3 ms·

Keeping carbon persistently out of the atmosphere would be hard, if you are freeing oxygen. One alternative would be to make diamonds out of the extracted carb

Keeping carbon persistently out of the atmosphere would be hard, if you are freeing oxygen. One alternative would be to make diamonds out of the extracted carbon and drop them to the ground. The released oxygen could then bind to crustal aluminum, iron, silicon, calcium, etc. Venus has sadly little hydrogen, so you won't get oceans.

rad88 4y ago
Might the lighter O2 naturally rise away from the organics layer? It may then be able to oxidize metals and meteors sprayed into the upper atmosphere, eventually falling back down with those compounds to fertilize the substrate.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  Wind speed is hundreds of km/h. So, "turbulent mixing processes" rule. There is plenty of un-oxidized material on the ground. Oxygen just needs to be kept off the carbon. And, it needs stirring. Big meteors could do a bit of that. Earth gets its stirring from tectonics, which Venus lacks.
credit_guy 4y ago
Just for a sense of scale, the venusian atmosphere has a mass of about half a billion GigaTons, 97% of which is CO2. Here on Earth, with all our industrial infrastructure, the substances we produce the most (iron and concrete) are in the low single digits GigaTons per year. The next ones (fertilizers and plastics) are in the hundreds of megatons per year. If you want to make a difference on Venus, you'd need to make millions of time more diamonds each year in some balloons in the skies than we make iron here on Earth.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  It is a matter of how big a hurry you are in. But, yes, it would be pointless to try terraforming Venus without von Neumann machines, and then it would end up thick with those, instead. The Kuiper Belt offers more than the inner planets, provided energy is solved e.g. via aneutronic fusion.
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    > provided energy is solved e.g. via aneutronic fusion You can use regular fission as a dense energy source. If you are worried about the waste, you can just blow it up. In space there's no fallout. The particles from the explosion will just move radially forever. Most of them (99.9999..%, too many nines to count) will keep moving for billions of years through empty space without encountering anything. Oh, and as a curiosity, if you blow up a nuke in space, there's no fireball. The fireball we see in movies of nuke detonations are due to the air absorbing the X-rays from the nuke and becoming overheated plasma. But there's no air in space, so a nuke explosion is invisible and silent.
    - pencilguin 4y ago
      Fission is not a good energy solution for the outer solar system (except maybe on Titan) because of the need for a detour through a clunky heat engine. Likewise, hot-neutron fusion. Layered mirrors concentrating monochromatic solar irradiation into laser cavities, and beaming power to where needed, is the fallback until aneutronic fusion works.
zeristor 4y ago
Just to chip in, that life on Earth produced oxygen from photosynthesis, which over billions of years oxidised the iron in the ocean producing the iron ore beds as it precipitated out. This occurred in stages.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  To work, it needed stirring from plate tectonics.

rad88 4y ago

Might the lighter O2 naturally rise away from the organics layer? It may then be able to oxidize metals and meteors sprayed into the upper atmosphere, eventually falling back down with those compounds to fertilize the substrate.

pencilguin 4y ago
Wind speed is hundreds of km/h. So, "turbulent mixing processes" rule. There is plenty of un-oxidized material on the ground. Oxygen just needs to be kept off the carbon. And, it needs stirring. Big meteors could do a bit of that. Earth gets its stirring from tectonics, which Venus lacks.

credit_guy 4y ago

Just for a sense of scale, the venusian atmosphere has a mass of about half a billion GigaTons, 97% of which is CO2. Here on Earth, with all our industrial infrastructure, the substances we produce the most (iron and concrete) are in the low single digits GigaTons per year. The next ones (fertilizers and plastics) are in the hundreds of megatons per year. If you want to make a difference on Venus, you'd need to make millions of time more diamonds each year in some balloons in the skies than we make iron here on Earth.

pencilguin 4y ago
It is a matter of how big a hurry you are in. But, yes, it would be pointless to try terraforming Venus without von Neumann machines, and then it would end up thick with those, instead. The Kuiper Belt offers more than the inner planets, provided energy is solved e.g. via aneutronic fusion.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > provided energy is solved e.g. via aneutronic fusion You can use regular fission as a dense energy source. If you are worried about the waste, you can just blow it up. In space there's no fallout. The particles from the explosion will just move radially forever. Most of them (99.9999..%, too many nines to count) will keep moving for billions of years through empty space without encountering anything. Oh, and as a curiosity, if you blow up a nuke in space, there's no fireball. The fireball we see in movies of nuke detonations are due to the air absorbing the X-rays from the nuke and becoming overheated plasma. But there's no air in space, so a nuke explosion is invisible and silent.
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    Fission is not a good energy solution for the outer solar system (except maybe on Titan) because of the need for a detour through a clunky heat engine. Likewise, hot-neutron fusion. Layered mirrors concentrating monochromatic solar irradiation into laser cavities, and beaming power to where needed, is the fallback until aneutronic fusion works.

zeristor 4y ago

Just to chip in, that life on Earth produced oxygen from photosynthesis, which over billions of years oxidised the iron in the ocean producing the iron ore beds as it precipitated out. This occurred in stages.

pencilguin 4y ago
To work, it needed stirring from plate tectonics.