Venus Deeps

karov · 2016-11-27 03:57:54

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/th … gfuture%29

It shouldn't be the case that the same ( at least few oceans-full of water in the mantle ) is not present inside Venus.

Regardless of the 'resurfacing' which happens every other few hundreds of millions of years.

So, together with the Outer system (slow), and plasma mining the Sun (requiring huge pan-SolSys mass-energy-momentum infra to be present), the Venus interior is also the third legitimate source of Hydrogen to look at.

Untapping it could be done by light. From the sun - 'uncooked' focused one, or solaser.

Void · 2016-11-27 13:53:12

Some thinking is that Venus was habitable until 1 billion years ago, so perhaps yes. Perhaps steam evolving from the deeps is the only reason Venus has any water vapor or Sulfuric Acid vapors by this time.

I am questioning the whole notion of how terrestrials form. We are to believe that they form hot from dry rocks without water, and then comets from the asteroid belt brought in water. And yet somehow Jupiter's moons formed icy (Except for IO which has grav. flex volcanism).

Io might actually have formed wet and icy as well, and then boiled it off.

What I am thinking is what is the difference between how Jupiter's moons formed, and how a proto Earth formed? If the Earth was formed in an accretion disk, then it was shaded from the sun by the accretion disk during much of the formation process, and the materials that formed the Earth were also to a large degree shaded from the sun, until the ending of the process. So, why would sunlight drive icy materials off from the materials forming the Earth? Surely the proto-Earth was shedding heat to space in all directions except in the plane of the accretion disk. So, why would that be so much hotter than the formation of Ganymede?

Water bearing minerals have been detected on the asteroid Vesta, and that has been attributed to collisions from water bearing asteroids. But I question that. The said difference between Vesta and Ceres, is that Vesta formed earlier, and so had radioactive materials which caused it to heat up and boil off it's water, and Ceres formed later with less radioactive materials or is actually a relocated outer solar system object. But for the case of Vesta, if it ever had a layer of ice/water to boil off, can we be certain that it's interior is not still hydrated? When apparently the Earth has such a deep held layer of water?

And so similar questions then for other said "Dry" objects such as Mercury, and Mars. Maybe lots of deep held water inside Mars also.

Karov quote:

Untapping it could be done by light. From the sun - 'uncooked' focused one, or solaser.

With these things in mind, I choose to suggest a terraform scheme, which would be a combination of things previously speculated on for Venus, and also an idea borrowed from Mars.

1) If possible an enclosed multi-floor global floating habitat. a)Inside the "Floors" breathable atmospheres as a rule. b) The "Rooftop having the standard character of the Venus atmosphere CO2/N2 dominance, but it could sustain a garden/biosphere in the sunlight.

2) Using your lasers to extract more water, if that is possible, and as a side effect pumping more heat below the habitat, to expand and swell the atmosphere. The habitat would periodically be expanded in surface area, to allow it to move higher in the expanding column of atmosphere. In addition to adding heat by laser, using super greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere below the floating habitat, to both keep the habitat more isolated from the much hotter lower layers, and to help the lower layers hold in the greater heat.

3) Engage in supercritical CO2 mineral processing in the hot layers for economic benefits.

4) The surface of Venus would also heat up from geothermal heat from below, because the habitat and the super greenhouse gasses would cause hold the heat in. So, perhaps the entire surface of Venus would begin to glow in the visible light range, and that particular spectrum could possibly be allowed to radiate up to the underside of the floating habitat, to stimulate solar cells for electricity.

5) And then a trick from Mars, perhaps. (Waste not want not). Even though the top of the Venus atmosphere had been lifted higher in the gravity well of Venus, I am not sure how much extra atmospheric loss this might cause. The solar wind presently induces a magnetic field which limits atmospheric loss. Even if you lifted up the atmosphere, the induced magnetic field may still fend off a lot of the loss.

But if the inhabitants of such a Venus floating habitat were to generate a lopsided planetary magnetic field, then perhaps like Mars, the solar wind would be able to pull bubbles of plasma off from the top of the atmosphere of Venus. And what would be better than that would be if those "Bubbles" could be harvested. Captured in orbit, condensed from plasma to gasses and solids.

In order to protect .8 bars of Nitrogen, perhaps Nitrogen could be preferentially moved from above the floating habitat shell to below it, and then CO2 would be more preferentially removed from the atmosphere of Venus by this scheme.

So, then a method to immediately inhabit Venus with floating structure, but also a plan to reduce the magnitude of the atmosphere of Venus over a long period of time, and eventually perhaps making the surface habitable, if that is what the owners wanted.

In that case, if the inhabitants really wanted to make a pseudo-Earth, they might try to extract oceans of water from the deeps of Venus, if that is possible.

Last edited by Void (2016-11-27 14:20:28)

Antius · 2016-11-27 15:37:54

I wonder how big a hydrogen bomb would need to be to blast open the planet's crust? Maybe the same device could be used to create a nuclear winter effect blocking out the sun?

Martian volcanoes are apparently dormant. Perhaps the same technique could be used to activate them?

Void · 2016-11-28 21:34:15

I honestly don't have a proposal to bring the Hydrogen up from the deeps. Hydrogen, Lasers, completely melted surface convecting?

One thing I have recorded is that it is thought that when the presumed oceans vaporized for Venus the temperature at the surface became thousands of degrees due to the greenhouse effect, and now cooled to what we have. Therefore adding water vapor to the atmosphere of Venus without other technologies implemented will simply lead to a hotter Venus with a more swelled atmosphere. And eventually the Hydrogen will escape, and the planet will cool to what it is now.

So, the solution needed for what we might want is more than to release water from the deeps, or to add it from afar.

tahanson43206 · Yesterday 12:16:39

This topic has been idle for eight years or so. I decided to bring it back because kbd512 is thinking about the challenges of operating on the surface of Venus, in the ongoing "Venus" topic, and in his own personal topic.

The surface temperature of Venus is just under 600 Celsius, so a heat engine that is going to operate in that environment will need to radiate at 1200 Celsius or thereabouts.

The question I have is: What is the temperature of regolith under the surface? I assume the temperature of the core of Venus must be high, as is true for the Earth (or so I'm told based upon digging wells into the Earth), but perhaps there might be a layer that is less than the temperature at the surface.

I admit the chance seems low, since the temperature at the surface has been high for an extended period, and one of Void's posts earlier in this topic seems to indicate the temperature at the surface might have been even hotter in the past.

If anyone has seen reports of analysis about the temperature gradient in the mantle of Venus, this topic would be a good place for links.

(th)

Void · Yesterday 20:47:49

(th) there really is not enough facts to form a strong definition of current realities or past history.

The old concept from perhaps the 70's was that Venus must have had oceans, and then a runaway greenhouse effect took place and the oceans evaporated off and into space.

It is upon that theory that in time became dogma, the climate freaks, pondered a disaster for Earth. And I am not saying that that is not possible, but for that as well, I a not so sure the theory of a disaster was not politically useful whether it is true or false and to what degree.

And that idea was also put on Mars as well, thinking that its atmosphere and nearly all water had drifted into space due to the low gravity and loss of magnetic field of Mars.

The Americans seem determined to stick to the idea that the Magnetic Field of Mars vanished and then the atmosphere of Venus floated off into space. But some time ago a Swedish study said that only a small amount of the atmosphere of Mars was likely to have gone into space that way.

Lately the idea that the atmosphere and oceans were absorbed into clays and also down into the deep fractures in the crust has emerged. The clays might be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smectite

For Venus now there are claims that the Volcanism of Venus contain only 6% water. For Earth it is almost entirely water. The thinking is drifting in the direction that Venus never cooled off enough to have oceans of water.

The impactor speeds that formed the planet would have been much more energetic than those that formed the Earth.
And it is possible that Venus was too remote from the snow line to get as much water as the Earth did, I think.

To somewhat reply to your question, in the theory of the Run-Away Greenhouse effect, I recall reading that it could have gotten to 10,000 degrees. (I don't know what units). But I think a runaway greenhouse effect was probably not what happened.

There is also a theory that every so many millions of years the entire surface of Venus sinks and is replaced by a magma ocean. I suppose if that happened things would get very hot until a new crust formed,

Another possibility would be that an impactor of a large size hit Venus. That again could lead to an extremely high temperature. Not too much evidence of that, but I recall that a theory for the Terra formation of Venus would use a method like that to drive off the whole atmosphere of Venus. Then in a few thousand years the planet would cool off. (But I think that to be a very bad idea, as I think the atmosphere is very valuable.

If the water content of the interior of Venus is only 6% of that of Earth, then I think any aggressive terraform effort would demand many oceans worth of water to try to make Venus like Earth. Not just one Oceans work, as likely the planet Venus would suck the water into it's rocks and interior.

Just a couple of days ago, I was watching a video about Mars and the idea of colonizing it. The author was negative on it and then proceeded to proclaim that the atmosphere of Mars and its water drifted off into space. This person is a good presenter and quite credentialed I am sure, but this presenter was spewing dogma. These people are not able to view the possibility of updating and are too certain that they know the facts. I stopped watching the video.

The truth is the idea of the Moon being formed from an impact is being called into question as well.

So, the truth is "We don't very much know". But we should seek better answers.

You have to watch out for people that have "Cheat Sheet Intelligence". They learn what is on the flash cards and can do the parlor tricks to get credentials, but not always have as much of other intellectual abilities as they should want to need. And then science begins to resemble religion.

So, no we don't yet know that much about Venus.

Or the space aliens are BSing us about it.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (Yesterday 21:13:15)

tahanson43206 · Yesterday 21:54:11

For Void re temperature of the regolith under the surface of Venus...

The answer delivered by a probe that drills a hole would be the most definitive.

Thanks for your review of the history of speculation about Venus and it's history.

The reason I was interested is that if the regolith ** were ** cooler under the surface, then a heat engine in a machine on the surface might be able to direct thermal energy into that layer.

Whoever designs a heat engine that can operate at 500 Celsius (or thereabouts) and radiate heat at 1200 Celsius (or thereabouts) will be doing some impressive work.

It's not impossible we might already have members who could tackle a challenge like that.

It is definitely possible there are humans alive on Earth today who could work on a problem like that.

This forum is available if there is such a person.

See Recruiting Topic for procedure.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-11-27 03:57:54

Venus Deeps

#2 2016-11-27 13:53:12

Re: Venus Deeps

#3 2016-11-27 15:37:54

Re: Venus Deeps

#4 2016-11-28 21:34:15

Re: Venus Deeps

#5 Yesterday 12:16:39

Re: Venus Deeps

#6 Yesterday 20:47:49

Re: Venus Deeps

#7 Yesterday 21:54:11

Re: Venus Deeps

Board footer