[LINK] "Should we terraform Venus first?"
Oct. 12th, 2012 07:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldio9's George Dvorsky argued that, if humanity is going to terraform worlds in the solar system, it should start not with the relatively more clement Mars but rather with Venus.
(I'd be remiss not to mention my 2010 post about terraforming options in the solar system. Wikimedia's Itzin created the below fetching image of a terraformed Venus.)
Why? Dvorsky's argument is that although Venus is more difficult, surface conditions on Venus are potentially more clement and dealing with Venus' atmospheric conditions--specifically the runaway-greenhouse carbon dioxide-dominated atmosphere--could be very useful for us.
Dvorsky goes on to note that to be fully terraformed, Venus would need to be transformed in almost every respect, from the content and temperature of its atmosphere to its rate of rotation about its axis to its lack of life.
Myself, I suspect that if geoengineering the Earth and terraforming Venus are ever to be connected, it would be through the techniques developed on Earth being used on Venus, not the other way around. That assumes that there ever is sufficient incentive to invest vast sums and large amounts of time in transforming a planet that's unliveable to us for very good reasons--its long day, its proximity to our common sun--or that the techniques used to tinker with one world could be relevant to another different one. It's a fetching dream, but I'm skeptical of its plausibility.
(I'd be remiss not to mention my 2010 post about terraforming options in the solar system. Wikimedia's Itzin created the below fetching image of a terraformed Venus.)
Why? Dvorsky's argument is that although Venus is more difficult, surface conditions on Venus are potentially more clement and dealing with Venus' atmospheric conditions--specifically the runaway-greenhouse carbon dioxide-dominated atmosphere--could be very useful for us.
[I]t's fairly safe to suggest that the terraforming of Venus would pose a set of problems far greater than what would await us on Mars. But that isn't necessarily a valid reason to terraform Mars first. As already noted, the insights we would glean from a Venus terraforming project could serve us well given our climate change problems here on Earth. It's even fair to say that the simple exercise of thinking about it — the brainstorming of ideas — may help us deal with — and even acknowledge — our current climate crisis.
But Venus poses other advantages as well. It's closer than Mars, making it easier and quicker to travel back and forth. And like the Earth, it resides within the solar system's habitable zone. We also know it can hold an atmosphere (obviously), and it has nearly the same mass and size as Earth. Mars, on the other hand, is considerably smaller, and would pose serious health risks to humans (reduced muscle mass and bone density) on account of its low gravity.
Dvorsky goes on to note that to be fully terraformed, Venus would need to be transformed in almost every respect, from the content and temperature of its atmosphere to its rate of rotation about its axis to its lack of life.
Myself, I suspect that if geoengineering the Earth and terraforming Venus are ever to be connected, it would be through the techniques developed on Earth being used on Venus, not the other way around. That assumes that there ever is sufficient incentive to invest vast sums and large amounts of time in transforming a planet that's unliveable to us for very good reasons--its long day, its proximity to our common sun--or that the techniques used to tinker with one world could be relevant to another different one. It's a fetching dream, but I'm skeptical of its plausibility.
