Terraformation of Mars (opinions or ideas)

[foodchain]

No way they could set up a habitat on the surface, but that doesn't mean they couldn't establish a habitat on Venus. Check out this article on colonizing Venus.

 

Article aside the atmosphere of Venus is nothing but CO2, the greenhouse effect from that makes Venus a planet much warmer then even mercury. Its not just the heat you have to deal with, but the atmosphere in general is poisonous, to add to this the pressure on the surface of Venus is crushing overall, as it would be going some depth into the ocean for instance. I wont say its impossible but for the sake of simply investing energy I think mars has a better shot at supporting life.

 

Another thing about mars.

 

"Evidence That the Reactivity of the Martian Soil Is Due to Superoxide Ions"

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5486/1909

 

I think once people figure out what it will take for a certain size populous of people to obtain homeostasis and mental stability, then of course you can add on to the technology to match the environment. I really doubt such an endeavor wont stress our technological and scientific abilities to the max though.

[SkepticLance]

Pat.

 

There are serious logistical problems with a floating habitat on Venus. Almost every last gram of substance in a colony must come from the planet, since transport from Earth is prohibitively expensive. On Mars, it could be done, with everything from soil to metals mined from the surface. On Venus, even getting to the surface and remaining alive would be pretty much impossible, much less mining enough minerals to build a floating habitat.

[Pat Says]

Article aside the atmosphere of Venus is nothing but CO2, the greenhouse effect from that makes Venus a planet much warmer then even mercury. Its not just the heat you have to deal with, but the atmosphere in general is poisonous, to add to this the pressure on the surface of Venus is crushing overall, as it would be going some depth into the ocean for instance. I wont say its impossible but for the sake of simply investing energy I think mars has a better shot at supporting life.

Lol, I think you should try reading the article... or at least the title of the article.

Thanks for the link though.

 

SkepticLance:

 

Even when going to Mars you need to bring starter materials. On Venus you could use inflatable habitats and of course bring the necessary amount of food, water, etc. to start with. After that though, you can get all the major organic materials from the atmosphere. There is a lot of sulfuric acid and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Using the solar energy from the sun and also from the reflected light off the clouds you could power both the habitat and the processes for breaking the atmospheric gases down into needed items (i.e water, hydrogen as fuel, oxygen, and nitrogen). Food would likely be the only thing needed from Earth but you would basically run into that problem anywhere.

 

As for metals, though not necessary for a colony to survive, Venus actually has a prime location for reaching the asteroid belt. Any attempt to the outer solar system uses Venus to slingshot them there. So, if you are already at Venus this makes the travel time that much quicker. Mars also isn't the best location in terms of mining for metals.

 

Also, when a food supply chain would go to Venus they could bring more inflatable habs each time until the floating colony is large enough to begin its own agricultural harvesting. Once that is established then the food shipments would decrease in frequency significantly. Mars would need food just as often as Venus would but in this case it would be cheaper for Venus because it is much closer than Mars.

[immortal]

On the other hand, if the Earth actually has a good atmosphere and its temperature has never varied by more than 30 degrees, what makes anybody believe that any other planet in our solar system actually could be terraformed to Earthlike conditions? I see a bunch of people who throw in their ideas about how to manipulate the system, but the only way it will work is in tiny little microcosms. Is it really worth it, other than for mining purposes? The cold, hard facts are that it is really cold or really hot everywhere else in our solar system, and it is not going to change, except for in the realm of our imagination. Why would we even consider such plans, other than for mining purposes? Of course, moons and asteroids and maybe Mars will be the only suitable candidates for mining until we have motherships capable of landing and taking off of planets. Until then, we obviously just follow China's lead and instate the one baby rule when the time comes. But, it's entertaining to see the input.

 

Yes it is worth terraforming mars it has become more of a necessity than worth. Sooner or later we have to leave earth because the resources are decreasing and the population is increasing.

 

According to James Lovelock the entropy (amount of disorder) of a system reduces if there is life prevailing in the system. The whole earth acts as one system to maintain the temperature just right for life to go on. You don't have to manipulate the system instead just add life then natural selection will do its job. No one manipulated the life on earth.

 

Yes the only way it will work is by sending tiny micro organisms and wait for a million years so that the planet becomes habitable and we already have one the bacterium Deinococcus Radiodurans has the ability to withstand extreme radiations which is common on mars and we can use this bacteria to produce useful drugs, pure water etc..

 

Sayonara said :

 

Why are you obsessed with settlers living underground on Mars? It's not "almost certain" at all, it's unnecessary and economically stupid and therefore remarkably unlikely.

 

Currently, due to the very thin atmosphere, and , compared to Earth, minimal magnetic field, there is a high radiation flux reaching the surface of Mars. Settlers will need to be protected from this, and will only be able to stand a certain amount of time on the surface. The easiest form of protection is to build dwellings underground. A few metres of rock above our heads would be enough to cut the radiation to acceptable levels.

 

I don't think thats a good idea even rocks give off radiation and over time they give off enough radiation to kill normal cells.

[SkepticLance]

To immortal

 

Radiation from rocks is well within tolerable limits, as shown by the very large number of people over human history who have chosen to live in rocky caves.

 

To tell you the truth, I have felt for a long time that the best new area to colonise is space itself. To colonise Mars, or Venus, we will have to build elaborate habitats with seriously complex life support systems. Why not build those habitats and life support systems in space?

 

A suitable set of expeditions to an asteroid or satellite can use the raw materials on said asteroid or statellite to build the space habitat.

 

By building them in the form of a spinning cylinder, we have gravity. Our habitat can move freely in space with an ion drive and a little reaction mass. It can move between asteroids, and satellites, and pick up the ice and minerals needed by its inhabitants. It is much easier to travel from Earth to a space habitat and back, than to and from a colony on Mars, since you do not have to fight a second planet's gravity well.

 

The space habitat can move to any part of the solar system as required for gaining new materials, or even set off to the next stellar system when ready.

 

I could envisage a time, perhaps 50,000 years in the future, when most of humanity was on a few billion space habitats that freely travel between star systems, and slowly move outwards to colonise our galaxy.

[Realitycheck]

Yes it is worth terraforming mars it has become more of a necessity than worth. Sooner or later we have to leave earth because the resources are decreasing and the population is increasing.

 

According to James Lovelock the entropy (amount of disorder) of a system reduces if there is life prevailing in the system. The whole earth acts as one system to maintain the temperature just right for life to go on. You don't have to manipulate the system instead just add life then natural selection will do its job. No one manipulated the life on earth.

 

Yes the only way it will work is by sending tiny micro organisms and wait for a million years so that the planet becomes habitable and we already have one the bacterium Deinococcus Radiodurans has the ability to withstand extreme radiations which is common on mars and we can use this bacteria to produce useful drugs, pure water etc..

 

 

 

I don't think thats a good idea even rocks give off radiation and over time they give off enough radiation to kill normal cells.

 

So what you are saying is that if we introduce these bacteria, ship all kinds of gases over, torch the ice so that we have water evaporating into the atmosphere, and every other idea ever developed on how to terraform Mars, are you saying that this, in itself, will adjust the temperatures upwards to Earth-like norms, all the way out there in Mars orbit? I just don't see it happening. Solar radiation levels are exactly what they are, not something that can be manipulated.

 

Oh, wait. If we build a sphere of plexiglass around Mars, then we can trap the gas in permanently, heat and insulate the planet, and even condition the gas levels to our liking (or at least until the next meteroid hits).

[Sayonara]

Yes it is worth terraforming mars it has become more of a necessity than worth. Sooner or later we have to leave earth because the resources are decreasing and the population is increasing.

That's not really an argument for colonising Mars, is it? Seeing as Earth will have to inject resources into Mars to keep it running, never mind start it off.

[YT2095]

I have 2 other ideas (far more feasible!) how about taking up, collapsible frame aluminised Mylar sheets with each sheet having a tag on the back in the middle with a wire and tent peg, the whole thing incl the frame will be tent-type technology.

you erect the frame to spread the mylar sheet, and pull the wire tag at the back to adjust the focal point to make a solar concentrator reflector, this can be used to melt ice into water.

 

now comes my Next Brainwave, we take up thickish polyprop bags, like the sort you take camping with you that has a little Tap on it, they colapse to almost nothing, but fill them with water and they become a Cube shape water carrier with a tap and handle

 

ok, well that`s the principal, now make these into interlocking Lego bricks bags, get to mars, fill each with sand or whatever dust and crap you find, then add the water you just melted, leave them in a cold spot for a day or 2 (there will be plenty cold spots) to solidify.

you`ve just made a variation of Picrete! that stuff is practically Bullet proof too!

 

assemble your shelter or stores or whatever as you would with any other Brick here.

 

ok it`s not the Entire picture, but it`s a good start!

[Reaper]

I remember reading something on this quite a while ago, and they talked about having humans settle near the polar regions. Humans up there would not be in the worst of the dust storms should they occur, and it is possible to set up greenhouses that can filter out the worst radiation and most UV's (its gonna be a bit of a challenge to block out those nasty gamma rays though).

 

I also remember reading about bringing in extremophlites that would feed off of the sulfur in the Martian rocks and release some form of greenhouse gases such as methane.

 

I think while it may be possible to build underground, you need to consider the ability to maintain crops (which need the sun), or otherwise we are dependent on Earth until terra-forming is complete.

[SkepticLance]

To Lockheed

 

Growing crops on Mars will require an artificial environment, including artificial light. A large cavern underground, thoroughly insulated to retain heat, with daylight bulbs everywhere, liquid water, and crops in soil or hydroponics. The whole thing driven by a reactor - nuclear fission or fusion.

 

Wth enough resources (remember, this is the future, with advanced technology) it might be possible to build underground parks, for recreation.

[Sayonara]

...

 

Why can't we just do that on Earth?

 

It would sure be cheaper. And easier. And safer. And much more convenient.

[Reaper]

To Lockheed

 

Growing crops on Mars will require an artificial environment, including artificial light. A large cavern underground, thoroughly insulated to retain heat, with daylight bulbs everywhere, liquid water, and crops in soil or hydroponics. The whole thing driven by a reactor - nuclear fission or fusion.

 

Wth enough resources (remember, this is the future, with advanced technology) it might be possible to build underground parks, for recreation.

 

Why the need for that? We could just build a greenhouse on the surface. There is more than enough energy hitting Mars from the sun to allow for photosynthesis. And while there is still the question of whether liquid water exists on Mars, there is a lot of ice water which could be melted, especially around the poles. And we can easily build materials that block out most of the UV radiation (one such example is para-aminobenzoic acid which is used in sunscreen). There would be no need for a nuclear reactor.

 

In Arizona they are experimenting with the possibility of a self-sustained biodome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

 

I don't doubt that we will one day be able to build underground parks (Or do many other technological wonders), but that probably won't happen until humans are well established there.

 

...

 

Why can't we just do that on Earth?

 

It would sure be cheaper. And easier. And safer. And much more convenient.

 

We could do that, but there are questions of practicality. I don't think it would be cheap to constantly send food to Mars all the time, given Earth's escape velocity and fuel needed. It would be easier if there were biodomes on the Moon though.

 

It would probably be easier to grow food on Earth, but distribution would not be.

 

I don't know about safer. It has to survive a 6 month trip through outer space, where it would be exposed to radiation. But on the plus side the food could be easily kept sterile. And then there are the associated dangers of space craft launch, but that could be fixed with automated systems.

 

It would be more convenient but it goes back to the practicality issue. It would be much better to build a bio-dome. This way, the only material you would initially need to carry with you are nutrients, soil, etc and then just let Darwin and biological life processes take over from there.

[someguy]

Genetically altered to live in soil (not soil, just ground-up rock, probably) with no nutrients in it?

 

Might be a bit of a challenge.

 

ya... i guess it would.

 

well.. we could send a whole bunch of dead plants up there to rot or alot of fertilizer of some sort.. but i guess the problem is that anything we bring over there we don't have here anymore.

[SkepticLance]

Sayonara said :

 

Why can't we just do that on Earth?

 

It would sure be cheaper. And easier. And safer. And much more convenient.

 

That is correct. However, we will not be setting up colonies on Mars with the purpose of sending our surplus population there. I suspect the first, very small colonies will be research bases. They will need to be as independent of the Earth as possible, which means growing their own food and generating their own oxygen. This will require energy input as both heat and light.

 

After time, there will be people who are born on Mars, and they will want to make a home. Hence a larger Mars colony.

 

Lockheed said :

 

It would be more convenient but it goes back to the practicality issue. It would be much better to build a bio-dome.

 

True, but your inhabitants would be dead from cancer within a few years. As said earlier in this thread, radiation will be a major problem. The people going to Mars will receive an substantial fraction of the lethal dose while travelling through space, and some will die of cancer from that. Radiation on Mars is lower than in space, but still much higher than on Earth. To survive, people will need to have something like 10 metres of rock overhead to shield them for most of their time. Time outside that protection will be rationed.

 

Even growing plants in a biodome will be difficult. Solar radiation reaching Mars is way lower than what reaches Earth, and would have to be supplemented with artificial light. The dome would need to be heavily thermally insulated, which would probably stop light getting in anyway, and would require substantial energy input as heat to keep the environment warm enough for plant growth. And agricultural workers would have to ration their time in the dome to avoid lethal radiation. I suspect a cavern would prove simpler.

[Reaper]

 

Why can't we just do that on Earth?

 

It would sure be cheaper. And easier. And safer. And much more convenient.

 

That is correct. However, we will not be setting up colonies on Mars with the purpose of sending our surplus population there. I suspect the first, very small colonies will be research bases. They will need to be as independent of the Earth as possible, which means growing their own food and generating their own oxygen. This will require energy input as both heat and light.

 

After time, there will be people who are born on Mars, and they will want to make a home. Hence a larger Mars colony.

 

And hence it would not be very practical to constantly ship supplies to Mars.

 

Lockheed said :

 

It would be more convenient but it goes back to the practicality issue. It would be much better to build a bio-dome.

 

True' date=' but your inhabitants would be dead from cancer within a few years. As said earlier in this thread, radiation will be a major problem. The people going to Mars will receive an substantial fraction of the lethal dose while travelling through space, and some will die of cancer from that. Radiation on Mars is lower than in space, but still much higher than on Earth. To survive, people will need to have something like 10 metres of rock overhead to shield them for most of their time. Time outside that protection will be rationed.

 

Even growing plants in a biodome will be difficult. Solar radiation reaching Mars is way lower than what reaches Earth, and would have to be supplemented with artificial light. The dome would need to be heavily thermally insulated, which would probably stop light getting in anyway, and would require substantial energy input as heat to keep the environment warm enough for plant growth. And agricultural workers would have to ration their time in the dome to avoid lethal radiation. I suspect a cavern would prove simpler.[/quote']

 

 

 

Well, obviously! The types of radiation that are the biggest concern though are UV radiation from the sun and Cosmic Rays from space. We already have the materials necessary to block out most UV. But I do see your point against cosmic rays. This is the map of Mars, as taken by the Mars Odyssey spacecraft that shows radiation levels.

 

 

 

The areas listed in green show the safest parts of the planet because that is receiving the least cosmic radiation. If we were starting off on Mars, it would be safer to land and settle in the northern latitudes.

 

 

 

However, to grow plants efficiently you need the maximum amount of sunlight, hence the bio-dome. It doesn't necessarily need to be inhabited by humans, but atleast out on the surface so that you don't need to use up as much energy with artificial lighting and heating. A greenhouse can retain heat very well even under a Martian climate.

 

This is what NASA has so far in it's blueprints for a greenhouse: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/HEDS-UP/utsa.pdf

 

and

 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09apr_1.htm

 

Their ideas so far are to use sodium lighting (could pose a challenge transporting them because of pressure) and LED's. However, the greenhouse is designed to let in sunlight for maximum efficiency. Also, on the surface, there is the possibility of solar power. Again, humans don't have to live inside the greenhouse; they could stay underground and go in the greenhouse when harvesting.

 

Of course, as you said before, we are dealing with the future here, and so NASA has even discussed using nanotech and biotech to help with radiation and photosynthesis problems in this article here (I know its a repeat of the article I presented earlier, but it does talk about nanotech): http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast09apr_1.htm

 

and this one by the European Space Agency is good too, which talks about using genes from extremophlites to create radiation resistant crops (and humans ):

 

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1901&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

 

Initially you are going to want radiation protection in the starting stages of terraforming until the atmosphere is thick enough to block out most radiation.

 

<EDIT>

 

This is the correct link to the maps of radiation levels.

 

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=7583

 

Sorry, too late to edit the above post. Just thought I'd put it here to avoid further confusion. As I listed before, areas marked in green receive lower levels of cosmic radiation than red and orange areas.

[Sayonara]

We could do that, but there are questions of practicality. I don't think it would be cheap to constantly send food to Mars all the time, given Earth's escape velocity and fuel needed. It would be easier if there were biodomes on the Moon though.

You misunderstand. I am not proposing that we grow food underground then send it to Mars.

 

I am asking why we need to send people and resources to Mars just to live under the ground? They can do that here.

 

 

That is correct. However, we will not be setting up colonies on Mars with the purpose of sending our surplus population there. I suspect the first, very small colonies will be research bases. They will need to be as independent of the Earth as possible, which means growing their own food and generating their own oxygen. This will require energy input as both heat and light.

After time, there will be people who are born on Mars, and they will want to make a home. Hence a larger Mars colony.

I think we are going off track here. In the OP, question123 is talking about a terraforming project on a planetary scale, to convert Mars into an Earth-like world. He is not discussing colonisation - that is a different process.

 

There's no requirement for research bases or early stage colonists whatsoever. In fact, putting boots on the ground early on would be insane, since we have ideas like "slam comets into the planet" and "nuke the ice crust" flying about the place.

 

Planetary engineering on this scale is best done from a distance, IOW.

 

Ignoring that small point though, I think you're optimistic about families starting early in a 'pioneers' colonisation model. The first people on Mars in any given colonisation attempt will eventually be rotated off-world by whatever organisation sends them. There will be no early-stage adaptations that can be passed on genetically and we have no idea what complications the low gravity will cause in pregnancy.

 

This is somewhat moot anyway, since the kind of people being sent to a dead rock on missions to start off 500-year processes are not likely to be the settling down types, and those that are will hardly be taking their families with them.

 

This is going the way of the discussion in the other Mars thread, where practical discussion about Mars turned into romanticised nonsense that harked back to the colonisation of the Americas. The logistical problems are entirely different.

 

Let's get back to the issue of all the different ways we can bombard the hell out of Mars until it is more appealing.

[Reaper]

You misunderstand. I am not proposing that we grow food underground then send it to Mars.

 

I am asking why we need to send people and resources to Mars just to live under the ground? They can do that here.

 

Oh, ok. I see what you mean. He suggested living underground or in a cavern for increased radiation protection. I still don't see why he would want to do that, because such a facility is more trouble than its worth.

 

 

I think we are going off track here.

 

Agreed.

 

 

For some reason, I think it would be a bad idea to bombard the planet to hell with comets and asteroids. You would make the planet more uninhabitable than it already is, since you would be throwing dust up there which would block sunlight and make it colder, and there would be even less atmosphere then there already is. And there wouldn't much of a planet left if you do it enough times.

 

 

 

It would be quite a formidable challenge to change the atmosphere, because that if we were able to raise the temperature, it would be impossible to plant anything there because the partial pressure of CO2 is far too dense, given that the atmosphere is 95% CO2. As it turns out, you can't just put plants where there is CO2, the partial pressure also matters. For most plants, they cannot survive if the partial pressure is greater than 0.2 kPa. Martian atmosphere has an average pressure of .6 kPa, and 95% of that is CO2, which gives a partial pressure of .57 kPa for CO2 at present. :doh:

 

(source: Rogers, A.c., comp. Mars Advanced Greenhouse Intergrated Complex. 2003. University of Texas. 10 July 2007 <http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/HEDS-UP/utsa.pdf>.)

 

No plants = No oxygen = No habitability for most Earth life.

 

An then of course there are other issues of atmospheric pressure regarding humans and plants themselves, given that the pressure is way to thin for both at present.

 

Terraforming Mars is a challenge indeed. Any ideas for changing the atmosphere?

[Sayonara]

No plants = No oxygen = No habitability for most Earth life.

 

An then of course there are other issues of atmospheric pressure regarding humans and plants themselves.

 

Terraforming Mars is a challenge indeed. Any ideas for changing the atmosphere?

It would be more effective in early stage transformation to use billions upon billions of single-celled organisms to alter the atmosphere, rather than plants.

 

They have simpler requirements, they are easier to transport, manipulate and disperse, they can be grown quickly and in vast quantities in processes that lend themselves to automation, they will not tie up as much of their oxygen product in respiration per unit biomass deployed, and they will contribute to a soil layer more readily when they die.

[Reaper]

It would be more effective in early stage transformation to use billions upon billions of single-celled organisms to alter the atmosphere, rather than plants.

 

They have simpler requirements, they are easier to transport, manipulate and disperse, they can be grown quickly and in vast quantities in processes that lend themselves to automation, they will not tie up as much of their oxygen product in respiration per unit biomass deployed, and they will contribute to a soil layer more readily when they die.

 

That's what I was thinking. You wouldn't need to put them deep under the ground because they would probably not need that much protection from the environment. They would have to be bio-engineered though, even if they were extremophlites. Also, there is a lot of sulfur on the Martian ground (confirmed by the recent Martian probes) to provide some form of nutrients, for Archean and Bacterial life forms, as there are some in the desert and underground that make use of Sulfur.

 

This process would take a couple hundred thousand of years, so the time scale isn't too bad.

 

Additionally, I heard of using reflective panels made of ultra-light mirrors to help warm up the Martian atmosphere. Another idea I read was releasing a lot of the CO2 and water into the atmosphere as they would act as greenhouse gases and make the atmosphere somewhat thicker.

[bombus]

Venus is a better bet than Mars despite what has been said above. It still has a thick atmosphere and active plate tectonics - which are actually very important in maintaining life. The reason why it's so hot is due to a runaway greenhouse effect. If we could seed the atmosphere with photosynthesising bacteria/algae/whatever we could in time convert the CO2 into fixed carbon and molecular oxygen.

 

The planet would cool and become good for sustaining life.

 

Far better than the possibilities available on Mars.

[SkepticLance]

Actually, as I said before, the best place to "terraform" is space itself. In due course, our technology will develop to the point where we can build very large habitats in space, rotating for gravity. They will contain nuclear reactors, which I hope will be fusion powered, to provide essentially unlimited energy. The outside of these habitats will contain a shell of water-ice about 10 metres thick to screen out radiation, and provide a store for all the essential water based processes. These habitats will be mobile. Advanced ion drive motors will be able to move them anywhere inside the solar system to collect raw materials - ice and minerals.

 

The biggest advantage of these compared to settling a planet is that they can be set up in Earth orbit, close to an unlimited source of raw materials, and easily accessible after the first space elevator is built, within 100 years. They will never land, so need not fight gravity. They will be pretty much independent of any planet, and so can take any amount of time in their travels. Longer term, they will build their own new habitats, using raw materials gleaned from moons and asteroids.

 

Eventually, it will be these space habitats that leave our solar system to colonise the galaxy. The long term destiny of human-kind may be to leave planetary surfaces entirely.

[foodchain]

Venus is a better bet than Mars despite what has been said above. It still has a thick atmosphere and active plate tectonics - which are actually very important in maintaining life. The reason why it's so hot is due to a runaway greenhouse effect. If we could seed the atmosphere with photosynthesising bacteria/algae/whatever we could in time convert the CO2 into fixed carbon and molecular oxygen.

 

The planet would cool and become good for sustaining life.

 

Far better than the possibilities available on Mars.

 

Sounds good, but even then the proximity of Venus to the sun is simply going to lend problems. On mars you may have to warm up, but on Venus you will have to cool down, and I don’t know how much cooling you would have to do even if Venus had an atmosphere similar to earth. Another aspect about using bacteria or microbes to farm the planet is simply an evolutionary one. After X amount of generations any bacteria that could survive in such an environment might start to find ways to become better at that rather then turning the environment into something more hospitable. I mean bacteria in sea vents is nice, but they adapted to survive there, not the other way around. The bacteria would most likely have to have something “programmed” into it killing it in so many generations while we constantly replaced the populations and monitored various mutations or what not.

 

Here is a small and brief link on sea vent communities.

http://wonderclub.com/WorldWonders/VentsHistory.html

 

Nuclear technology is a key in all of this in my opinion. As its a good source of energy, and what it uses for such seems to be rather prevalent anywhere you go, and of course this energy can be converted into various forms for use. It posses its own danger, but in all reality the idea of carrying large quantities of various substances for chemical energy just seems a bit odd, more so if you plan to use planets, as I would use them if in control because asteroid belts just sound way to dangerous.

[someguy]

a day on venus is 243 earth days. maybe you could put up a huge "blanket" in orbit that when you pass and electrical current through it becomes opaque in separate sections and you could make the days more like earth days. that would help to make it a little cooler.. i think. i think it would reduce the heating the sun makes by half.. part of the year would be a super long night though unless you reverse what i was just talking about in which case for the purpose of cooling you didn't do anything.

 

for those space habitats you would really need cold fusion like you were saying or else you would really run short of energy. especially since the amount of energy you will need to create your artificial gravity is directly proportional to the amount of people you have living there. for few people it's not really a big deal.. but it would become a huge amount of energy very quickly if we really want to have colonies living there.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The trouble with Venus is that its atmospheric pressure is high enough to kill someone.

[someguy]

that can't be good. we should take some of the atmosphere from venus and send it to mars and kill 2 birds with one stone.