Talk:Venusian Haven

Looks very interesting. About the POD - I believe it's theorised that it was the impact of a planetoid that gave Venus its slow rotation; perhaps rather than having another planetoid impact to rectify this, you could have the original planetoid fall into orbit to become Neith, the moon? Fegaxeyl 17:54, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

It is not that the moon had an unstable orbit, it's that it was rotating clockwise. Our moon, Luna, rotates counterclockwise, and so is slowly moving away from us, whereas Neith continually got closer until its orbit brought it too far into Venus' gravity well and it impacted.

Also, why is the article in Wikitext? Wikitext is absolutely evil, and makes editing a cruel labyrinth of difficulty, melancholy, and general f%@#ed-upedness.

Jazon Naparleon 16:43, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Ion propulsion system
I remember reading something on these propulsion systems that would be quite interesting for this TL. As I recall from a newspaper article, an American scientist theorised that, with an ion engine strong enough for it, planets, such as Mars, and for that matter Venus as well, could be reached in about 30-35 days. It would also reduce the amount of fuel necessary for the trip and thus increase the amount of payload the ship would be able to bring.--Vladivostok 10:00, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

So, I take it you didn't find this idea to be plausible?--Vladivostok 11:02, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, no, no, don't say that. I love the idea. Sorry, I haven't had time to answer, so please don't take it the wrong way. I love this idea, and I would love to incorporate it into this timeline. --NuclearVacuum 15:50, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Vladivostok, I beleive you are mistaken. Ion thrusters would be used in situations in which time is not crucial, due to their low thrust. They only go fast after a looooooooooooooooooonnnngggg time, because they are always accelerating, but do so at an astoundingly slow rate.
 * Jazon Naparleon 16:43, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've read a couple of things on the Internet about it, and it says it is feasible for missions to the outer and inner solar system, as well as manned missions to Mars. It is cheaper and takes up less room, but the debilitating factor, as you already mentioned is thrus, and energy consumption. But the greater the energy used, the greater the thrust. Thus, a nuclear powered engine should probably have to be used, perhaps coupled with solar panels for some extra power. Generally, any of the electricily powered propulsion systems use ions as propellants. Since the early sixties, drives like the Hall effect thruster have been tested, and in this TL, with the discovery of Venus being a habitable planet, it can only be assumed they would want a cheap, affordable way to get there.--Vladivostok 17:33, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well if you know my name, I support nuclear power in the vacuum of space =P --NuclearVacuum 17:46, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well, now everything makes sense again. I also thought of something else. Since they are going to Venus, would the Moon act as a natural launching site for any missions? I seem to recall a plan regarding accelerating a space craft on the surface of the Moon and then launching it into space. Would that help in shortening the trip?--Vladivostok 18:05, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I have been thinking about that too. I think both Luna and Neith would become launching pads and colonies of their own, but since Venus would be the primary focus for the space programs, the idea of using either moon would be slow at best. Maybe only recently did a working Moon base became online. --NuclearVacuum 21:57, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the sooner the better, because the Moon is a logical stepping stone on the path to both Venus and Mars. Perhaps there is a sooner Mars landing then as well?=D--Vladivostok 22:16, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Venusian Colonies
I can't imagine the European, Asian or South American nations stand by and watch America and Russia gobble up all of Venus. They'd probably get most of it but I can see there being smaller states sprinkled throughout this new world. Neith I see as being a potentially heavily British populated world. Historically we don't always go for the most comfortable or sensible geographically but Neith is idealy placed as a waystation.
 * Well, I the author did state that he had no intention of only having American and Soviet colonies on Venus, but that there would be smaller European and other colonies as well. Although there could be British colonies on Neith, I think, as you already said, that Neith acting as a waystation would be one of the first things that the U.S. and the USSR would try and colonize.--Vladivostok 09:44, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * "I the author"? What's that supposed to mean? Anyway, I was going to mention this, but I have been busy for the past few days. The USA and the USSR would be the dominant forces on Venus, but they are by far not the only ones. I am still working on a map of Venus, which would show the oceans, continents, and area claims on the planet. Currently, I am thinking that New Kamchatka (USSR) and Kennedia (USA) would be the only two nations on Venus, while Japan, China, a joint European, and a joint Arab colony would also be on Venus. And based on how fast they are moving, I guarantee that India and Iran would form a colony by 2025, but I can't predict the future (LOL). But it is much more complicated to explain in only a few sentences, but I predict that there would be several "non-national" states on Venus. By non-national, I mean ones that were formed by a group rather than a nation. Maybe something like a "Scientology State" or something. But I also plan that the nation of Earth would sign a "Venus Treaty," among the issues would be to not colonies all of Venus, leaving acres of land free from colonization. Like I said, I need to explain it more than one sentence or paragraph. --NuclearVacuum 17:46, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it was supposed to be an L that went into well. Just a typo, relax, I'm from the TSPTF, I'm supposed to prevent trouble, not start it.:)--Vladivostok 18:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

No worries, just saying =P --NuclearVacuum 18:33, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about how the ESA and other space agencies could reach mars as they have nothing like the space shuttle that they can use. I came up with two possible ways for the ESA to reach venus. The first would be to use a combined Arine V/Black Knight rocket, the Arine would take the Black Knight out of the Earths Atmosphere before the Black Knight would be launched and take a crew capsule to Venus from which the Astronauts could be launched down to Venus. The other way would be to build a base on Neith and then build a version of the Hermes space plane that could go down to VenusVegas adict 08:12, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

With such a strong incentive to travel into space, I'm sure the ESA would have developed an analogue to the space shuttle, and furthermore, so would have many corporations. By 2010 the practicality of technologies which today are merely theoretical would likely mean we have a number of large spaceplanes and would have invested into technologies such as inflatable modules - TransHab, and the CSS Skywalker. Indeed, the CSS Skywalker brings up an interesting point - it is a commercial space design using inflatable modules which, when fitted with an engine, could change its orbit allowing it to visit the moon. Could such a vehicle be developed for the Venus-Neith system, or even adapted into the large vessels needed to move people en masse between Earth and Venus? I'd like to create a page about this - the ships involved in interplanetary travel. Fegaxeyl 09:47, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I did mention that the ESA could use thier version of the Space Shuttle in the second option. However unlike NASA the ESA doesn't have have as much cash, so a posible joint Orbital Shipyard between the ESA/Japanese Space Agency and posibly the Chinese Space agency as well would allow for the construction of space planes similar to the Hermes in orbit above Venus. P.S this is based on the plan by the Russians for thier mars mission.Vegas adict 10:52, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the motivation is so strong that cash is less of an issue. Going to the moon had financial issues, but due to the nature of the mission it had a budget large enough to accommodate many fiscal problems. Colonising Venus is not only a major ideological project, it also has the potential to offer a return, which is why governments would allocate large sums of money to associated projects. When corporations are factored in their efficiency would drive down costs to make it much more affordable. The ESA's OTL financial worries would probably be dispelled because all participating nations would be willing to invest far greater amounts of money. Fegaxeyl 11:06, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Venus' moon
It could just be that a hypothetical impactor hits venus at aa different angle. Simulations show that if the protoplanet Thaea hit at one different algle, we would have had two moons. If it hit at another different angle, we, like venus, would have no moon. Mean Mr Mustard 19:54, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

British colonisation of Venus (Venusian Haven)
Any objections? Bob 17:17, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hm, interesting idea. However, I was intending that the EU and ESA as a whole (including the United Kingdom) would have made colonies on Venus together. I believe that the colonization of Venus would bring the world more together. I take this because that is how the EU intends to get to the Moon today. I can understand, because the UK is much more independent and the most ant-EU of the member states. But I still need more convincing. How would the UK be able to colonize Venus on her own? What would that mean for the UK-EU relations? --NuclearVacuum 18:15, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

The actual turning point for this in terms of exploration is the 60's when the USSR really goes for it and heads to Venus. At that point the ESA hadn't been formed and most importantly, Britain wasn't a member of the EU. The UK had its own space programme and we successfully put a satellite into space under our own steam. The whole project collapsed because it didn't seem to be able to yield a reward in the long term. But here, we have a clear and very definable reward, which is the raw materials of Venus and a chance for greatness. Britain has been defined as a Great Power from the early 19th Century to now. Our economy is far in excess of India yet they have a space program purely because we have such a large government funded public sector. The Age of Austerity described has Britain geared up for space, scrimping and saving, hoping that it will cut it. That and the fact that the loss of empire made us feel aimless. This is the aim that could have rejuvenated Britain and maintained her as one of the premier powers of the world. And I don't really think the EU would actually settle areas for the EU and not her constituent parts. The ESA would eventually subsume the British Space Agency, but it would be a little more than a cheaper alternative to each nation having their own space agency. If anything, I see France getting into space and settling Venus before Britain. Bob 18:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not replying soon enough, but my mind has been in other places. Anyway, I think that is a pretty good idea. I also love how you dealt with the British in the GWS timeline, and I would love to see what you have in mind here. --NuclearVacuum 14:20, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

The Greens and Venus
Would the various groups proposing ecological and related causes have Venus orientated sections in this timeline? Jackiespeel 17:22, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? --NuclearVacuum 18:15, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other bodies - the Venusian-orientated equivalents wish to maintain the biodiversity etc of and prevent ecological damage to Venus. Jackiespeel 18:26, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh? Well, I need to write the page about this, but the world would sign a, which would ban the use, excavation, and transportation of fossil flues on Venus. It would also leave a good portion of the planet under a non-governing zone, meaning it would be left alone. But you are interested in writing the articles for these groups yourself, feel free to do so. --NuclearVacuum 18:35, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know just enough about the subject to flag the issue - and I presume you mean fossil fuels? Jackiespeel 18:38, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Venusian nation contest... thing (hooray)


Hello to all of you who love the planet Venus. I am going to be opening a contest... thing where you can create your own nation on Venus. The idea worked very good for the Great White South timeline, and now its Venus' turn.

Well anyway, let me make a quick background for you all. My map of Venus is the exact same as in OTL. If you were to look at topographical maps of the surface of Venus (like this one), you may be able to see a difference between highlands and lowlands, the "continents" of Venus. If Venus had water, it may look a lot like Earth on the geographical sense.

But unlike a map for an ice-free Antarctica, a map of a terraformed Venus is harder to come to a conclusion. But I have found a map which seems to show what I have in mind very well. The map above is just that. But for any of you Russophobes out there, I came across this map on a Russian site, so yes, its all in Russian. Makes sense, the Americans went to Mars, the Soviets went to Venus. But you don't have to read Russian in order to understand the map. On the bottom of the map is the scale for the surface. I made a line showing where the ocean surface shall be on Venus, so you should be able to see the continents of Venus quite well. I got the map from this site. It also has similar maps of Mars, the Moon, Mercury, and the Earth.

So anyway, back to the contest... thing. As you can see, I have already added several nation. They are:


 * 1)  (USSR)
 * 2)  (USA)
 * 3)  (USA)
 * 4)  (Japan)
 * 5)  (Iraq)
 * 6)  (PRC)
 * 7)  (France)

There are also several other Soviet colonies which are not connected with New Kamchatka, and land left aside for a possible "Scientology State." But all these nations are not canon as of yet (excluding New Kamchatka).

Anyway, here are the rules for this contest:


 * 1) All land near the poles (all areas north and south of the 60th parallels) are off limits.
 * 2) Mostly the coast is up for grabs, please avoid inland or landlocked nations.
 * 3) New Kamchatka is the largest nation on Venus, please try not to grab so much land to overshadow NK.
 * 4) Please make an article about your proposed nation/colony, giving some detail as to its origins. Please add the   to the page.
 * 5) Write a subsection here, linking to the article. Also add a map showing the area of your proposed nation/colony.
 * 6) Be considerate, leave area for other to participate, and there needs to be area left ungoverned on Venus.

All the proposed nations will be voted based on a consensus, but I do have final say. Otherwise, have fun. Thank you for your support. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:01, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

New Quebec
A french-canadian colony made up of Quebec seperatists. Got to Venus because Canada (which was actually quite enthusiastic about having them leave) has connections to both the British and American space programs (true in OTL, substitute British with European) and often supplies astronaughts and equipment to these programs. No map yet, but I'll do it later. Probably somewhere near Themes and the closest available american colony, though. Interesting issue of whether or not to have nuclear power on Venus included.

New Scotland
Similar to New Quebec in that New Scotland was founded by the British government to allow that group of Scots who want an independent Scotland. It is quite good for all involved. Scotland stays British, Scots nationalists have an independent Scotland without the worries of natural resources as on Earth and the new republic is nicely dependent on the British government. Very close to areas of British settlement which are themselves close to American colonies. Along these lines what about a nation of New Kurdistan? Mumby 12:33, November 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * New Kurdistan? Well that is very out there. I never though of Venus becoming a haven for nationalities or separatists who want their own nation. But I see nothing wrong with the idea. Create an article about it. Maybe New Kurdistan would be part of the Iraqi colonialism. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:54, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

New Palestine
A state founded by Israel and other states to solve the Palestinian problem. However unlike the attempts in New Scotland and New Quebec the idea is not accepted by the Palestinians but instead it becomes a haven for persecuted Muslims from all different statesVegas adict 21:22, November 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Pretty interesting idea. But could it be possible to change the name to something more original, since it is not really supported by Palestine. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:55, November 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't why i wanted to call it New Palestine, I thought that New Palestine might symbolise its position as a place for Muslim refugeesVegas adict 19:17, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Technology?
The Ion Engine is mentioned above... but there are other crucial technologies we might want to make articles for. Some of them are:

Solar Power: Probably the power source of most colonies on Venus as if the Venus Treaty becomes cannon, there are no fossil fuels there. Need to describe how and where it is produced and the widespread use.

Space Elevator: These things make it incredibly cheap to get people into space. Don't you think the colonizing nations would want one? Although we haven't found a way for them to be possible on Earth yet (do we in this timeline? I don't know) they're definitely possible on the moon, which is has lower gravity plus is tidally locked (no rotation) and as the principal problem of Space Elevators is stress caused by the rotation it would be a lot easier to build there. As the moon has ample resources for building spacecraft such as titanium for the hull, silicon for complex gadgets, and water (confirmed OTL) for fuel and life support, and the low gravity making it easier to launch ships it is already a natural shipyard. -- Michael Douglas


 * Sorry, but I am not so much of a wizard when it comes to technology, so articles for them are at the bottom of my list. You are more than welcome to start them. Solar power is quite obvious, especially since the Venusian day is much longer than an Earth day. As for the space elevator, OMFG!! I watched something on the Science Channel, where Michio Kaku talked about the idea, and I believe it is crucial to have one. It is a cheaper and safer alternative to a rocket. However, is the technology there yet? When it comes to an ion engine, the technology exists, but the coast makes testing them in OTL on the bottom of the list, with only two space probes having used them (one of which is on its way to Vesta and Ceres). But with the prize of Venus for TTL, I can see it having much more optimism and more support for its use. I believe that TTL can develop an elevator much sooner than OTL, but again, how close are we to having this a reality? Maybe it could be a very new technology for TTL, with maybe one in testing, or something like that. But I am very open to the idea. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 17:51, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

If you don't mind my interjection: a space elevator would actually be impossible on the Moon since it relies on the balance between the force of gravity and the inertia it maintains by being in orbit to keep itself at its altitude. If it were simply motionless around the Moon it would simply tumble downwards under the force of gravity. Unless you had some kind of mobile vehicle following its motion around the Moon then a space elevator there would be impossible. Red VS Blue 18:51, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Space elevators seem pointless to me, It would be easier to build an assembly point in space and then send all the materials up to the platform and building it in space. Besides i thought that there was going to be a shuttle system using Ion engines between a space station in Earth Orbit and in Venuses orbitVegas adict 19:24, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

But then the question arises. What do you use to get the materials into space? That is where the Space Elevator comes in handy. Red VS Blue 20:04, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Existing rockets could be used as could the shuttles. Space Elevators are simply an easier way to so it but the technology is as of yet unknown (In OTL)Vegas adict 20:30, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

The idea is that it obsoletes the use of shuttles, saving billions in fuel and material costs. If you don't think the technology would exist yet in this TL then space elevators can be ignored. Red VS Blue 21:12, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading/seeing on tv that with otl technology, it is essentially possible to do so - some small improvements in carbon fibers are all that are needed. Why nothing is really being done is the cost, and because of where (near the equator on stable ground) it would need to be built. With such a motive to get into space, it would be done, or at least under construction, here.

Lordganon 21:45, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Really LG? Would the tensile strength of carbon fibers be enough not to snap under the required tensions? I suppose I could calculate it... Red VS Blue 00:01, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Space elevators aside, most of the materials would come from the moon. The moon has all the resources for building the ships and fueling chemical rockets, plus the low gravity makes it easy to launch. The moon would actually have a good economy because this. The main problem with just using rockets is the cost. Think of the amount of colonists on Venus. All of them have to get off earth on rockets. The space elevator probably hasn't been developed on Earth in this TL, but on the moon, if you made the cable long enough, it would still be possible as the moon doesn't spin. Michael Douglas 00:13, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Its true, rockets launches would be much less costly from the Moon due to the lower escape velocity. I could see long range rocket trips starting from the Moon's rather than the Earth's surface, and I would actually say that's the most plausible way in which frequent long-distance missions would be undertaken.

Well actually the fact that the Moon doesn't spin is the only reason a space elevator there is impossible. Red VS Blue 00:43, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

He's right, Michael. Without the rotation, it would hit the surface before construction even finished.

But yes, we're at a point right now otl where we're at about the point where such fibers are strong enough - and that's without a motive like this. Testing really hasn't occurred or anything, but its believed to be workable. Really, the areas that could make it now, or soon, dont have the stable equatorial lands needed to built it.

Lordganon 01:25, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Lets concentrate on how to make launches more cheap, so we can replace the space elevator. We need something to get people into space cheaply, as it would already be cheaper to build stuff on the moon once you have the workers and colonists up there.

Firing everyone out of a big gun doesn't help, because G-forces would crush them. What other ideas do we have?Michael Douglas 15:40, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

A really big gun would work for getting supplies up, actually. Animals, people, and the like would still need to be launched otherwise, though.

Lordganon 00:56, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

True, this may be how supplies get to the moon from Earth, I still think the moon would build most of the spacecraft as delicate equipment wouldn't survive the trip. Michael Douglas 02:23, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

A Venusian Haven in my eyes
Ever since I began reading about the planets, has always captivated my imagination and I am a firm believer that it has effected the choices of my life ever since. It was probably the first planet I ever viewed with my own eyes. Though it was not the first planet I observed with my backyard telescope, I think viewing the crescent of Venus was more beautiful and clear than me viewing the moons of Jupiter, or the rings of Saturn. It was the fact that it was not the Americans, but the Soviets that have explored Venus in greater detail that made me pick up my first book on Russian language. So it was planet Venus that brought out my love of Soviet and Russian culture, and help be learn a new language. The word Venera was the first ever Russian word I learned. Venus is currently on the drawing boards for the current Russian space agency, with the proposed to launch in 2016. I am also fascinated with Venus because it is truly our sister planet in more than one way. Despite most of the population looking towards Mars, Venus would look the most like Earth if terraformed. Venus would have distinct continents, oceans, and mountains; while Mars tends to be more alien with one "massive ocean" and one "massive continent." Not that I am endorsing us to look at Venus for colonies rather than Mars, I am simply stating that Venus is a place that we should not leave in the dust. So for me to create a timeline that centers around a "Venusian Haven" is a big thrill for me, opening my imagination and being able to share and expand this dream with others who also love the aspect of space colonialism.

I was in the mood, so I wrote this fun explanation for this timeline. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:04, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

News and updates
I have been doing some thinking about the timeline a little, and I would really like to bring it back on my agenda for the next cycle. I am currently working on this and my Two Americas timeline, but my recent ideas for this timeline show some promise. Here is what to [possibly] expect soon:


 * A [somewhat] detailed map of Venus made by me.
 * A remapping of the "countries" of Venus. Because the planet is so big, I feel it would be impracticable and selfish for me to create huge claims on Venus. So will be shrunk down from what I currently have it at. I also plan to work with the original proposers to define the locations of several of the proposed nations on Venus.

I hope to have these up soon. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:08, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Venusian Green Movement
How soon after the Earth based Green/Ecology movement will the Venusian equivalent be set up, and what self-descriptive term would they use? Jackiespeel 21:47, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am so sorry (I feel like you asked me this before). I am not too sure, but I believe a "Green Venus" movement would start upon the colonialism of Venus (probably in the 1980s). If you are interested in the idea, you can create and work on the movement yourself. Call it whatever you want, because I know very little about green movements ^^; Have fun. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:40, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned the idea in one of the Martian timelines - should someone wish to develop it. Jackiespeel 21:51, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

New Venus Map is (almost) ready


Here is the [WIP] map of Venus I have been working on all day. It shows the continents of Venus, as well as my current shape for (which will now use Maat Mons as part of its border). It also shows the location of the two major settlements/cities on Venus: Gagaringrad and Vladivenera. Here is an interesting fact, I chose the locations of Gagaringrad and Vladivenera primarily of the landing sites of the Soviet Vega probes. Vega 1's landing spot would be Gagaringrad (somewhat), and Vega 2 for Vladivenera. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 21:47, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Update


The one thing I like about map making is the uniformity, meaning that there is a standard shape to follow. When it comes to Venus, there is no uniform and standard map. This is because... well... Venus is bone dry. Only when taking into account the planetary conditions, topography, and amount of water will you be able to create a map. So the main reason that this map has been hard was because of this. I had the same problem with my Great White South timeline, but at least there was a semi-standard I could work from. When it comes to Venus, there is none. That is why I have decided to create a new map completely from scratch. There are some advantages and disadvantages to this, but I feel happy with how it has come out so far. As you can see, I still have a way to go, but look at the detail. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 22:18, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

One thing I would like to propose is why don't you try and include an article about terraforming Neith and Luna into something more Earth and Venus - like as I read an article which was called Luna: Earth II. Its an article on what if the Moon, Luna, had life on it. 81.131.124.48 19:33, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Featured
I think when this is done I'll nominate this for featured! PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 22:14, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

You better, this is amazing. I would have nominated this but I don't know how to. : 81.131.124.48 20:15, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Any Other Colonies by other countries out there?
Is there anyone wanting a European e.g. French, German, or even Chinese or Japanese colonies out there?

General tiu 07:38, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Have been been working on a French, Japanese, and even a Chinese colony. But they are all non-canon and open for change. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 14:36, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Uzbeks have drunk my battery fluid!!
Привет мои товарищи! I am good. There has been a lot of activity on VH lately, so I think I would like to work here a little bit. Also, to answer your comments about the title, in short... Canadians are weird!!



Anyway, I have been neglecting a little bit. Here is that map I promised months ago. It has been finished for a long time now, but life has been sucking for me lately that I forgot to add it. I have also made this quick globe of Venus using Celestia. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:13, May 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me! the Canadian project is not completed yet. However, it is well on the way. Also check out New Scotland, more info that there was when I started on it!! 81.131.124.48 20:19, May 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, I meant that Canadians are weird because of the SCTV skit they did about the Soviet Union and stuff. Did you see the link? XD --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 20:38, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of. By the way, I have started the article Beijinxing, see the article and feel free to add and comment!!!!!!! 81.131.124.48 21:00, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of. By the way, I have started the article Beijinxing, see the article and feel free to add and comment!!!!!!! 81.131.124.48 21:00, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Wow...
I really like this TL. If you haven't already noticed I'm into the "terraforming" of different celestial bodies and I'd be glad to help edit this one if asked! ChrisL123 02:06, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Your Luna:Eath II articles are not bad at all. i quite like them. 212.219.36.5 11:33, May 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much ^_^ --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:30, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Finalizing the borders


Alrighty than, we are getting along just great. However, I still need to know the borders for several of the proposed nations. Here's a quick map I made showing the (rough) borders for my proposed colonies:


 * Red: New Kamchatka and other Soviet colonies.
 * Blue: Kennedy, New Florida, and other American colonies.
 * Green: Helal and a potential Scientology colony.

All I really need is the borders for New Quebec and New Scotland. --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 16:30, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

The maps are quite good. I quite like them!!! 212.219.36.4 09:01, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Something I realized...
I was reading the point of divergences and I came across a sentence: "The impact was strong enough (and at the right angle) to cause the planet to flip upside-down, and giving the planet a faster rotation." If that was the case, the continents would be upside-down. Wouldn't the map that you have drawn be upside-down, too? ChrisL123 18:05, May 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Very interesting question. To an extent, you are right. In OTL, Venus is tilted at about 177&deg;, with 212.219.36.4 11:00, June 10, 2011 (UTC)Earth tilted at about 23&deg;. I loved this idea, and I wanted Venus to remain at this tilt. Sorry, back to the map. Yes, Venus is upside-down, but that doesn't mean its map would be. As for all maps, north is always at the top of the page. So the map is correct, you just have to think third-dimensionally. Sorry, did I make any sense there? --NuclearVacuum (Talk) 18:52, May 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sort of. I assume you're thinking of it as if OTL Venus's north would be in the southern hemisphere since it flipped and still be considered its "north" pole but its new ATL south would be its north right after the protoplanet hit it. So the map really should be upside down like the planet ATL satellites look at it. ChrisL123 19:38, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys are cinfusing but I think I get it. 212.219.36.4 09:32, May 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is if Venus was flipped upside down by a protoplanet, the map would look the same as the planet would or else it would cause confusion. If Earth was flipped upside down, for example, our maps would be flipped, too. Antarctica would be on the new north pole, Greenland would be on the new south pole region, etc. ChrisL123 20:03, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I get it. :) :) 212.219.36.4 11:00, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I get it. :) :) 212.219.36.4 11:00, June 10, 2011 (UTC)