To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Terreforming Venus
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Space > Space

555Joshua
I don't know about the rest of you, but to me terreforming Mars (sorry I cannot spell "terreforming") just isn't a good idea. For one thing, the planet's atmosphere is too thin to sustain water and its gravity is too weak to sustain a thick atmosphere.

On the other hand, it's never too hard to get rid of surplus air. What's more, Venus isn't too close to the sun for life, it just has chemicals in it's atmosphere which make it impossible to live there. Reduce the CO2, get rid of the sulphuric acid, and BAM! we're in business.

Do tell me what you think. Is it probable to have a colony on the planet?

I won't be able to post much.


Ta ta cool.gif
JON RUSEL
I think Venus only spins about once a year so it's 800 degrees on one side and below freezing on the other . Unfortunately one would have to find a way to get the planet to rotate faster to make it liveable .
yesitdid
Hey if we're terraforming then give the place a lil' spin on axis. Strap a few thousand Saturn V's on their side at the equator and give the planet a twirl up to a 40 hour day. That should mix the atmosphere up a bit(not to mention cause a bit of seismic activity).

Better yet stationary orbit sheilds aoround the equator should cool the surface a bit and act as a platform for solar panels and space stations from which to launch floating or soaring machines that take in the atmosphere, convert it to H2O, store sulfur and carbon and cool the H2O to ice before dropping it out to fall to the surface (again under the shadow of the orbiting sheilds.) Power is supplied by the solar panels.

As pointed out , at least Venus has an atmosphere to work with. For Mars all materials would haver to be imported from elsewhere or derived from the surface minerals. Solar power would be weaker due to the increased distance from Sol.


As mega projects this approachs, but is still Mickey Mouse compared to, the really big time stuff such as a Dyson sphere.
adoucette
QUOTE (JON RUSEL+Jan 7 2006, 04:00 AM)
I think Venus only spins about once a year so it's 800 degrees on one side and below freezing on the other . Unfortunately one would have to find a way to get the planet to rotate faster to make it liveable .

Not really, its night time is ~48 of our days long, its year is ~240 days, but the night/day temps don't vary more than ~50d from its 840 d F average.

Turns out that the surface radiates heat, and high speed winds aloft mix the thick atmosphere to keep the temps more or less constant.

Arthur
grendle
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jan 7 2006, 01:32 AM)


On the other hand, it's never too hard to get rid of surplus air. What's more, Venus isn't too close to the sun for life, it just has chemicals in it's atmosphere which make it impossible to live there. Reduce the CO2, get rid of the sulphuric acid, and BAM! we're in business.


You're talking 90 some times the surface pressure of earth... that's a LOT of surplus air.

About 4.75 x 10 to the 20th kg if my cold addled brain is capable of basic arithmatic. It's not like Mars has no Atmosphere and Venus has 2... Venus has hundreds of earths worth of air. You'd have to remove a couple hundred times as much mass from Venus as you would have to add to Mars.
Carnus
It would be much easier to bring Mars up to speed rather than engineer Venus, all that would have to be done is add some atmosphere, no need to change the acidity of an entire world or find a way to disipate the heat built up in the planet itself. As far as hwo to get an atmosphere, that one is easy. All one would need are a few comets, redirect them to impact the surface and boom you hav water and more atmosphere. I think the chemical makeup of Venus is just too far from "earth normal" to be practical.

Carnus
555Joshua
QUOTE (grendle+)
You're talking 90 some times the surface pressure of earth... that's a LOT of surplus air.

CO² is 1 ½ times as massive as earth air. I don't know how heavy sulphur is, but once we get it out of the atmosphere I'm sure the pressure'll go down a bit. Most of the C can be taken out of the atmospher and put on the sufice. And once you get a lot of the O out of the atmosphere and mix it with H to get H²O then you have a lot of mass out of the Venus air. That might not take away all the access pressure, but it will do a lot.

As for Mars. Doesn't the fact that at one time Mars had a thick atmosphere but now doesn't tell you something? We give it some air and it will just be tossed off by the solar rays. In a few billion years (maybe sooner) it will be just the way it is now.
555Joshua
I once heard, actually, more than once, that in earth's early years it was a lot like Venus, but it cooled off.
grendle
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jan 8 2006, 06:35 PM)
QUOTE (grendle+)
You're talking 90 some times the surface pressure of earth... that's a LOT of surplus air.

CO² is 1 ½ times as massive as earth air. I don't know how heavy sulphur is, but once we get it out of the atmosphere I'm sure the pressure'll go down a bit. Most of the C can be taken out of the atmospher and put on the sufice. And once you get a lot of the O out of the atmosphere and mix it with H to get H²O then you have a lot of mass out of the Venus air. That might not take away all the access pressure, but it will do a lot.

As for Mars. Doesn't the fact that at one time Mars had a thick atmosphere but now doesn't tell you something? We give it some air and it will just be tossed off by the solar rays. In a few billion years (maybe sooner) it will be just the way it is now.

Where are you going to get the hydrogen from? You are talking about truly enormous masses here.

And you are wrong about mars, it won't be a few billion to get back to where it is now, just a 100 million years or so. But you are taking about terraforming - a process that at longest is measured in thousands. It's trivial ( relatively ) to fire some outer system ices into the atmosphere in small chuncks that burn up and replenish the atmosphere continuously.

Neither venus nor mars has an active magnetic feild BTW. That's a much bigger issue sitting closer to the sun. once you get rid of that huge atmosphere blanket. You also have the problem of the sunlight reacting with that atmosphere.

Yep, you could put a huge sunscreen between venus and the sun to block the radiation, excess heat, photoreactivity etc. But that kind of defeats the advantage of being near the sun in the first place.

Technologically, mars is easier to terraform. You can probably manage just by dropping some big chunks of ice onto it. Messy, imprecise, but much easier than dealing with the problems faced by Venus massive atmosphere.
grendle
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jan 8 2006, 06:40 PM)
I once heard, actually, more than once, that in earth's early years it was a lot like Venus, but it cooled off.

Venus is hot because of it's atmosphere. Earth was at one time molten, but cooled, as did Venus. After that it is believed that stable atmospheres began to form.

I've never heard of any evidence that earth ever had an atmosphere anything like Venus. As to why, there is some thought that the presense of the moon may have stripped off the excess and stopped it from building up. Current thinking seems to be that being closer to the sun, venus got hotter faster which caused the water to boil off. No water meant that the rocks got harder whcih meant that plate techtonics stopped. No recycling of planetary crust and no oceans means all the volcanic gasses just built up. Which still doesn't explain it all which is why there are still scientists sending probes.

BTW the sun has over the last 4 billion years continually gotten brighter ( and hotter. ) It's thought that a greenhouse effect is the only thing that made earth "habitable" in early years. For mars to ever have been "wet" it must have had a thicker atmosphere... and venus was just doomed. Maybe if venus and mars had switched places we would have 3 earthlike planets by now, who knows?
snelson5871
You can drop a large portion of the atmosphere but hitting it with large asteroids then over time the constant impacts would just knock most of it off. A lot of people assume that means from the asteroid belt but in my studies of terraforming mars and venus I've discovered that there are over 200 asteroids that have an orbit either with or near venus's. Start with the bigger ones that way they actually get to the surface then gradually use up the smaller ones. And whats better the ones that actually share the same orbit as venus just need to be slowed down enough that venus will eventually just catch up to it. Also if timed right some of the asteroids can be used like a cue ball in pool to knock one or more asteroid in at the same time. Plus heavy explosives such as anhydrous ammonia (a normal sized tank usually found on farms in the midwest can have the blast radius of a hydrogen bomb.) could knock some off too.Then if hydrogen could be imported from one of the gas giants we could do this.
QUOTE
Import 0.8x10exp20 kilograms of hydrogen. This is 80 000 000 000 000 000 ( eighty quadrillions of metric tonnes ) . Via Sabatier process ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction ) using cheaper nickel cathalyst turn all the 4.4x10exp20 tonnes of the present CO2 atmosphere into 160 quadrillions of tonnes of methane and 360 quadrillion tonnes of water. The water will be 1/4th of the earth`s total hydrosphere mass - perfect for shallower and wider venusian global ocean ( 80% surface coverage?). The methane , polymerize via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_process , into heavy oil, asphalt, oil shale, even better kerogen ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerogen ) - pretty stable solid... suitable for storage underground. In kerogen form it will hold the hydrogen and wouldn`t burn after oxigenation of the atmosphere.


This was taken from a terrforming forum. newmars.com so a combination of this process with asteroids and explosives would get it all done while being expensive within 50 or so years.
555Joshua
QUOTE (grendle+)
Where are you going to get the hydrogen from? You are talking about truly enormous masses here.

From the sulphuric acid.

QUOTE (same+)
And you are wrong about mars, it won't be a few billion to get back to where it is now, just a 100 million years or so.

I believe I said "In a few billion years (maybe sooner) it will be just the way it is now."

QUOTE (same+)
It's trivial ( relatively ) to fire some outer system ices into the atmosphere in small chuncks that burn up and replenish the atmosphere continuously.

But how the hell are you going to collect and move it? blink.gif

QUOTE (same+)
Neither venus nor mars has an active magnetic feild BTW. That's a much bigger issue sitting closer to the sun. once you get rid of that huge atmosphere blanket. You also have the problem of the sunlight reacting with that atmosphere.

It will only be a matter of time before the earth lacks an effective magnetic feild itself. I'm sure we can figure something out.

QUOTE (same+)
Yep, you could put a huge sunscreen between venus and the sun to block the radiation, excess heat, photoreactivity etc.

Actually, you can't. (I know you're being sarcastic).

QUOTE (same+)
Current thinking seems to be that being closer to the sun, venus got hotter faster which caused the water to boil off. No water meant that the rocks got harder whcih meant that plate techtonics stopped. No recycling of planetary crust and no oceans means all the volcanic gasses just built up. Which still doesn't explain it all which is why there are still scientists sending probes.

But...if this is so then how come there are active volcanoes on its surfice? blink.gif

QUOTE (same+)
Maybe if venus and mars had switched places we would have 3 earthlike planets by now, who knows?

I've actually thought like this before. The sad part is, if Mars and Venus switched places Mars would most definitely have lost its atmosphere.

Thomas the Gardener
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming

This has a pretty intelligent article on the possibility of terraforming Venus.
ourmanflint
hello

I've had this conversation before in this very forum, and as I've pointed out before the problem of excess CO2 on Venus could very easily be fixed. For instance on Earth there are approx 800 gigatons (millions of metric tons) of atmospheric CO2, but there are over 100 million gigatons of CO2 which has been fixed as carbonates by the action of life itself!!! So you see it really is very simple, over time life can transform CO2 to Ca CO3 and fix it relatively safely. First though the atmospheric sulphur should be fixed so any sulphuric acid rain is removed.

I would suggest that the process could be undertaken over a period of hundreds if not thousands of years, by a genetically modified bacterium taken from let's say a deep sea vent, which would be used to extremes of pressure and temperature. So, instead of talking about moving quadrillions of tons of raw materials from one part of the galaxy to another, which is so implausible as to make me laugh, we spend a few years developing a small organism to do all the work for us. At least this is within our grasp, and has no outlandish progress in futuristic space technology needed to get started.

So why aren't we doing it already???? blink.gif
Nessus
QUOTE
So why aren't we doing it already????


If you spent the money starting this off, it would be your 20th generation before they see some return on their investment.
nautilus
QUOTE
Hey if we're terraforming then give the place a lil' spin on axis. Strap a few thousand Saturn V's on their side at the equator and give the planet a twirl up to a 40 hour day. That should mix the atmosphere up a bit(not to mention cause a bit of seismic activity).

Better yet stationary orbit sheilds aoround the equator should cool the surface a bit and act as a platform for solar panels and space stations from which to launch floating or soaring machines that take in the atmosphere, convert it to H2O, store sulfur and carbon and cool the H2O to ice before dropping it out to fall to the surface (again under the shadow of the orbiting sheilds.) Power is supplied by the solar panels.



Heck, we can't even figure out how to fix our own planet, much less one that's not capable of supporting life to begin with. Start with what we got! wink.gif
snelson5871
QUOTE
Heck, we can't even figure out how to fix our own planet, much less one that's not capable of supporting life to begin with. Start with what we got!


Yeah but if we mess up while trying to fix another planet at least we still have earth. If we mess up while trying to fix earth then we have no where to go.
ourmanflint
Realistically by the year 3000 we will? as a planet be looking for more space, we will have used up almost all of our critical natural resources! That gives us 1000 years to do something about it, and considering all that we have achieved in the past 50 years, I think the future looks good.

Samy
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Where are you going to get the hydrogen from? You are talking about truly enormous masses here.
From the sulphuric acid.


Not nearly enough. Sulphuric acid is much less than 1% of the Venusian atmosphere; CO2 is 96.5% of the Venusian atmosphere. Even if we used every single droplet of sulphuric acid (and water vapor) in the Venusian atmosphere, it would lower CO2 to maybe 95% of the atmosphere. You'd barely make a dent.

There are really only two ways to terraform Venus: either bind both the C and the O into the soil, creating a dry planet, or import brobdingnagian amounts of hydrogen, to transform the massive quantities of O into water.

The first can be done first, then the second, I suppose, to create an intermediate stage before we get the H.
Daein
I think the planet Mars would be easier to terraform than Venus. But I think if Venus was successfully terraformed it would be a more Earth like place to live because it's surface gravity is 92% of Earth's. Mars' surface gravity is something like 37% Earth's.
555Joshua
Yeah, Mars is an unhealthy place to live because of that.
qraal
Hi Guys

Venus has lot going for it as it is. The surface is oven hot, but the higher atmosphere is more clement. The clouds might be acid, but they don't utterly cover the planet and acid has been safely resisted for decades. What's more an oxy-nitrogen breathing mix is actually a lifting gas - no helium required.

The Russians actually suggested building floating cities in Venus' atmosphere several decades ago so it's hardly a new idea. There's enough room for a hundred million floating habitats each supporting 100,000 people. Made out of carbon nanotubes, filled with nitrogen from the atmosphere, and oxygen cracked out of the carbon dioxide, much of the mass can come directly from the atmosphere.

Eventually Venus will begin chilling out with the amount of shading by the floating cities. With the acid clouds gone heat will leak away more easily and the atmosphere will begin reacting with the surface. Helped by artificial overturn of the regolith much of the atmosphere could be locked away as carbonates.

Still drier than a bone though.

qraal
ktwong
My money is still on Mars.

There are amazing similarities between the Martian atmosphere that exists today and the atmosphere that existed on Earth billions of years ago.

Venus is hot as hell and bone dry. Remember we are trying to escape being BBQ on earth as the sun goes into a Red Giant. Going to Venus would be like the turkey calling for early roast. Mars has the promise of water which may be frozen at the polar ice caps. Mars is the most habitable and needs least work in terrforming.

Mars' atmosphere:
95.3 percent carbon dioxide
2.7 percent nitrogen
1.6 percent argon
0.2 percent oxygen

Earth's atmosphere
78.1 percent nitrogen
20.9 percent oxygen
0.9 percent argon
0.1 percent carbon dioxide and other gases

The average surface temperature on Mars is a frigid minus 81 degrees Fahrenheit (-62.77 degrees Celsius) with extremes that range from 75 degrees Fahrenheit (23.88 Celsius) to less than minus 100 degrees Fahrenheit (-73.33 Celsius). In comparison, Earth's average surface temperature is about 58 degrees Fahrenheit (14.4 degrees Celsius).

Now that doesn't sound so back ? All we have to is to fix the natural oxygen level. It will not be difficult to establish a long term self-sustaining colony on Mars working on terraforming the planet.

Here are three terraforming methods that have been proposed:
- Large orbital mirrors that will reflect sunlight and heat the Mars surface.
- Greenhouse gas-producing factories to trap solar radiation.
- Smashing ammonia-heavy asteroids into the planet to raise the greenhouse gas level.
snelson5871
QUOTE
But...if this is so then how come there are active volcanoes on its surfice?


Actually no probe that has penetrated the atmosphere of Venus has seen any sign of volcanic activity whatsoever.
555Joshua
QUOTE (snelson5871+Mar 5 2006, 03:24 AM)
QUOTE
But...if this is so then how come there are active volcanoes on its surfice?


Actually no probe that has penetrated the atmosphere of Venus has seen any sign of volcanic activity whatsoever.

How many probes have lasted longer than ten seconds on the surfice? laugh.gif
snelson5871
Only a couple but for the amount of volcanic activity that venus would need to replenish its atmoshere at the speed it is replenishing then those couple of probes should have seen at least one volcanic flow. Even from high in the atmosphere when they were imaging and it could see miles upon miles of the surface there wasnt any sign at all of volcanic activity.
snelson5871
Ok I'm wrong. My info is outdated.
555Joshua
I'm bored with this descussion. dry.gif
Cow_Man
I don't know how much it would help the curent living conditions on Venus but if you were to take our moon or a big asteriod or something large (mabye even Mars) and slingshot it around the sun so it collides with Venus. I don't know exactly how this would work but if the large object struck Venus just right it could spin it into a 24-hour day as well as combine with it. This impact could also push Venus towards Earth were they would rotate around a center point like Pluto and Charon.

When Earth was (most likely) struck by another planet a few billion years ago the crust was striped off and became the moon. Maybe this could happen to Venus as well although a lot of the chemicals would still reside there.

I still think it is slightly impractical to colonize Venus. Although you have heard that other solar systems are thousands of lightyears away, this is not true if your in a spaceship going near the speed of light with which it would only take a few year.
555Joshua
And how would you ever manage to get such a large amount of planet to smash Venus?
curious1
About 10 years ago, NASA made this amazing IMAX movie about terraforming Mars that was shown at NASA's Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral.

In 3 story tall technicolor, it was impressive. I've been trying to find a link for that movie and can't seem to. Hrm... it MAY have been this one...:
http://www.thespaceshop.com/imdvddeinsp.html
(we lived close to Kennedy Space Center, so we saw all the movies)

Anyway, it outlined all the methods on the table now for terraforming Mars over a period of 1000 years. The most simple/feasible one was shooting large nuclear fusion bombs into Mars core, which should melt the ice and release trapped CO2 creating an 'atmosphere' from the greenhouse effect. If Mars has indigenous life now, that would mean a change of plans, I'd guess.

NASA's movie made it not only look possible, the planning is in the works right now, with feasibility studies being done by the rovers. Here's a NASA site about it:
http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/10/10.cfm

According to the original movie, the biggest problem would be the lack of Nitrogen in Mars atmosphere... not CO2 or Oxygen. Without the nitrogen, the atmosphere would be too combustible.

The article above, more updated since the movie seems to consider other methods now (seeding the surface with self reproducing plants or microbes).

Here's another NASA paper on the subject: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm
QUOTE
Many people can accept the possibility of a permanently staffed base on Mars, or even the establishment of large settlements. However the prospect of drastically changing the planet's temperature and atmosphere towards more earthlike conditions, or "terraforming" seems to most people to be either sheer fantasy or at best a technological challenge for the far distant future.

But is this pessimistic point of view correct? Despite the fact that Mars today is a cold, dry, and probably lifeless planet, it has all the elements required to support life: water carbon and oxygen (as carbon dioxide), and nitrogen. The physical aspects of Mars, its gravity, rotation rate and axial tilt are close enough to those of Earth to be acceptable and it is not too far from the Sun to be made habitable.

In fact computational studies utilizing climate models suggest that it could be possible to make Mars habitable again with foreseeable technology. The essence of the situation is that while Mars' CO2 atmosphere has only about 1% the pressure of the Earth's at sea level, it is believed that there are reserves of CO2 frozen in the south polar cap and adsorbed within the soil sufficient to thicken the atmosphere to the point where its pressure would be about 30% that of Earth. The way to get this gas to emerge is to heat the planet, and in fact, the warming and cooling of Mars that occurs each Martian year as the planet cycles between its nearest and furthest positions from the Sun in its slightly elliptical orbit cause the atmospheric pressure on Mars to vary by plus or minus 25% compared to its average value on a seasonal basis.

We can not, of course, move Mars to a warmer orbit. However we do know another way to heat a planet, through an artificially induced greenhouse effect that traps the Sun's heat within the atmosphere. Such an atmospheric greenhouse could be created on Mars in at least three different ways. One way would be to set up factories on Mars to produce very powerful artificial greenhouse gasses such as halocarbons ("CFC's") and release them into the atmosphere. Another way would be to use orbital mirrors or other large scale power sources to warm selected areas of the planet, such as the south polar cap, to release large reservoirs of the native greenhouse gas, CO2, which may be trapped their in frozen or adsorbed form. Finally natural greenhouse gases more powerful than CO2 (but much less so than halocarbons) such as ammonia or methane could be imported to Mars in large quantities if asteroidal objects rich with such volatiles in frozen form should prove to exist in the outer solar system.

Each of these methods of planetary warming would be enhanced by large amounts of CO2 from polar cap and the soil that would be released as a result of the induced temperature rise. This CO2 would add massively to the greenhouse effect being created directly, speeding and multiplying the warming process.

The Mars atmosphere/regolith greenhouse effect system is thus one with a built-in positive feedback. The warmer it gets, the thicker the atmosphere becomes; and the thicker the atmosphere becomes the warmer it gets. A method of modeling this system and the results of calculations based upon it are given in the sections below.


For those who love equations:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Many people can accept the possibility of a permanently staffed base on Mars, or even the establishment of large settlements. However the prospect of drastically changing the planet's temperature and atmosphere towards more earthlike conditions, or "terraforming" seems to most people to be either sheer fantasy or at best a technological challenge for the far distant future.

But is this pessimistic point of view correct? Despite the fact that Mars today is a cold, dry, and probably lifeless planet, it has all the elements required to support life: water carbon and oxygen (as carbon dioxide), and nitrogen. The physical aspects of Mars, its gravity, rotation rate and axial tilt are close enough to those of Earth to be acceptable and it is not too far from the Sun to be made habitable.

In fact computational studies utilizing climate models suggest that it could be possible to make Mars habitable again with foreseeable technology. The essence of the situation is that while Mars' CO2 atmosphere has only about 1% the pressure of the Earth's at sea level, it is believed that there are reserves of CO2 frozen in the south polar cap and adsorbed within the soil sufficient to thicken the atmosphere to the point where its pressure would be about 30% that of Earth. The way to get this gas to emerge is to heat the planet, and in fact, the warming and cooling of Mars that occurs each Martian year as the planet cycles between its nearest and furthest positions from the Sun in its slightly elliptical orbit cause the atmospheric pressure on Mars to vary by plus or minus 25% compared to its average value on a seasonal basis.

We can not, of course, move Mars to a warmer orbit. However we do know another way to heat a planet, through an artificially induced greenhouse effect that traps the Sun's heat within the atmosphere. Such an atmospheric greenhouse could be created on Mars in at least three different ways. One way would be to set up factories on Mars to produce very powerful artificial greenhouse gasses such as halocarbons ("CFC's") and release them into the atmosphere. Another way would be to use orbital mirrors or other large scale power sources to warm selected areas of the planet, such as the south polar cap, to release large reservoirs of the native greenhouse gas, CO2, which may be trapped their in frozen or adsorbed form. Finally natural greenhouse gases more powerful than CO2 (but much less so than halocarbons) such as ammonia or methane could be imported to Mars in large quantities if asteroidal objects rich with such volatiles in frozen form should prove to exist in the outer solar system.

Each of these methods of planetary warming would be enhanced by large amounts of CO2 from polar cap and the soil that would be released as a result of the induced temperature rise. This CO2 would add massively to the greenhouse effect being created directly, speeding and multiplying the warming process.

The Mars atmosphere/regolith greenhouse effect system is thus one with a built-in positive feedback. The warmer it gets, the thicker the atmosphere becomes; and the thicker the atmosphere becomes the warmer it gets. A method of modeling this system and the results of calculations based upon it are given in the sections below.


For those who love equations:
An equation for estimating the mean temperature on the surface of Mars as a function of the CO2 atmospheric pressure and the solar constant is given by McKay and Davis [1] as:

Tmean = S^0.25xTBB + 20(1+S)P^0.5 (Eq.1)

where Tmean is the mean planetary temperature in kelvins, S is the solar constant where the present day Sun=1, TBB, the black body temperature of Mars at present = 213.5 K, and P is given in bar.

Since the atmosphere is an effective means of heat transport from the equator to the pole,we propose (as an improvement over equation (1) in reference [2]:

Tpole = Tmean - DT/(1 + 5P) (Eq. 2)

where DT is what the temperature difference between the mean value and the pole would be in the absence of an atmosphere (about 75 K for S=1).

For purposes of this analysis it is further assumed based upon a rough approximation to observed data that :

Tmax = Tequator = 1.1Tmean (Eq. 3)

and that the global temperature distribution is given by:

T(q) = Tmax - (Tmax-Tpole)sin^1.5q (Eq.4)

where q is the latitude (north or south).

Equations (1) through (4) given the temperature on Mars as a function of CO2 pressure. However, as mentioned above, the CO2 pressure on Mars is itself a function of the temperature. There are three reservoirs of CO2 on Mars, the atmosphere, the dry ice in the polar caps, and gas adsorbed in the soil. the interaction of the polar cap reservoirs with the atmosphere is well understood and is given simply by the relationship between the vapor pressure of CO2 and the temperature at the poles. This is given by the vapor pressure curve for CO2, which is approximated by:

P = 1.23 x 10^7{exp(-3168/Tpole)} (Eq. 5)

So long as there is CO2 in both the atmosphere and the cap, equation (5) gives an exact answer to what the CO2 atmospheric pressure will be as a function of polar temperature. However if the polar temperature should rise to a point where the vapor pressure is much greater than that which can be produced by the mass in the cap reservoir (between 50 and 150 mb) then the cap will disappear and the atmosphere will be regulated by the soil reservoir.

The relationship between the soil reservoir, the atmosphere and the temperature is not known with precision. an educated guess is given in parametric form in reference 1 as:

P = {CMaexp(T/Td)}1/g (6)

where Ma is the amount of gas adsorbed in bar, g=0.275, C is a normalization constant set so that with chosen values of the other variables equation (6) will reflect known Martian conditions, and Td is the characteristic energy required for release of gas from the soil. Equation (6) is essentially a variation on Van Hofft's law for the change in chemical equilibrium with temperature, and so there is fair confidence that its general form is correct. However the value of Td is unknown and probably will remain so until after human exploration of Mars. In reference [2] McKay et al varied parametrically Td from 10 to 60 K and produced curves using equation (6) with T set equal to either Tpole or Tmean. In this paper we choose Td=15 to 40 K (a reasonable subset of the spectrum slightly on the optimistic side; the lower the value of Td the easier things are for prospective terraformers.) Because equation (6) is so strongly temperature dependent, however, we do not simply set T to the extreme values of Tmean or Tpole and solve equation (6) to get a global "soil pressure" however, as was done in reference [2]. Rather we use the global temperature distribution given by equation (4) to integrate equation (6) over the surface of the planet. This gives a more accurate quasi 2-Dimensional view of the atmosphere/regolith equilibrium problem in which most of the adsorbed CO2 is distributed to the planet's colder regions. In this model, regional (in the sense of latitude) temperature changes, especially in the near-polar regions, can have as important a bearing on the atmosphere/regolith interaction as changes in the planet's mean temperature.


Why not Venus? NASA seems to think Mars would be a much easier and thus faster terraforming possibility.
Guest_Mark
I like the Russian idea of building a city floating above the clouds on Venus. I've heard that at 32 miles above the surface the temperature and pressure is the same as earth. At certain latitudes, the winds would blow the city around the planet so the day-length wouldn't be too unlike earth.

We have very little knowledge of what technology will be like 100 years from now. Technological advancement is accelerating. It would be like Benjamin Franklin foreseeing the technologies that have brought us the Internet, stealth fighters with VR cockpits, the h-bomb, and a man on the moon.

Within this century we may develop small self-replicating microscopic robots that could suck every bit of sulfur and carbon out of the atmosphere of Venus in a few hours. We may even be able to transfer our consciousness to, or transform our bodies to be perfectly comfortable on the surface of Venus or Mars.
Marty
555Joshua

there aren't active volcanoes on venus's surface. I was watching something on discovery about it yesterday. the huge lava flows come from the fact that venus doesn't have tectonic plates, it's just one big shell of rock. once in a long time the pressure builds up and the shell cracks, causing mass flooding of the planet with molten rock.
SKMR
Hi! I'm doing a report on Venus. Can anyone help me? tongue.gif
PhilP
Might be nice to visit, but I don't know about living there. I mean, what between the Sun rising in the West, and it's day longer than it's year? I ask you, really!
Brad Guth
There's not all that much required for terraforming such a thriving newish planet like Venus, especially when it's already terraformed enough as is, and potentially suitable as is for intelligent human life, that is if you only had so much a half a village idiot's brain worth of common sense.

With such surplus energy; what's not possible?
-
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
Why bother to terraform when it's good to go as is?

I and others will gladly say this one again; Venus is no GREENHOUSE driven planet by way of any known science that includes the regular laws of physics and of planetology that's simply newish compared to that of Earth, and otherwise via the replicated science of others that more than proves the Venusian environment has been getting contributed to and unavoidably roasted from the inside out, along with whatever solar influx that's simply getting a free ride and thereby adding insult to that otherwise geothermally traumatised environment.
-
Brad Guth
kaneda
Brad Guth. Venus has an atmosphere of mainly CO2 along with acids etc that is ninety times as dense as Earth's atmosphere and a surface temperature of 400.C . You may be able to live on Venus but Earth people cannot. To say otherwise is to expose rank stupidity.
Robc025
We cannot terraform mars in any way, the gravity is too low to hold an atmosphere, the axis changes too often.
Venus is like hell. you don't have to be a scientist to know this. all the terraforming ideas are just pipe dreams.

Setting up temporary outposts on Mars is the only possibility.

Guest_Darren
To learn to run you first must learn to walk. I think we should just concentrate on fixing our own planet first. To create life elsewhere on one of the nearby clusters of rocks and gases in our solar sytem we must first make sure there is still life on the one planet that bares life circling our sun. Earth
RickyTy
QUOTE (nautilus+Jan 23 2006, 04:14 PM)


Heck, we can't even figure out how to fix our own planet, much less one that's not capable of supporting life to begin with. Start with what we got! wink.gif

AMEN!!! smile.gif
kaneda
Brad Guth. I have some bad news for you. Insults you learned from your father in his trailer are not proof. All you have done is show that you have no right to belong to this or any other forum.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.