Live data from Hacker News

Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

quantamagazine.org

131–140 of 358 posts

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#131
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only then do we start terraforming, which takes thousands/millions of years in addition The methods we could realistically launch into in our lifetimes would take thousands of years, not millions (but also not hundreds) [1]. Projects of these timescales have precedent in human history, usually with a healthy dose of religious zeal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

My impression was that pulverized rock/iron is not actually "soil", so after forming the atmosphere you need lengthy biochemical processes playing out on the surface. I admit though, I don't know too much about this.

> pulverized rock/iron is not actually "soil", so after forming the atmosphere you need lengthy biochemical processes playing out on the surface

We're already working on crops that can grow in lunar and Martian regolith [1].

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4146463/

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#132
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you admit that terraforming, even after it's 'done', will require an ongoing maintenance effort The Earth hasn't always been hospitale to humans, much less technological civilisation. Chances are, we'll have to do similar "maintenance" at home, too. (Easiest to grasp: deflecting asteroids.) > I suspect terraforming planets is a waste. Far more bang for your buck to build habitats in space from scratch This comes…

So we'll need responsible stewardship over Earth's Habitability? No problem!

[deleted]

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#133
post #81
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of tectonics would only be a problem if you want your terraforming to be 'one and done'. If you admit that terraforming, even after it's 'done', will require an ongoing maintenance effort, it's simple (but not easy). Eg you can use satellites to spin up an artificial magnetic field to shield against solar wind. However, I suspect terraforming planets is a waste. Far more bang for your buck to build habitats…

That is some out of the box thinking! I would say the key thing with Mercury is the ability to dig fast .

> That is some out of the box thinking!

Thanks. I'm just parroting some lines I read a decade or so ago on a website that I didn't manage to dig up again. (I wonder if it's still online?)

> I would say the key thing with Mercury is the ability to dig fast.

Why? What are you afraid of?

First, night lasts 88 (earth) days on Mercury. So if you start digging at dusk, you have plenty of time.

Second, Mercury's daytime surface temperature is around 430C (~ 800F ~ 700K). We have plenty of materials, like steel, that can withstand these temperatures easily. Even aluminum only melts at 660C.

So you make a parasol out of steel and span it over your equipment. Important: you make the parasol just big enough to shade your equipment, but otherwise let it see as much of the sky as possible.

Mercury has no atmosphere. So during the day you normally have a small patch of the sky at around 5772K, the sun. The sun has about ~6.6 times the angular area on the sky as from earth. The rest of the sky looks as if it's about 3K in temperature, ie very cold. The effect averages out to Mercury's 700K surface temperature.

The parasol itself will attain the same average temperature as the rest of Mercury's surface (because it's exposed to the same conditions).

But for anyone in the shade under the parasol will replace a patch of sky at 5772K where the sun used to be with one at only 700K where the parasol now blocks the view.

If your parasol is supposed to cover more than just a single point with its shadow, than it needs to be big. From the perspective of each shadow covered point, the parasol will have a bigger angular area than the sun it shades.

So you not only replace some 5772K area with 700K, but also some of the previously 3K area with 700K. Overall, you can probably set up things so that you get something like a balmy 15C on average.

> I would say the key thing with Mercury is the ability to dig fast.

To come back to this: Mercury has lower gravity than earth, so I expect that 'soil' will probably not be as dense?

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#134
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you admit that terraforming, even after it's 'done', will require an ongoing maintenance effort The Earth hasn't always been hospitale to humans, much less technological civilisation. Chances are, we'll have to do similar "maintenance" at home, too. (Easiest to grasp: deflecting asteroids.) > I suspect terraforming planets is a waste. Far more bang for your buck to build habitats in space from scratch This comes…

So we'll need responsible stewardship over Earth's Habitability? No problem!

> we'll need responsible stewardship over Earth's Habitability

This is just a semantic punt to "stewardship". (Why is habitability capitalised?)

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#135

I can't believe people haven't read James Lovelock's works re the Gaia hypothesis. The feedback loop is that plants produce an oxygen rich atmosphere right up to the point where lightning strikes would start fires that kill off enough plant life, reducing the oxygen in the atmosphere. Send plants to Venus now and in 500 billion years we can move there.

I struggle to find plants that can survive and do photosynthesis in temperatures of molten tin and sulphuric acid rain though

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#136
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want a backup, why use Mars? You can create habitats from scratch, or you can have colonies on the moon. Even Mercury is better than Mars.

Lots of reasons for this. The Moon is a complete hell hole - 2 week long nights, night time temperatures that drop to around -200f, daytime temperatures in excess of 250f, extremely low gravity (to the point that one might expect a higher impact of the countless health consequences of 0g exposure on humans), minimal material resources and so on. There is also no atmosphere at all which complicates landing, means even…

> Lots of reasons for this. The Moon is a complete hell hole - 2 week long nights, night time temperatures that drop to around -200f, daytime temperatures in excess of 250f, extremely low gravity (to the point that one might expect a higher impact of the countless health consequences of 0g exposure on humans), minimal material resources and so on.

Dig a bit, and temperatures even out. Same as on Mercury.

About the light: you are going to stay indoors anyway.

About gravity: spin! You can build something that looks a bit like a giant funnel, spin that, and live on the inside. If you set up the speed of rotation and degree of incline right, the centripetal force and the moon's gravity will combine to point perpendicular to the surface you are standing on.

You are right that Mars has some interesting peculiarities. But the logistics are a million times harder than getting to and from the moon. So good luck getting a rescue mission there.

In addition, I would advice against contaminating Mars with earth life, if we still want to study it, and figure out if it ever had life. (The moon is and always has been almost certainly sterile.)

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you admit that terraforming, even after it's 'done', will require an ongoing maintenance effort The Earth hasn't always been hospitale to humans, much less technological civilisation. Chances are, we'll have to do similar "maintenance" at home, too. (Easiest to grasp: deflecting asteroids.) > I suspect terraforming planets is a waste. Far more bang for your buck to build habitats in space from scratch This comes…

Great, and rats will become super adapted to space. Then they'll become endemic to any space habitats humanity builds. Terraforming planets sounds more plausible than not ending up with rats and cockroaches.

Rats can be pretty tasty.

And: if rats can survive somewhere, it's a pretty small step to make it survivable for humans.

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#138

Venus is arguably the worst place in the solar system From another perspective, its atmosphere is "one of the most Earth-like in the solar system", and scientists long ago postulated the idea of establishing floating cloud cities. Big balloons filled with nitrogen and oxygen would naturally settle at the right altitude, 30 miles above the surface, where gravity, ambient pressure, and radiation aren't far off that of…

How do you deorbit Venus is such a way that your inflatable balloon city comes to a gentle stop, 30 miles up, and just floats there? Worse still, when people need to leave and return to Earth, how do you launch a rocket from the balloon city and return to orbit? How do visitors or pioneers deorbit and land at the floating city? If there aren't materials to effect a repair, how long until it sinks down into the hellzone? Where are materials manufactured for repairs, and how quickly could they be manufactured and sent there? If a rocket is trying to land and goes off course, does it squash the balloon city like a grape? Saying that holes can be patched is well and good, but there are some truly catastrophic failure modes that don't seem entirely unlikely.

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#139

Venus is arguably the worst place in the solar system From another perspective, its atmosphere is "one of the most Earth-like in the solar system", and scientists long ago postulated the idea of establishing floating cloud cities. Big balloons filled with nitrogen and oxygen would naturally settle at the right altitude, 30 miles above the surface, where gravity, ambient pressure, and radiation aren't far off that of…

Nice link, shifts the perspective a bit.

Guess it would be like living on a floating oil/gas platform.

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#140
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This comes down to how biology works in zero and partial g. Why? Just spin the thing.

> Why? Just spin the thing Sure. Let's put rats in centrifuges in space and see if they can reproduce successfully. Maybe there is a coriolis boundary. Maybe something weird happens.

If you make your centrifuge big enough, it's fine.

But yeah, sticking rats in a centrifuge is probably a better first step than starting with humans.

Post reply on HN