In discussions I've read on planetary climate modelling one idea is that if Venus had an atmosphere like Earth's but 50%+ thicker and an ocean covering 70% of it (like Earth) you'd get an ideal situation. Because of the strong sunlight and slow spin you'd get a tendency for thick storm clouds continuously covering whatever part of the planet was experiencing mid-day, shielding the planet from the strongest and hottest rays of the (60% stronger) sunlight. The warmth would convect to the night side keeping things from getting too cold. Depending on the conditions it's possible that below-freezing temperatures wouldn't even be common in the depth of the night.
The long night seems like a problem for life but forests already thrive in the warmer parts of the near-arctic. And in times past even Antarctica had tropical rainforests despite experiencing a polar night. Another idea I had was building a ring around the planet of dark material, perhaps of left over carbon after we cleaned up the CO2 rich atmosphere. The dark ring would provide shade to certain parts of the planet during the day and would reflect light for the long night.
I've read about many terraforming ideas such as these, and I really think they're kinda pointless, because it would probably be MUCH easier to just build O'Neal cylinders. With those, you can create artificial habitats with the exact parameters you want, instead of trying to change an entire planet so be somewhat habitable by humans.
The idea of living in a can floating in space, while conceptually cool, just does not seem like an appealing lifestyle to me. They also seem very fragile. One explosion, pebble-sized meteorite, failed life-support system or out of control ship could rip a hole in the structure and kill everyone on board. I'd much prefer a planet where there could be some degree of freedom.
Sounds like a sure fire recipe for a (permanent?) super intense electrical storm in right that spot.
Might make that specific latitude uninhabitable due to the planet turning. Though it could be worth the trade off, due to there being a bunch of available land on the planet in other latitudes.
If you have some truly huge arrays of super capacitors such a permanent electrical storm might even be useful. :)
Sounds sorta fun IMO. With the slower rotation of the planet and the rotational winds being slower maybe there would be less lightning. IDK though, I'm talking out of my ass.
Still, even then it will take, what, about a century to get rid of the CO2? (Does it even count as an "atmosphere" at ground level, given that it's past the critical point and the distinction between liquid and gas phases no longer exists?)
Oh, I'm sure it'll take at least several decades and more likely centuries but getting a new planet would be worth it. Seems like a harder project than terraforming Mars but in the end it would be a nicer place in my estimation. With only 7% less gravity, nearly as much surface area and without the dim sun that Mars has I think I'd rather live there.
But that new planet has the exact same fate as Earth in that the Sun will eventually devour it. The only way for the species to survive longer than the sun is to find other planets around other stars at different stages of their life cycles. Yeah, I agree. Expecting the species to survive that long is a bit optimistic.
Yeah seems like with our current physics, almost everything can be cheated out, except mass and gravity. There's no other solid Earth-sized mass now other than Venus so it may be our only real potential second home.
You can cheat gravity with a centrifuge; when the alternative is on the scale of "let's freeze or boil away Venus's atmospheric", building a city-sized rotating cylinder to live in is trivial.
Kurzgesagt has a good youtube video of the idea. It's wacky and unrealistic in some ways but doesn't violate any laws of physics and seems feasible to the sort of advanced civilization we humans hope to have in many decades.
If going that far, use the sunlight for power / in space solar ovens. Just make sure to limit how much power goes to Venus because that will increase the net energy in that envelope.
One of the options is to use the mirrors to boil off the atmosphere, the other is to keep the sunlight away for so long the atmosphere almost entirely condenses and can then be paved over; either way, it was a long wait.
You can't "boil off" the atmosphere. You need to accelerate the gas molecules past the planetary escape velocity, otherwise they'll just cool down and drop back onto the surface.
There's no realistic way to evacuate that much gas (the surface pressure on Venus is almost 100 atmospheres!).
One option is first to cover the surface of Venus with water, by first creating giant orbital mirrors to let the atmosphere to cool. Then you can sequester the carbon dioxide as elemental carbon under the water surface. Oxygen released in the process will be naturally consumed by all the underoxidized minerals present on Venus.
I think there are thrusters on the Russian side of the station. They aren't large but they move the stations orientation for docking sometimes. (And cartwheels for fun and horror)
It does have thrusters used for orbital correction about monthly, (and maybe dodging debris here and there,) but it's fair to say that system is not for taking trips or anything.
Even less than that - most of the station-keeping is supplied by visiting spacecraft; the thrusters on the (ancient, failing) Zvezda module appear to be rarely used.
There’s no money or geopolitical strategic importance in it, and “we” didn’t go to the moon, a saber-rattling warmongering government did using oodles of tax money and repurposed ICBMs (Mercury/Gemini).
I think perhaps Dr Strangelove is more educational about the cultural climate around the Apollo program than almost any other media.
Hopefully with vastly reduced cost to LEO it will be put within the reach of normal people who aren’t engaged in the dance of WW3 nuclear brinksmanship.
> Parents generation really dropped the … ball there
Really probably your grandparents or great grandparents depending on your age. Most Americans born after the moon landings had boomer or gen-x parents. All the men who walked on the moon and the majority of those in high office until roughly the 1990s were silent generation, the GI generation or older. They’re the ones who had the power to keep the space program going but didn’t. Once your parents had significant influence the Apollo program was long gone, the know how to build the hardware was gone, they would have had an even harder time than us rebuilding it because the commercial impetus wasn’t there and we didn’t yet have insane internet billionaires competing for launch contracts.
I want to live long enough to see a viable test of larger spaceships that could send humans to Mars. I really want to live long enough to discover evidence of at least microbial life elsewhere in the solar system - Mars seems like the obvious place we can reach with a good chance for it be possible. I know there's amazingly water vapor around Europa, that's so much more remote.
I think about 30 years should lead to more exploration of Mars, and maybe multiple landers andn robots getting there from here, maybe even a return trip. (human travel to Mars feels so far out, even if Starship works out in the next 10 years).
Yeah we bemoan how short-sighted people are, but that's because we only live for a handful of decades. Think of the kind of progress that we could achieve if people were free to follow their dreams for centuries, alongside the kind of respect for the life and nature that would be necessary to live as a citizen of the world for that long.
True, today time is the greatest equalizer. Even the rich and powerful will eventually kick the bucket and leave the future for others. If life extension takes off, the rich and powerful may live forever, while the less fortunate may still be mortal.