-----------------------------------

zod

02 Dec 2017 23:39



-----------------------------------

Teraformarea planetei  Venus
Teraformarea planetei Venus se poate realiza.
(Conditii habitabile exista in norii venusieni ori sub patura de acid sulfuric intre 40 si 50 km altitudine, fie deasupra acesteia la cca. 70 km altitudine, fie in interiorul paturii de acid sulfuric in zona norilor bine definiti evitand contactul cu acestia).
In timp ce se formează scutul supra-atmosferic din micro-bule helionice umplute cu hidrogen, temperatura atmosferei va scadea gradual.
Venus are apa atmosferică in atmosfera inalta, in subteran si sub forma acidului sulfuric care redus cu CaO din crusta prin asteroizi si detonatii termonucleare se obtine sulfat de calciu plus apa.
	In final ar fi un ocean adanc de cativa zeci de metrii sau sute de metrii, majoritatea regenerat din reactia acidului sulfuric din atmosfera cu oxizii de carbon si alti oxizi de la suprafata planetei.
	Prima data ar trebui sa racim planeta cu scutul helionic, apoi sa reducem CO2 atmosferic cu oxizii de calciu si metalici din crusta venusiana prin detonatii termonucleare pana vom obtine 20% oxigen ca pe Pamant.
S-ar putea ca prin racire acidul sulfuric sa ajunga la sol si sa se transforme in apa, astfel ca o parte a acestei ape ar spala atmosfera venusiana.
	Probabil ca CO2 si acidul sulfuric ar reactiona la comun cu generare si regenerare de apa, acid carbonic, sulfati, acizi, saruri complexe, samd.
	Totusi primul pas ar fi detonatiile la sol pentru regenerarea apei din acidul sulfuric atmosferic, s-ar obtine astfel si oxigen si carbonati, carbon, etc.
Detonatiile atmosferice ar putea fi pasul urmator de conversie a CO2 in carbon si oxigen.
	Niste bombe atomice ecologice transatmosferice ar scinda direct CO2 venusian in cantitati uriase de carbon si oxigen, probabil ar fi cea mai rapida si la indemana solutie. In final Venus va fi o planeta albastră cu oceane intinse dar putin adanci cca. 1 metru adancime.
	Asadar avem nevoie in primul rand de rachete nucleare transhidrogen   D-T-H cu initiere ecologică curată si ieftina.
Ar fi necesara convertirea a mai putin de 10% din atmosfera de CO2, mai exact cca. 2 % din total, adică echivalentul cantitatii de oxigen din atmosfera terestra la presiunea de 1 atmosferă (in timp ce CO2 in atmosfera terestra are o concentratie extrem de mica mai degraba simbolica cca. 0,04%,).
Azotul venusian este 3,5%, ceea ce ar echivala cu 300 % in atmosfera terestră, adică azot 100% la 1 atmosferă, dar ar fi azot 100% la 3 atmosfere de azot echivalent in atmosfera terestră.
In realitate probabil azotul venusian se gaseste cam in aceasi cantitate ca in atmosfera Pamantului, deci cu el nu am avea prea multa bataie de cap.
In final temperatura va fi putin mai mare decat pe Pamant ceea ce va face ca la polii planetei sa fie temperaturi constante de 27-35C si ziua continua tot timpul si tot aici va ploua, ceea ce va face ca dioxidul de carbon sa se fixeze in marile putin adanci proaspat formate.
De asemenea niste bombe atomice ecologice vor fi detonate in zonele bogate in calciu pentru eliberarea de pulbere calcica pentru formarea carbonatului de calciu in contact cu atmosfera venusiana inca fierbinte pe la 100-200 C.
Azotul venusian pare a se gasi in aceeasi concentratie ca si pe Pamant, doar oxigenul va trebui eliberat din CO2.
Asadar asteroizi si comete deturnate pe Venus care vor aduce calciu si metale ce vor reactiona cu CO2 reducand atmosfera la carbonati solizi si stabili, plus bombe nucleare ecologice care vor reactiva multi vulcani.
Asteroizii ce vor reusi sa atinga solul venusian si macar printr-o unda de soc vor putea ridica praf si sol venusian in atmosfera intregii planete, din nou rezultand carbonati.
Calcium oxide is usually made by the thermal decomposition of materials, such as limestone or seashells, that contain calcium carbonate (CaCO3; mineral calcite) in a lime kiln. 
This is accomplished by heating the material to above 825 °C (1,517 °F),[6] a process called calcination or lime-burning, to liberate a molecule of carbon dioxide (CO2), leaving quicklime.
CaCO3(s) → CaO(s) + CO2(g)
The quicklime is not stable and, when cooled, will spontaneously react with CO2 from the air until, after enough time, it will be completely converted back to calcium carbonate unless slaked with water to set as lime plaster or lime mortar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxide
Asadar prin racirea atmosferei venusiene sub +178 C, suprafata de CaO, va reactiona imediat cu CO2 atmosferic generand calcar stabil.
In acest sens vom utiliza asteroizi si bombe nucleare ecologice, dar mai intai un scut criogenic planetar din microsfere helionice umplute cu hidrogen sau heliu.
Deci am putea scapa de CO2 venusian, mai dificil ar fi sa regeneram oxigenul venusian din CO2 prin producerea de hidrogen din apele freatice venusiene cat si prin  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting#Thermal_decomposition_of_water
At the very high temperature of 3000 °C more than half of the water molecules are decomposed, but at ambient temperatures only one molecule in 100 trillion dissociates by the effect of heat.
Some prototype Generation IV reactors, such as the High-temperature engineering test reactor, operate at 850 to 1000 degrees Celsius, considerably hotter than existing commercial nuclear power plants. General Atomics predicts that hydrogen produced in a High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor (HTGR) would cost $1.53/kg. In 2003, steam reforming of natural gas yielded hydrogen at $1.40/kg. At 2005 gas prices, hydrogen cost $2.70/kg.[citation needed] Hence, just within the United States, a savings of tens of billions of dollars per year is possible with a nuclear-powered supply. Much of this savings would translate into reduced oil and natural gas imports.
One side benefit of a nuclear reactor that produces both electricity and hydrogen is that it can shift production between the two. For instance, the plant might produce electricity during the day and hydrogen at night, matching its electrical generation profile to the daily variation in demand. If the hydrogen can be produced economically, this scheme would compete favorably with existing grid energy storage schemes. What is more, there is sufficient hydrogen demand in the United States that all daily peak generation could be handled by such plants.[16]

Another possible source of hydrogen could be extracting it from possible reservoirs in the core of the planet itself. 	
According to some researchers the Earth's core might hold large quantities of hydrogen.[20] Since the inner structure of Earth and Venus are generally believed to be somewhat similar, the same might be true for the core of Venus.
Iron aerosol in the atmosphere will also be required for the reaction to work, and iron can come from Mercury, asteroids, or the Moon. (Loss of hydrogen due to the solar wind is unlikely to be significant on the timescale of terraforming.) 
Due to the relatively flat surface, this water would cover about 80% of the surface, compared to 70% for Earth, even though it would amount to only roughly 10% of the water found on Earth.[citation needed]
The remaining atmosphere, at around 3 bars (about three times that of Earth), would mainly be composed of nitrogen, some of which will dissolve into the new oceans of water, reducing atmospheric pressure further, in accordance with Henry's law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus#Introduction_of_hydrogen
 
 
 
 
But I’m here to convince you that we have another neighbor that might be a better candidate for human colonization: Venus.
Venus gets a bad rep. It is known as the “hell planet” due to surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead but it wasn’t always that way. In fact, until the Soviet Venera missions in the 1960s, the planet was largely a mystery, shrouded in dense yellow clouds.
Quite a bit of science fiction was written about Venus in the early 1900s. Many stories were written about a wet, tropical paradise of a planet. The reason the Soviets sent so many probes to Venus was that the world believed that Venus could be a suitable planet for colonization. Venus has had more probes sent to it than Mars at 40 to 38 respectively.
 
Number of probes to different celestial locations
There was a real hope that Venus could be terraformed to a more Earth-like place but that hope vanished in 1967 with the data from Venera 4 and Mariner 5 which confirmed without a shadow-of-a-doubt that Venus was a hot, dry, desert planet. The science fiction community responded to this news with the publication of Farewell Fantastic Venus in 1968, a collection of hopeful short stories about the planet before the real Venus was known. This essentially put an end to the popular opinions about Venus and a slowdown in scientific probes being sent to the planet.
Currently there are only two proposed probes for Venus, Venera-D and the Venus In-Situ Explorer, but there are five proposed probes for Mars. When the public opinion shifted away from our sister planet, it shifted towards our red neighbor Mars.
But what if we were wrong to throw Venus out the window? What if, in our Earth-centric idea of terraforming, we tossed aside a perfectly good candidate for space colonization?
 
A terraformed Venus. src: http://orig08.deviantart.net/d9b2/f/2009/320/0/4/terraformed_venus_by_watsisname.jpg
Now we can’t talk about Venus and Mars colonization without discussing terraforming. Terraforming is the act of changing a planet to be more Earth-like. However, in colonization the aim is to not “terraform” a planet because that may not be in the best interests for the human species or the most economical. The phrase planetary engineering is used to describe the tools and processes used to change a planet in such a way that humans can live on it. The last part of that statement “such a way that humans can live on it” could be a range of environments that is much dependent on the initial state of the planet and the constraints set upon the settlers on adapting to that environment. Chemical volatiles, temperature, pressure, radiation, gravity, economics and psychology all need to be taken into account when planning for human habitation of a place beyond Earth.
Planetary engineering is an unbiased approach to the act of changing a planet. The planet can be taken as is, without the need to change it just so that it becomes more Earth-like. 
Certain qualities, despite not being what we’re used to, would still fall well within human limits for livability. For example, we don’t have to live in a 24 hour day/night cycle. We also don’t need to live on the surface of a planet.
Venus has a lot of good things going for it making it a better prospect than Mars. It’s closer than Mars (4 month trip vs 6 month trip), has a similar gravity (0.9g vs 0.38g), has a longer window of time to potentially launch (every 19 months vs 26 months), has an atmosphere and an induced magnetosphere from it’s ionosphere. Here’s the real kicker: 50 to 55 kilometers above the surface of Venus, the planet has a similar pressure and temperature to Earth. In fact, Venus might be one of the only places in the entire solar system where you can find a similar gravity, pressure and temperature as Earth. The problem is that it’s high up in the clouds.
 But here’s where things get interesting: because Venus has an atmosphere of 95% CO2, and the density of pure CO2 is 1.96g/L as opposed to Earth air density of 1.25g/L. This means that a spacecraft filled with normal air would have an effect similar to helium on Venus.
A properly designed spacecraft could float on top of the clouds. Think of it as a flying submarine. In addition, there wouldn’t need to be any concern for explosive decompression as the ambient pressure is equal to the internal pressure. Any leak in the craft would be a slow exchange of gases.
Currently there’s a bit of “surfacism” in the scientific community. Humans are so used to living on the ground that any idea to the contrary is greeted with skepticism. Since we can’t live on the ground on Venus, we can’t live there at all.
It would be far easier to set up a colony in the upper atmosphere of Venus than it would be to colonize Mars.
Because the colony is in the upper atmosphere, it takes less energy for an orbital insertion into the gravity well. The atmosphere allows for quicker aerobraking and the deployment of spacecraft. This is important because it means that less energy is needed to escape from the gravity well of the planet, thus enabling return trips.
The window of launch (every 19 months) and the length of the voyage (4 months) is also lessened, this means that supply ships can come and go faster and more frequently, ensuring constant support for the initial colonists.

On Venus, there is a minimized risk of radiation due to the weak induced ionosphere. This is vastly different than Mars which has no magnetosphere.
Venus also has two times the solar insolation as Earth which means that any solar panels used on Venus would have a much better efficiency. In addition, the reflective cloud cover allows solar panels to be placed on any surface of the craft and still receive a similar amount of solar energy.
 There are a number of problems with Venus that may actually provide an advantage to living on the planet.
First, Venus rotates in retrograde. It is thought that a catastrophic collision caused Venus to flip its rotation. The planet spins clockwise very slowly, once every 243 Earth days. It’s day is longer than it’s year (116 days).
This could actually be an advantage to Venus. The slow rotation means that a powered aircraft could stay in constant sunlight with very minimal effort. In addition, this allows for plants to grow with maximum sunlight. The CO2 atmosphere would also help immensely with plant growth.

Secondly, Venus has wind speeds of over 200 miles/hour in the upper atmosphere. However, this is limited to the equator; close to the poles and at greater than 55 degrees in latitude, the wind speed decreases to less than 22 miles/hour above the cloud cover, a much more manageable amount. you would only have to fly at the same speed as a slow-moving car to stay in the same location. In addition, in the polar regions the temperature is much more stable with swings of less than 27 F (15 C), well within Earth-normal.
Lastly, the problem that Venus has is the lack of water and the abundance of sulfuric acid. Although difficult to deal with, this is not an insurmountable problem. The corrosive acid could be an essential source of hydrogen ions in order to make water, and with the proper coatings of PIBO, surfaces can be protected against the acidic clouds.
Due to the high density of CO2, properly attired colonists could fly around the clouds of Venus with relative ease. Also, the colony could be a good testing ground for carbon-fixing technology that would have the effect of reversing global warming on Earth.
Certain microorganisms would do incredibly well in the Venusian atmosphere. Geobacter sulfuredducens is a microbe that reduces sulfur in order to generate electricity. Modified geobacter could generate the constituent components of liquid water while also producing electricity for the colony.
Additionally the carbon source in the atmosphere makes a perfect substrate for the growth of carbon-based structures. Mycological growth could be tailored to build constantly expanding, lightweight platforms that support the expansion of Venusian colonies.
 All-in-all Venus seems like a much more likely prospect of prolonged human habitation than Mars. Let’s move away from wanting to transform other planets to be exactly like Earth. If we refocus our efforts on our sister planet, pretty soon we could be living among the clouds in eternal sunlight. ER.