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 · 2024-12-20 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 · 2024-12-20 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 (2024-12-20 21:13:15)

tahanson43206 · 2024-12-20 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)

Void · 2024-12-21 11:09:20

OK, but before you commit to such a "Rabit Hole", consider wind powered robots on Venus: https://www.bing.com/search?q=Wind+powe … 1b&pc=DCTS
The winds on the surface of Venus are thought to be very slow, but might be able to knock over a skyscraper due to atmospheric density.

So, windmills might be able to support robotic activity on the surface of Venus.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-12-21 11:11:54)

tahanson43206 · 2024-12-21 12:25:24

For Void re #8

Thank you for the very interesting suggestion of wind mills on Venus.

I just came out of an exhausting discussion with Gemini about design of an exploration vehicle on Venus.

We'd made a bit of progress. It appears that the Seebeck/Peltier effect might be worth considering for keeping the cabin cool. Those devices are ** very ** inefficient, but since they are non-mechanical they are potentially a good choice for keeping the cabin cool, inside a layer of insulation which is itself inside a strong outer shell, able to handle 92 atmospheres and 500 Celsius temperatures.

Your suggestion of windmills designed for the surface of Venus help to solve a vexing problem: how to provide power for the systems.

A nuclear reactor is a heat engine, but no matter which way Gemini and I looked at the problem, we could not see a way to operate a heat engine in an environment into which it cannot sink thermal energy.

Your suggestion of pulling power from the environment (from the planet) is ** most ** helpful.

Gemini and I settled on 1200 degrees Celsius for a radiator to move thermal energy out of the vehicle and into the atmosphere of Venus. We assumed we'd need a fan to move the atmosphere past the vanes of the radiator, but your suggestion there might be wind on Venus implies the radiator might not be needed all the time.

The nature of the working fluid for the radiator system remains unsettled. A candidate is Carbon Dioxide, which is abundant on Venus.

I'm hoping others in the forum might pick up the thread here to see if a solution with currently known materials and methods might be possible. If a pleasant 25 Celsius cabin temperature is practical, then existing electronics can be used to operate the vehicle.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2024-12-22 07:04:47

For Void re suggestion of wind mills on Venus...

We received a very nice reply to our inquiry about wind at the surface of Venus.

On 12/21/24 22:32, James Lyons wrote:
Dear Tom,
Thank you for your question. It should be possible to generate energy via a windmill/turbine on the surface of Venus, but there are a couple of considerations.
First, the wind at the surface is light, as you mentioned, but the atmospheric density is high. CO2 at the surface is in a supercritical phase, so CO2 truly behaves like a fluid there. Typical surface winds are probably a few to about 5 km/hour. The power generated by wind is given by
0.5*density*velocity^3*area. The density of the Venus atmosphere at the surface is about 64 kg/m3. For a wind speed of 5 km/hour = 1.39 m/sec, the power of the wind is 86 W for 1 square meter of intercepted atmosphere. Accounting for thermodynamic inefficiency, this value will drop by a factor of 3 or so, so you get about 29 W for 1 square meter of atmosphere intercepted. That may seem like a low value, but it may be useful for running some spacecraft systems.
Another important consideration is temperature. The surface temperature is about 470 deg Celsius, or about 740 Kelvin. This means that all of your electronics have to be able to operate well at these high temperatures. This generally means using SiC for transistors and other electrical components because the more usual doped Si will not operate properly.
A final consideration is the chemical composition of the atmosphere. There is a total of about 100 ppm of various sulfur compounds (H2SO4, SO2, OCS, etc) at the surface. At high temperatures these compounds become highly corrosive to many metals, so you must choose your materials carefully to avoid metal sulfide formation.
I hope this is helpful.
With best regards,
James Lyons

My correspondence:

Sat, Dec 21, 10:41PM (9 hours ago)
Dear Dr. Lyons!
Thank you for your helpful reply, and for the hint of encouragement I think I am reading in your message.
One of our members has found a surprising number of devices that appear able to operate at the ambient temperatures on Venus.
In any case, your reply will surely be of interest!
Supply of power, even modest power, was a significant roadblock. The hint of possible wind power found by another member is the reason for my inquiry.
I'll keep watch for more articles with your byline!
(th)
tahanson43206
Dear Dr. Lyons:
Thank you for your article about Venus, published in Space.com
(https://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html)
I serve as a (Junior) moderator for one of Mars Society forums.
A member postulated that it might be possible to design a wind mill that
would operate on the surface of Venus, for the purpose of generating
power for an instrument package.
The only information I've been able to glean so far is a hint that winds
at the surface might be gentle or light.
Can you point me to a reference where a bit more information might be
available.
I understand the Soviet probes survived for brief times, but no other
on site information is available (to the best of my knowledge).
(th)

Notes on author:

James Lyons
Senior Scientist
Professional History
After completing PhD work at Caltech on atmospheric photochemistry of the outer solar system, I did a postdoc in Exobiology at UCSD in which I designed and carried an experiment to measure binding by 15-mer racemic peptides to a transition state analog to p-nitrophenyl acetate hydrolysis. It didn't work. More precisely, the histidine residues provided some catalysis, but not beyond what was expected. I returned to planetary atmospheres as a research scientist at UCLA, developing a strong focus on O and S isotope modeling for Earth atmosphere and the solar nebula. This blossomed into experimental spectroscopic work at the Soleil synchrotron in France. In 2013 I moved from UCLA to a research faculty position at ASU. I continued my work on O and S isotopes, developing a new direction for S isotope research for ancient Earth. I also added N isotopes to the mix for the solar nebula. In 2022 I moved to PSI to continue these research projects, and to explore new connections with colleagues here. For CFL bulbs, Hg isotopes are the crux. For exoplanets, I prefer condensate aerosols, which provide an isotopic respite. A key process for many of these objects is isotope effects in photodissociation. For the solar nebula, I've modeled isotope fractionation of O and N isotopes due to CO and N2 photodissociation, and what this implies for the distribution of these isotopes in the solar system. For planetary atmospheres, I've explored photochemical effects on S isotopes (ancient Earth) and O isotopes (modern Earth and Mars). For the Sun, I've revisited old measurements of C isotopes in the photosphere, with the goal of obtaining information about the Sun complementary to what Genesis has been able to provide thus far from collected solar wind samples. And what about my claims to Astrobiology? Here, my interests are still photon driven, and concern the generation of enantiomeric excesses in chiral molecules due to interaction with a circularly polarized UV radiation field. Isotopes are indirectly involved, but now as a constraint on the intensity of the UV radiation.

(th)

Void · 2024-12-22 08:57:27

(th), you might want to look into "Snow on Venus": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_snow
Quote:

Venus snow is a brightening of the radar reflection from the surface of Venus at high elevations. The "snow" appears to be a mineral condensate of lead(II) sulfide and bismuth sulfide precipitated from the atmosphere at altitudes above 2,600 m (8,500 ft).[1][2][3]

So, at least 2 different surface environments. The low altitude one may be "Supercritical of CO2", and the higher altitude one being less so.

So, these two different environments may allow for different solutions as to how to operate in them. Wind conditions may be different for instance. Not only elevations but perhaps changes in elevations may matter.

I think that for now a first "Payday" from the surface of Venus will be discovery of reality, or some might say, "The Science".

That may give "Calibration" to our understanding of what is "True". Truth may apply to places we can more easily develop, such as for instance the asteroid belt at 2.0 AU.

Sunlight at 2 AU is expected to be .25% of what the Earth will receive, as the Earth is said to be at 1.0 AU.

On the surface of Venus sunshine is not thought to be a good source of usable energy. In the orbit of Venus it might be that sunlight is twice that of the Earth. So, that seems like a lot of energy, but at 2 AU, very light concentrating mirror s could compensate relatively easily for the solar flux only being .25%. With 100% efficiency a mirror with a surface area of 8 times that of Venus, would yield a solar concentration of 2 times that for Earth.

So, from my point of view, the money from the surface of Venus is science data, at this time, but real economic activity is more likely to profit you at the 2.0 AU location in the Inner Asteroid Belt.

Just giving you an option to consider what you may wish to spend your time on.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2024-12-22 09:10:19)

tahanson43206 · 2024-12-27 22:07:14

This evening I spent an hour or so with ChatGPT4o, hoping to add a bit to my understanding of the thermal dynamics problem of operating a nuclear fission reactor on Venus. In the end, it appears there is a chance such a reactor as KRUSTY can achieve break even, and perhaps have a bit of energy left over to do something useful like taking readings and reporting them to a satellite overhead.

Understood! I will use the provided BBCode subset to create a concise, well-structured report summarizing our discussion. Here’s the formatted report for your forum:
Adapting the KRUSTY Fission Reactor for Venus Exploration
Introduction
The discussion explores the feasibility of adapting NASA's KRUSTY fission reactor for a probe operating on the surface of Venus. This is a significant challenge due to Venus's extreme conditions: ambient temperatures of 500°C, high atmospheric pressure (~92 bar), and a dense CO₂ atmosphere. The goal is to determine if the reactor can achieve thermal breakeven when used to power a refrigerator maintaining an interior temperature of 25°C.
Key Parameters
KRUSTY Reactor Specifications:
Operating Temperature: 800°C
Thermal Power Output: 4–40 kW
Electrical Power Output: 1–10 kW
Designed for radiative cooling to space or Martian environments.
Venusian Challenges:
High ambient temperature limits cooling efficiency.
Dense atmosphere introduces significant convection potential.
Radiative cooling must be supplemented by convection for effective heat dissipation.
Analysis Summary
1. Refrigerator Power Requirements:
Heat load removed: 1 kW (assumed).
Coefficient of Performance (COP): 0.63.
Power required: ~1.59 kW.
2. Heat Engine Requirements:
With a 25% efficiency Stirling engine, the thermal input needed: ~6.36 kW.
Waste heat produced by the engine: ~4.77 kW.
3. Radiator Design:
Total heat to dissipate: ~7.36 kW (engine + refrigerator waste).
Radiators must operate at high efficiency, leveraging both radiation and convection.
Dense Venusian atmosphere enhances convective heat transfer, reducing reliance on purely radiative methods.
Conclusion
The KRUSTY reactor is theoretically capable of achieving thermal breakeven on Venus. The success of this adaptation depends on:
Optimizing Stirling engine efficiency.
Designing radiators to handle the waste heat effectively.
Balancing system components to maintain operational stability.
This investigation highlights the potential for adapting proven fission reactor technology to extreme environments, offering insights into power and thermal management for future Venus exploration missions.

I'd be happy to provide more detail from the transcript, or follow up with questions from NewMars members.

(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 2024-12-20 12:16:39

Re: Venus Deeps

#6 2024-12-20 20:47:49

Re: Venus Deeps

#7 2024-12-20 21:54:11

Re: Venus Deeps

#8 2024-12-21 11:09:20

Re: Venus Deeps

#9 2024-12-21 12:25:24

Re: Venus Deeps

#10 2024-12-22 07:04:47

Re: Venus Deeps

#11 2024-12-22 08:57:27

Re: Venus Deeps

#12 2024-12-27 22:07:14

Re: Venus Deeps

Adapting the KRUSTY Fission Reactor for Venus Exploration

Board footer