e.g. going to the moon) is carried on without ample precedent.
In the case of terraforming Venus, or even Mars, we've got to prove
ourselves out on a more at-home case. The ideal candidate -- something
that would have immediate benefit for international relations if carried
out in conjunction by the international community, and something that will
serve to bring Africa back to life and prosperity -- is to TERRAFORM THE
SAHARA DESERT!
This has only been a desert for a few thousand years, before which there
was lush grassland, rivers, lakes (only one of which is left). What's making
it become a larger and larger desert? How can it be stopped? Should it be
stopped? If it's reversed, what impact will this have on the Earth's climate?
Can this be used as a means to reverse the depletion of rainforests or even
to gain experience for the purpose of doing such in other places?
In addition to the benefits (international cooperation, revitalization)
cited above, the main benefit to be gained is in proving out and/or
developing new technologies to enable us to transform an environment (back)
to habitability on a huge scale -- the prerequisite to any terraforming
project.
That is Test A. If humankind cannot come together to accomplish such a
project, which in comparison to terraforming an entire planet is a paltry
joke of a project, then forget the bigger project. If it can come together,
but we either find out that it's infeasible, dangerous, or simply too
difficult technologically then we find out here and now rather than on some
distant planet. Otherwise, good ideas will come forth.
As to physically moving Venus as a means to terraforming -- forget it.
No power in this end of the universe is going to allow the pitifully small
biological infestation on this Earth comprising the human race to physically
move an entire planet to a different orbit!
And even if it did, enough people have already seen Star Wars to know what
one could do with such power.
Robert Finch
terraforming
> an entire planet, humankind has first got to prove that it has the
capacity,
> will and resources to do the same on a much smaller scale. No big
project,
I don't know that this statement is true. Things don't necessarily scale up
or down. We may be able to affect the environment on another planet in a big
way by doing small things. We don't know.
> In the case of terraforming Venus, or even Mars, we've got to prove
> ourselves out on a more at-home case. The ideal candidate -- something
Why?
> that would have immediate benefit for international relations if carried
> out in conjunction by the international community, and something that will
> serve to bring Africa back to life and prosperity -- is to TERRAFORM THE
> SAHARA DESERT!
As I understand it, the Sahara is a desert because there is no rainfall. One
solution to
terraforming the Sahara would be to change the weather patterns. However,
changing weather patterns has a global effect. Many things we can not do on
Earth because it is too risky. Which is why we need to try them on other
planets !
> Can this be used as a means to reverse the depletion of rainforests or
even
> to gain experience for the purpose of doing such in other places?
Depletion of rainforests is man-made. The way to get it to stop is to
convince people not to cut them down.
>
> That is Test A. If humankind cannot come together to accomplish such a
> project, which in comparison to terraforming an entire planet is a paltry
Id' say the opposite might be true. Getting humanking to work together may
be the more difficult task
> but we either find out that it's infeasible, dangerous, or simply too
> difficult technologically then we find out here and now rather than on
some
How about finding out if it's too dangerous on another planet, rather than
here? Things can be difficult to do on Earth, but easy to do on another
planet. Because people have a vested interest in the land and resources on
Earth.
>
> As to physically moving Venus as a means to terraforming -- forget it.
> No power in this end of the universe is going to allow the pitifully small
> biological infestation on this Earth comprising the human race to
physically
> move an entire planet to a different orbit!
Who knows what might be possible in a few years ? If we can work out how
gravity works, it might turn out to be dangerously easy.
Steve
> No power in this end of the universe is going to allow the pitifully small
> biological infestation on this Earth comprising the human race to
> physically move an entire planet to a different orbit!
>
> And even if it did, enough people have already seen Star Wars to know
> what one could do with such power.
I guess I gave some of you the wrong impression by preceeding my
example of blowing off chunks of Venus' atmosphere (to potentially
facilitate that planets cooling) with an unrelated comment about not being
able to push asteroids with A-Bombs.
I admit that upon reading it what i said again I can easily see how some
of you might have taken it that way.
So for the record I didn't for a second think that one could (or
should even attempt) to change the orbit of Venus and certainly not with
our current supply of some 3600 bombs.
That really is crazy star wars stuff and not at all what I had in mind.
I guess technically if you had an infinite supply of hydrogen bombs and
you fired them in the right sequence on the right side of a planet with
an atmosphere you could steer a planet around like that constantly blowing
off chunks of atmosphere into space. It is another possible senario
but it's not at all what I was thinking of.
Basically I was just trying to think of things that are truly useful to
mankind that you could us a couple of thousand unneeded nuclear warheads
for. Right now the only thing that I have heard of that is useful along
those lines is that the fuel can be diluted and reprocessed for use in
nuclear reactors.
Personally I love that idea but there is so much reluctance on the part of
the military hawks and the eco-luddites to that idea that I wonder if it
will ever be done. Of course the two groups oppose the idea for completely
different reasons.
I was only speculating about possible uses of nuclear warheads as a
terraforming tool. In the case of Venus since the atmosphere is acting
like a thermos bottle I wanted to see if it might be possible to "break
the bottle" somehos and cool the whole planet off.
So the basic question is... Is it possible that large scale stirring of
the Venutian atmosphere might lead to a self amplified cooling?
Later: Steve Ivy
brad...@gmail.com
Odd how the Google search keeps picking this one as the first for the public to see.
When our most wise peers and their public funded agencies (including a few universities such as ASU and Caltech hosting JPL) can't be bothered as to interpreting anything the least bit unusual or even geologically interesting about Venus, not to mention their color blindness and conditional dynamic range of understanding our moon, there's something terribly wrong.
When our mostly public and ratepayer funded terrestrial sciences and physics can't be applied as to accomplishing the exploitation of our moon or Venus, there's something terribly wrong.
When the mainstream status-quo is always right, and their stuff gets automatically published via bogus peer review and typically regardless of whatever any independent fact-checking or investigative research has to offer, there's something terribly wrong.
In one way or another, you the republic have been paying for all of this good, bad and happenstance of whatever Karma has to offer, and as of the past half century you haven't got hardly a cent return on your dollar. If that makes you a happy camper, then so be it, and let us not change a damn thing for the better.
Even exploiting the innards of moon or that of its zero delta vee L1 as offering an ideal Lunar Space Elevator, research lab and OASIS outpost/gateway hasn't been accomplished.
Once sufficiently underground, such as 1.5 km below a fully frozen surface in the coldest areas of Earth, it's no longer permafrost. Depending on the lithosphere crust thickness and geothermal considerations, that protected depth against permafrost could be as little as 100 meters, whereas even our planet without a sun would not make any hoot of a difference as to how downright safe and cozy those underground habitats could be. This interpretation makes for exploiting our moon as yet another TBM applied technology method of applied physics working on greatly expanding the Goldilocks zone around most any star, by at least doubling it. Unfortunately, the use of TBMs on behalf of exploiting a geothermally active planet like Venus is not a good option, although polar areas of Venus and otherwise most of Mercury might be worth considering.
There's not much new under the sun, unless you'd care to actually look at a wee bit of what the extremely nearby planet Venus has to offer, as hardly any significant sunlight is getting through to its geodynamically active surface, and especially of the GuthVenus site of extremely mountainous and canyon terrain, as perhaps then you'll also notice that this one extremely nearby planet is simply like no other planet or moon by way of offering this substantial kind of structured scale and rational community of what interprets as considerable infrastructure, that had been created by some kind of a sufficiently advanced intelligence, or that of at least smarter than a typical 5th grader because most of our terrestrial 5th graders as having been mostly indoctrinated instead of educated, are pretty much becoming our future lost cause generation that can no longer think for itself.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
GuthVenus 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in question:
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/2009/07/brad-guth-index.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/"Guth Venus",GuthVenus
brad...@gmail.com
The hot and geodynamically active planet that's still healing itself as it cools:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v508/n7497/full/nature13072.html
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/venus-crust-heals-too-fast-for-plate-tectonics/
No wonder it's so hot, not to mention being a bit closer to the sun but otherwise considerably more solar reflective than Earth is perhaps why it's actually much cooler at 125 km than any anyplace associated with Earth.
There's lots here for any truly open-mindset to honestly contemplate, and to otherwise deductively interpret for themselves and to share among friends and colleagues, about what this extremely nearby planet Venus has to offer. On the other hand, if you are simply too afraid of whatever your parents, grandparents and peers might have to say, or worried of what those of authority and insider clout might do to you and those of your friends and family, in which case you might as well stay in bed for the rest of your pathetic life, and just accept everything our government agencies and of those mostly public-funded have to say, and always be darn certain as to smile really big while having to pay for it.
There's not much new under the sun, unless you'd care to actually look at a wee bit of what the extremely nearby planet Venus has to offer, as hardly any sunlight is getting through to its geodynamically active surface, and especially of the GuthVenus site offering an extremely mountainous and canyon terrain, as perhaps only then you'll notice that this one nearby planet is like no other planet or moon by way of offering this substantial kind of structured scale and rational community of considerable infrastructure, that had been created by something of a sufficiently advanced intelligence, or of at least smarter than a typical 5th grader.
brad...@gmail.com
Nuking a planet like Venus (guthvenus/GuthVenus) is not exactly what comes to mind if exploiting what an extremely nearby planet like Venus has to offer.
The hot and geodynamically active planet that's still healing itself as it cools:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v508/n7497/full/nature13072.html
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/venus-crust-heals-too-fast-for-plate-tectonics/
When our most wise peers and their public funded agencies (including a few universities such as ASU and Caltech hosting JPL) can't be bothered as to interpreting anything the least bit unusual or even geologically interesting about Venus, not to mention their color blindness and conditional dynamic range of understanding our moon, there's something terribly wrong.
When our mostly public and ratepayer funded terrestrial sciences and physics can't be applied as to accomplishing the exploitation of our moon or Venus, there's something terribly wrong.
When the mainstream status-quo is always right, and their stuff gets automatically published via bogus peer review and typically regardless of whatever any independent fact-checking or investigative research has to offer, there's something terribly wrong.
In one way or another, you the republic have been paying for all of this good, bad and happenstance of whatever Karma has to offer, and as of the past half century you haven't got hardly a cent return on your dollar. If that makes you a happy camper, then so be it, and let us not change a damn thing for the better.
Even exploiting the innards of moon or that of its zero delta vee L1 as offering an ideal Lunar Space Elevator, research lab and OASIS outpost/gateway hasn't been accomplished.
Once sufficiently underground, such as 1.5 km below a fully frozen surface in the coldest areas of Earth, it's no longer permafrost. Depending on the lithosphere crust thickness and geothermal considerations, that protected depth against permafrost could be as little as 100 meters, whereas even our planet without a sun would not make any hoot of a difference as to how downright safe and cozy those underground habitats could be. This interpretation makes for exploiting our moon as yet another TBM applied technology method of applied physics working on greatly expanding the Goldilocks zone around most any star, by at least doubling it. Unfortunately, the use of TBMs on behalf of exploiting a geothermally active planet like Venus is not a good option, although polar areas of Venus and otherwise most of Mercury might be worth considering.
brad...@gmail.com
How about instead of nuking the living crap out of Venus, we simply adapt ourselves as to exploiting whatever Venus has to offer?
Brad Guth
Nuking a planet like Venus (guthvenus/GuthVenus) is not exactly what comes to mind if exploiting what an extremely nearby planet like Venus has to offer.
The hot and geodynamically active planet that's still healing itself as it cools:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v508/n7497/full/nature13072.html
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/venus-crust-heals-too-fast-for-plate-tectonics/
No wonder it's so hot, not to mention being a bit closer to the sun but otherwise considerably more solar reflective than Earth is perhaps why it's actually much colder at 125 km than anyplace associated with Earth.
When our most wise peers and their public funded agencies (including a few universities such as ASU and Caltech hosting JPL) can't be bothered as to interpreting anything the least bit unusual or even geologically interesting about Venus, not to mention their color blindness and conditional dynamic range of understanding our moon, there's something terribly wrong.
When our mostly public and ratepayer funded terrestrial sciences and physics can't be applied as to accomplishing the exploitation of our moon or Venus, there's something terribly wrong.
When the mainstream status-quo is always right, and their stuff gets automatically published via bogus peer review and typically regardless of whatever any independent fact-checking or investigative research has to offer, there's something terribly wrong.
In one way or another, you the republic have been paying for all of this good, bad and happenstance of whatever Karma has to offer, and as of the past half century you haven't got hardly a cent return on your dollar. If that makes you a happy camper, then so be it, and let us not change a damn thing for the better.
Even exploiting the innards of moon or that of its zero delta vee L1 as offering an ideal Lunar Space Elevator, research lab and OASIS outpost/gateway hasn't been accomplished.
Once sufficiently underground, such as 1.5 km below a fully frozen surface in the coldest areas of Earth, it's no longer permafrost. Depending on the lithosphere crust thickness and geothermal considerations, that protected depth against permafrost could be as little as 100 meters, whereas even our planet without a sun would not make any hoot of a difference as to how downright safe and cozy those underground habitats could be. This interpretation makes for exploiting our moon as yet another TBM applied technology method of applied physics working on greatly expanding the Goldilocks zone around most any star, by at least doubling it. Unfortunately, the use of TBMs on behalf of exploiting a geothermally active planet like Venus is not a good option, although polar areas of Venus and otherwise most of Mercury might be worth considering.
Brad Guth
Venus has everything Earth has to offer, and then some.