Catalytic Enzymes and cleaning up Venus' atmosphere?

[NicknamedBob]

Some, perhaps many, rather minor technical advances allow habitats near the top of the atmosphere of Venus where more solar energy is available than on Earth's surface. At an altitude of 35 miles = 50 kilometers, however, I suspect the light level is less than on the surface of Mars, and the air pressure unhealthy for humans.

Whoa, wait!

I'll admit that I'm a bit Pollyannish about the possibility of Venus colonies, but this seems unreasonably pessimistic. The charts I've seen, and they are of course subject to re-evaluation, show the 35 miles = fifty kilometers altitude to be both temperate and of Earth normal pressure. One must realize that the buoyancy that puts the habitat at that altitude is a calculated and contrived one, subject to adjustment as the needs may warrant.

It may well be that our floating domicile will be awash in the cloud-tops of condensed sulfuric acid droplets in order to maintain the temperature and the pressure that feels best to us. It would be nice if we can ride just above that, and have clear views all around. But it is important to remember that our altitude will be our choice. Indeed, some habitats may wish to have a cooler, high-altitude climate, and in any case these are parameters that can be easily adjusted.

As an example, that wondrously clear ETFE film may turn out to be a trifle too transparent, allowing the warming sunlight on our greenhouse to turn it into a hothouse. We may need to reflectorize a portion of it to make it more comfortable.

Similarly, if it should become necessary to float a little high in order to be at the right location, we could use extended bladders of pure nitrogen for flotation, while slightly pressurizing our actual habitats.

These things are subject to experimentation, and will be under our control.

Something else that may not be under our control is the possibility of rapid changes in altitude of the jet streams. If they should suddenly downdraft to a high-pressure, high-temperatiure altitude, the results would be unpleasant.

Similarly, a sudden fountaining upwards would be equally difficult for us. We will need to chart these currents carefully before committing ourselves to perhaps fitful winds.

Also there is much less sulphuric acid and cooler temperatures at perhaps 80 kilometers. Somewhat higher, however, is likely OK for habitats. CNT = carbon nano tubes, with great specs can easily lift surface material to the habitats, but top soil is over optimistic. Silicon dioxide is likely the main ingredient of random snatches. Several round trips per earth day is likely realistic, but the bucket will behave like a sea anchor, causing our habitat to move slower than the wind speed at that altitude. Recovering the bucket 4 days later, makes the system much more complicated, but perhaps better.The submarine suggestion may be workable, but I don't think liquid hydrogen or helium will be used as you think. If 10 cubic meters of "air" at the surface of Venus weighs twenty tons, a 19.9 ton submarine will drop like a rock at 80 kilometers altitude, but have neutral buoyancy at the surface. The sub will compress to slightly smaller volume due to the 90 atmospheres of "air" pressure. The very high air resistance will slow the craft to make a gentle landing at the surface, but the outside of the sub may heat to 700 degrees c. True we need to dump a bit more than a ton of ballast for each ton of dirt to lift off, or alternately increase the volume of the submarine against the 90 atmospheres of pressure, 500 degrees c. I don't know of any material that can stretch enough under those conditions, but boiling liquid hydrogen (I see no good reason to use helium) can easily provide the the 90 plus atmospheres of pressure. We start with perhaps 1/2 ton of hydrogen slush (contains some frozen hydrogen), near vacuum in the sub. The internal pressure rises (evaporation of the slush) to partially offset the increasing outside pressure as the sub descends. At the surface, the doors open on the side buried in the dust (if Venus has significant dust) The pressure outside pushes the dust into the sub. The doors close and seal. The hydrogen evaporates = boils making the inside pressure higher than the outside pressure, which expands the sub to about 14 cubic meters. I can't imagine what material makes that possible as the temperature will likely reach 600 degrees c. We will likely have to vent some of the hydrogen during the ascent to avoid bursting the sub as the outside pressure decreases. Another possibility is allowing the sub volume to increase to about 20 cubic meters as it ascends, but I know of no material that permits this at 400 degrees c and about a hundred atmospheres pressure.

Please. This makes my brain hurt. Venting hydrogen? Never! These contraptions will be open frame, I guarantee it. No ballast, no venting. Their variable rise or sink will be like that of a hot air balloon. You inflate your balloon with nitrogen when you want to go up. It's that simple. Making complicated turns and returns will be for temperature hardened electronics, perhaps based on the behavior of materials in vacuum tubes! (But that's an entirely different discussion!)

The initial devices will be as simple and reliable as they can be made. Likely some will have that home-made appearance, with the home habitat identified by etchings in the metal. With a design like a mouse-trap, as soon as it touches bottom, it snaps shut to seize a sample, and open the nitrogen valve. The complexity will be at the top end, where the search for them will make for interesting stories.

And yes, most of them will likely return with ordinary sand. I certainly hope so! That silicon dioxide will be needed for the solar cell production.

At Epcot, Disney World, Florida, successful hydroponics have produced perhaps 100 tons of food over the last 20 years, so we can produce food and oxygen, by photosynthesis without soil.The material from the surface will however be useful for fertilizer etc.
I suspect the habitats will be far from self sufficient, and malfunctions are more likely to prove fatal to the humans than ships on Earth's oceans. The cost will be hard to justify, even long term. Neil

On this I can agree. Without a cost justification, all of this is just fancy daydreams of castles in the sky. But I see carbon production as a by-product of the making of oxygen for survival, even if plants do most of the work. Perhaps the carbon source for carbon fiber will be bamboo plants.

Also, whatever water can be wrung from the clouds will be heavy with deuterium. It only makes sense to separate that, rather than drink it, and it would be a natural export item.

The nature of export is also something that would have to be discussed. My Pollyannish nature suggests that the fact that Venus has no satellites is an invitation for us to orbit a strange Ferris wheel-like device, which dips into the atmosphere at regular points to grapple high-flying shuttles to be lifted into orbit. These devices are called Rotavators, and check out the writings of Hans Morovec on them.

These same Rotavators could be used to fling spaceships between planets, allowing our craft to venture out to the asteroids and to Mars, as well as back to Earth, without using substantial amounts of rocket propellant. In fact, they could well be deliverig a cargo of rocket propellant, in the form of dry ice!

If we relegate nuclear rocket engines to outer space, away from endangering Earth, they could use Venus' plentiful carbon dioxide as a propellant gas by heating it with the nuclear reactors, and exhausting it as a rocket exhaust.

Industry on Venus could fuel space travel throughout the solar system. I think it has the capability to be a major resource in the future, perhaps as big a new world as the previous New World!

 

[neilsox]

Hi Bob, Thank you for the detailed analysis of my post. I'm new to some of these ideas. I agree, The nitrogen (breathing air lifts 95% as well at Venus) filled bladder will work good for 50 to 80 kilometers where temperatures and and pressure are close to Earth like, but I was doubtful about finding a bladder like material that can survive 500 degrees c plus and as much a 90 atmospheres of internal pressure for the vehicle that goes to the surface.
Was the chart you saw perhaps 50 miles instead of 50 kilometers as another poster thought that 50 clicks was well below optimum altitude? As you say, that is a detail easily adjusted even after deployment. Your hot air balloon analogy confused me as hot air balloons vent the hot air (nitrogen) quite rapidly.
I'm also having some trouble with the river analogy for the Venus jet streams. Likely they change location at least rarely and turbulence is likely near the boundary of the jet stream and slower moving air.
We have experimental technology to store gas such as nitrogen at 1000 atmospheres, but typically we store at about 120 atmospheres which is far from optimum to inflate to 90 plus atmospheres as needed to lift off from the surface. Perhaps making high pressure hydrogen from acid and metal at lift off time is a good idea. The surface craft will likely have no oxygen or other oxidizer so the hydrogen is not a fire threat.
My guess is nearly all the water and nearly all the hydrogen on Venus is combined with the sulphuric acid which does not give up water easily. The tritium is likely also concentrated as well as the deuterium. Demand is rather low for both at present, and it is not certain we will use either, when and if, we develop fusion reactors. In 1966 deuterium sold for about $1 per liter, and could be purchased by anyone, so it is not a high value item, unless it has become so recently. Neil

 

[BenS1985]

Hi Bob, Thank you for the detailed analysis of my post. I'm new to some of these ideas. I agree, The nitrogen (breathing air lifts 95% as well at Venus) filled bladder will work good for 50 to 80 kilometers where temperatures and and pressure are close to Earth like, but I was doubtful about finding a bladder like material that can survive 500 degrees c plus and as much a 90 atmospheres of internal pressure for the vehicle that goes to the surface.
Was the chart you saw perhaps 50 miles instead of 50 kilometers as another poster thought that 50 clicks was well below optimum altitude? As you say, that is a detail easily adjusted even after deployment. Your hot air balloon analogy confused me as hot air balloons vent the hot air (nitrogen) quite rapidly.
I'm also having some trouble with the river analogy for the Venus jet streams. Likely they change location at least rarely and turbulence is likely near the boundary of the jet stream and slower moving air.
We have experimental technology to store gas such as nitrogen at 1000 atmospheres, but typically we store at about 120 atmospheres which is far from optimum to inflate to 90 plus atmospheres as needed to lift off from the surface. Perhaps making high pressure hydrogen from acid and metal at lift off time is a good idea. The surface craft will likely have no oxygen or other oxidizer so the hydrogen is not a fire threat.
My guess is nearly all the water and nearly all the hydrogen on Venus is combined with the sulphuric acid which does not give up water easily. The tritium is likely also concentrated as well as the deuterium. Demand is rather low for both at present, and it is not certain we will use either, when and if, we develop fusion reactors. In 1966 deuterium sold for about $1 per liter, and could be purchased by anyone, so it is not a high value item, unless it has become so recently. Neil

Remember to use paragraphs, please!

]Hi Bob, Thank you for the detailed analysis of my post. I'm new to some of these ideas. I agree, The nitrogen (breathing air lifts 95% as well at Venus) filled bladder will work good for 50 to 80 kilometers where temperatures and and pressure are close to Earth like, but I was doubtful about finding a bladder like material that can survive 500 degrees c plus and as much a 90 atmospheres of internal pressure for the vehicle that goes to the surface.
Was the chart you saw perhaps 50 miles instead of 50 kilometers as another poster thought that 50 clicks was well below optimum altitude? As you say, that is a detail easily adjusted even after deployment. Your hot air balloon analogy confused me as hot air balloons vent the hot air (nitrogen) quite rapidly.

Actually, breathing air lifts about 60% as effectively as helium does on Earth..Not 95%. You really wouldn't want to stray too far away from the 50km zone which is 'perfect' for humans. That is, that you could go outside of the aerostat balloon with a breather mask regular clothes and survive for awhile...Which is virtually impossible on any other planet, at any height. That should save you money in the long run, because it translates to cheaper protection costs for people, plants and your habitat.

I don't think anyone has suggested that you'd want to make a bladder for traveling to the surface, not in the traditional sense, at least. That is why I suggested a sub-type vehicle, since it would be made of far more rigid materials.

The optimal height is 50km, not 50mi. Here is the chart to show you relative pressures and temperatures:

 

[NicknamedBob]

Hi Bob, Thank you for the detailed analysis of my post. I'm new to some of these ideas. I agree, The nitrogen (breathing air lifts 95% as well at Venus) filled bladder will work good for 50 to 80 kilometers where temperatures and and pressure are close to Earth like, but I was doubtful about finding a bladder like material that can survive 500 degrees c plus and as much a 90 atmospheres of internal pressure for the vehicle that goes to the surface.
Was the chart you saw perhaps 50 miles instead of 50 kilometers as another poster thought that 50 clicks was well below optimum altitude? As you say, that is a detail easily adjusted even after deployment. Your hot air balloon analogy confused me as hot air balloons vent the hot air (nitrogen) quite rapidly.

• 

Fifty kilometers seems the reference point. Obviously, those committing to residing there will make their necessary adjustments.

Here's a description of an ambitious plan to retrieve surface material, but it includes some of the information we would need for a simplified operation from a Venus habitat location. It also introduces a novel material I had not heard of previously, "Polybenzoxazole" (PBO), for "strength at high temperature".

I'm also having some trouble with the river analogy for the Venus jet streams. Likely they change location at least rarely and turbulence is likely near the boundary of the jet stream and slower moving air.

It's probably a poor analogy, but at least we Earthlings should have some familiarity with the concept of such things as rafts and riverboats. Any habitat on Venus is going to be light, but made of sturdy materials. Unable to anchor it to any solid material, we will find that it must drift with the currents. An analogy for this would be an igloo on an ice floe.

But the "currents" on Venus are globe-girdling, with some punch behind them. Photographs taken of the planet in ultraviolet light clearly show the patterns, and the stability of them. I would suspect that only at the poles and the peripherys of the large bands would turbulence be a problem. In that respect, the circulatory movement is like a large, slowly moving river.

An intriguing thought presents itself: Since our structures can be supported by the atmosphere, we will be free to make those structures with a bit of whimsy. Cindarella's castle, or replicas of dozens of other castle designs, or a floating building that looks like the Empire State building, or the Eiffel tower, or even one more puffy cumulous cloud!

I would expect that several structures will have landing pads attached to them. These could be simple space frames of carbon fiber tubes, wrapped with plastic, and inflated with nitrogen such that they would have neutral buoyancy. (Note: One of the reasons I keep suggesting nitrogen as an easily accessible lifting gas for Venus is because it is. Currently, the plentiful nitrogen gas is freely mixing with the more than abundant carbon dioxide, but the two may be separated by a simple chemical procedure.) Then they could be strapped together to create acres of landing surface for planes. They could even be made to look like floating aircraft carriers, complete with a bridge or flight tower.

I'm going to name my floating airport "Flytrap".

We have experimental technology to store gas such as nitrogen at 1000 atmospheres, but typically we store at about 120 atmospheres which is far from optimum to inflate to 90 plus atmospheres as needed to lift off from the surface. Perhaps making high pressure hydrogen from acid and metal at lift off time is a good idea. The surface craft will likely have no oxygen or other oxidizer so the hydrogen is not a fire threat.

We may have to make some design concessions to the temperature and pressure, as in the article I linked. It shouldn't be a major engineering hurdle. Since the task of grabbing a bucketful of dirt is a relatively simple one, the time on target can readily be minimized.

My guess is nearly all the water and nearly all the hydrogen on Venus is combined with the sulphuric acid which does not give up water easily. The tritium is likely also concentrated as well as the deuterium. Demand is rather low for both at present, and it is not certain we will use either, when and if, we develop fusion reactors. In 1966 deuterium sold for about $1 per liter, and could be purchased by anyone, so it is not a high value item, unless it has become so recently. Neil

I don't know if the colonists will actually be able to sell it or not, I just know that deuterium is naturally concentrated on Venus. It would be a shame to not be able to take advantage of that fact, especially since no one there would want to keep it in their ecology if it could be separated.

 

[NicknamedBob]

Gondola Design For Venus Deep-Atmosphere Aerobot Operations

• With Phase-Change Liquids, (Water and Ammonia!)

 

[EarthlingX]

Gondola Design For Venus Deep-Atmosphere Aerobot Operations

• With Phase-Change Liquids, (Water and Ammonia!)

Nice to see JPL working on it
This paper was written around 2000 ? Anything after that ?

 

[neilsox]

Thanks for the graph: It appears 60 kilometers is about 20 degrees c = 68 f = 293 k. We don't want the outside temperature warmer, as activities will warm the habitat with waste heat and we need to let in considerable sunlight for optimum photosynthesis. Naked, genetically selected humans (and some plants) can likely thrive at 40 degrees c, if the humidity is 80% or less. On the other hand, higher than 60 kilometers will not provide enough buoyancy to keep the habitats from moving a bit lower just before sunrise. Air conditioning and dehumidifying will be a big energy drain, so likely there will only be a small room at about 30 degrees c, 50 % humidity. The graph shows some clouds above 60 kilometers, so we may have no more solar energy, average than Earth's surface. See http://www.skywindpower.com (Click on item c on left side of page for FEG details) for a possible nighttime source of electricity, and at least minor attitude control and limited mobility of the habitat. A FEG = flying electric generator can dangle about 5 kilometers below and behind each habitat. Night will last about 40 hours. We will likely breathe about 50% oxygen 49% nitrogen at about 0.3 bar, again requiring genetically selected humans to retain good health. More inside pressure makes blowout more likely and increases the habitat strength requirement, especially for large habitats.
The cool room could also have a pressure of about 1/2 bar for people who are sick. The cool room can also insure a few survivors if the rest of the habitat is flooded with carbon dioxide at about 0.2 bar due to a hull failure.
In the Mars Venus debate, I do not understand why a habitat failure is worse on Mars than in the upper atmosphere of Venus, nor why cancer risk and genetic damage from radiation is lower for Venus cloud tops. Neil

 

[NicknamedBob]

Thanks for the graph: It appears 60 kilometers is about 20 degrees c = 68 f = 293 k. We don't want the outside temperature warmer, as activities will warm the habitat with waste heat and we need to let in considerable sunlight for optimum photosynthesis. Naked, genetically selected humans (and some plants) can likely thrive at 40 degrees c, if the humidity is 80% or less. On the other hand, higher than 60 kilometers will not provide enough buoyancy to keep the habitats from moving a bit lower just before sunrise. Air conditioning and dehumidifying will be a big energy drain, so likely there will only be a small room at about 30 degrees c, 50 % humidity. The graph shows some clouds above 60 kilometers, so we may have no more solar energy, average than Earth's surface.

I can't imagine we would go to the only other place in the solar system where the temperature and the atmospheric pressure is exactly what we're used to, in order to bio-engineer ourselves for another habitat. I've read that the city of Houston has been selected for analysis in regard to building a dome over the city. One would expect that a transparent dome would cause overheating, but this ignores the matter of air circulation.

It appears that a large dome tends to generate its own air circulation patterns. In any case, the habitats developed in the skies of Venus will likely be large for a variety of purposes. It's possible that vertical stratification will be a natural part of that. Likely the top areas and the side exposures will be used for growing plants. Equally obviously, the lower levels will be used for natural ballast; the heavy machinery such as air compressors, manufacturing devices and storage areas for air tanks and such. Also processed foods and other manufactured items will be stored there.

Living spaces and business offices will be interspersed among all of these areas. Large commercial growing areas will be arranged wherever the conditions are right. Keep in mind that expansion of a habitat is a natural activity. Some habitats may even be organized around the possibility of "budding" off a new colony.

In the Mars Venus debate, I do not understand why a habitat failure is worse on Mars than in the upper atmosphere of Venus, nor why cancer risk and genetic damage from radiation is lower for Venus cloud tops. Neil

Mars habitats are always at risk of explosive decompression, and the vacuum-like atmosphere is little protection against ionizing radiation.

Venus, on the other hand, though closer to the sun, has a tremendously thick atmosphere. It offers better protection from ionizing radiation, but one may expect that normal sunburning and suntanning will be observed. Even though Venus habitats will be positioned at the cloud tops, that's merely the beginning of what an Earth-normal atmosphere would be.

 

[NicknamedBob]

Gondola Design For Venus Deep-Atmosphere Aerobot Operations

• With Phase-Change Liquids, (Water and Ammonia!)

Nice to see JPL working on it
This paper was written around 2000 ? Anything after that ?

I didn't discover it until today. It's amazing what you can find when you ask the right magic words.

 

[EarthlingX]

A bunch of papers by Geoffrey A. Landis (Wiki), including Venus related :

Geoffrey A. Landis - Scientific Papers Available on the Web

One of the more interesting :
Atmospheric Flight on Venus

ABSTRACT:
We propose a solar-powered aircraft system for the exploration of Venus. The atmosphere of Venus provides several advantages for flying a solar-powered aircraft. At the top of the cloud level, the solar intensity is comparable to or greater than terrestrial solar intensities. The atmospheric pressure makes flight much easier than on planets such as Mars. Also, the slow rotation of Venus allows an airplane to be designed for flight within continuous sunlight, eliminating the need for energy storage for nighttime flight. These factors make Venus a prime choice for a long-duration solar-powered aircraft. Fleets of solar-powered aircraft could provide an architecture for efficient and low-cost comprehensive coverage for a variety of scientific missions.

(many nice tables and graphs)

Ultimately we could even envision colonization of the Venus atmosphere. Space colonies are widely discussed as a way of expanding the presence of humans into the solar system. The atmosphere of Venus is potentially the best place in the solar system to locate space colonies. It is rich in resources, and at a temperature and pressure hospitable to human life.

His official web site : http://www.geoffreylandis.com/

Just in case :

Wiki : Colonization of Venus

 

[danhezee]

I like this video of flying robotic penguins in Germany, It gives you an idea of how elegant a craft can move in the Venusian clouds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff9F0qzxUtg

 

[EarthlingX]

I like this video of flying robotic penguins in Germany, It gives you an idea of how elegant a craft can move in the Venusian clouds.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff9F0qzxUtg[/youtube]

Very nice

One more :

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxPzodKQays[/youtube]

 

[NicknamedBob]

I'll have to view those on a different computer.

In the meantime, I've been thinking that Venus aircraft will be in three categories, (not counting the habitats themselves).

The simplest and most common will be ordinary solar-electric propeller driven airplanes. These will be the commuter class, allowing travel between habitats.

Second will be the "bite-bucket" service tenders. Some kind of barge thing, with cargo and service bays, adjustable flotation, and long linger time. They'll be charged with gathering the soil and rocks grabbed from the surface, servicing the buckets, and beginning the processing or separation of the materials. Eventually, they'll dock with neighboring habitats to offload their wares.

These two types are obviously slow, maximizing their performance with studied efficiency. The third category is a departure from this concept, for departure is exactly the point. The third type is a rocket plane, designed to launch from habitat level and rise to orbital space.

Now we'll think about how to fuel such a rocket plane, and what it will find in Venus' orbital space.

 

[Couerl]

I dunno about any bite bucket.. I can't even lift a 2 oz. stuffed animal out of a 2x2 ft box when I put a quarter in it. :geek:

Whatever rope or cable you're gonna use will weigh significantly more than both bucket, payload and probably ship combined and so it all seems rather silly to me, like kids playing in a sandbox with tonka trucks. Not to mention anything you drop down in there will be eaten up quickly by acid and heat. Maybe in 300 years they'll have an oil rig sized outpost there floating around and they'll do these kinds of things, but for now it seems like pure science fiction on so many different levels..

 

[danhezee]

I dunno about any bite bucket.. I can't even lift a 2 oz. stuffed animal out of a 2x2 ft box when I put a quarter in it. :geek:

Whatever rope or cable you're gonna use will weigh significantly more than both bucket, payload and probably ship combined and so it all seems rather silly to me, like kids playing in a sandbox with tonka trucks. Not to mention anything you drop down in there will be eaten up quickly by acid and heat. Maybe in 300 years they'll have an oil rig sized outpost there floating around and they'll do these kinds of things, but for now it seems like pure science fiction on so many different levels..

Research has been done here on earth for heavy lift dirigibles. aka, roadless trucking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargolifter

 

[Piratejoe]

I have too ask "Why?" I ask this because why would you want to put floating citys in Venus's upper atmosphere in the first place? Is it because you want to be able to float around the planet too make trips down to the surface easier? Why would you even want to go too the surface of Venus? If you have no real reason to want to go too the surface of venus then their is no reason what so ever too have a floating city in Venus's upper atmosphere. Might as well just make a rotating spacestation orbiting venus if you have no real reason to do anything with Venus other then just hang around.

It would be far Easier too even still find large (but not too large) Asteroids and hollow out parts of it and set it too spin and create many Asteroid colonys then even colonizing mars or venus.

No Im sorry Venus has too many issues with our current level of Tech and in my opinion no justification too build a floating city(s).

 

[Couerl]

I have too ask "Why?" I ask this because why would you want to put floating citys in Venus's upper atmosphere in the first place?.

Well presumably to exploit natural resources. That would be a lot harder to do from an orbiting space station, but anything like this is still several hundred years away IMHO. :geek:

 

[danhezee]

I have too ask "Why?" I ask this because why would you want to put floating citys in Venus's upper atmosphere in the first place? Is it because you want to be able to float around the planet too make trips down to the surface easier? Why would you even want to go too the surface of Venus? If you have no real reason to want to go too the surface of venus then their is no reason what so ever too have a floating city in Venus's upper atmosphere. Might as well just make a rotating spacestation orbiting venus if you have no real reason to do anything with Venus other then just hang around.

It would be far Easier too even still find large (but not too large) Asteroids and hollow out parts of it and set it too spin and create many Asteroid colonys then even colonizing mars or venus.

No Im sorry Venus has too many issues with our current level of Tech and in my opinion no justification too build a floating city(s).

Why? As far as the purpose this thread, Venus has regions that have earth like temperatures and pressures. Those regions happen to be 50km up. IMO, the clouds of venus is one of the easier places to establish a thriving colony with our current tech than some of the other options.

All of your questions have been answered throughout the 5 or so pages of this thread.

 

[NicknamedBob]

I have too ask "Why?" I ask this because why would you want to put floating citys in Venus's upper atmosphere in the first place? Is it because you want to be able to float around the planet too make trips down to the surface easier? Why would you even want to go too the surface of Venus? If you have no real reason to want to go too the surface of venus then their is no reason what so ever too have a floating city in Venus's upper atmosphere. Might as well just make a rotating spacestation orbiting venus if you have no real reason to do anything with Venus other then just hang around.

It would be far Easier too even still find large (but not too large) Asteroids and hollow out parts of it and set it too spin and create many Asteroid colonys then even colonizing mars or venus.

No Im sorry Venus has too many issues with our current level of Tech and in my opinion no justification too build a floating city(s).

Why? As far as the purpose this thread, Venus has regions that have earth like temperatures and pressures. Those regions happen to be 50km up. IMO, the clouds of venus is one of the easier places to establish a thriving colony with our current tech than some of the other options.

All of your questions have been answered throughout the 5 or so pages of this thread.

The answer to "Why go there?" is the same as it was to "Why go to the New World?" in the 15 and 1600s.

Few people went for the pure adventure. It was clear that there were resources to be exploited. In the case of Venus, there is an entire world of minerals and metals to be utilized, through application of energy, to make anything you want. And that energy is plentiful too. Even if, and particularly if, you use solar energy.

I think the colony cities would be comfortable and intriguing. But admittedly, they would not be without risk, either in getting there or simply living there. It might appeal to the kind of people who always wanted to run away and join the circus.

In colonial America, virtually everything you needed could be hacked out of the endless forests. Basically all you needed was an axe.

Similarly, on Venus, some colonies will seem to go somewhat low-tech, utilizing the minimum in modern science to create their acid-resistant plastics and the carbon fiber building materials with which they pitch their tents. With this very basic minimum, and just a few other odds and ends, like the axe I mentioned above, an enterprizing colonist could literally carve out a living from the very air of Venus.

All of the ingredients for the plastic are there, and carbon from the atmosphere is a by-product of the production of oxygen, (and even that is done by plants!) Really, once your habitat is staked out and tented, all you have to do is start your garden.

I really think there is a corollary to the early American Colonial experience, but it could also be much like the early Australian Colonial experience. And then again it is more likely to be a completely unique Venusian Colonial experience.

But it is more likely that large industrial conglomerates will fund mining and manufacturing facilities, not only in the air and on the surface, but also in orbit at Venus, as well as on the moon and Mars. A sufficiently advanced robotic force could be the shock troops for beginning everything, and we are certainly on the verge of having that capability.

Think about it as an investor might. If, for the trivial cost of sending some rather exceptional robots to the moon and to Venus, you could in a mere dozen years or so harvest an entire nation's worth of productive effort, why wouldn't you want to multiply your wealth by a factor of a hundred or so?

 

[neilsox]

Piratejoe » Tue May 04, 2010 9:32 pm

I have to ask "Why?" I ask this because why would you want to put floating cities in Venus' upper atmosphere in the first place?

It would be far easier to even still find large (but not too large) Asteroids and hollow out parts of it and set it to spin and create many Asteroid colonies then even colonizing mars or Venus.

Typical asteroids will likely disintegrate, if we spin them fast enough to produce even 1/10g which is likely worse than useless, otherwise asteroids are a better option near term. I agree: no justification to build a floating city(s) near term, but there is at least a tiny niche as humans expand into our solar system. Neil

 

[rockett]

Piratejoe » Tue May 04, 2010 9:32 pm

I have to ask "Why?" I ask this because why would you want to put floating cities in Venus' upper atmosphere in the first place?

It would be far easier to even still find large (but not too large) Asteroids and hollow out parts of it and set it to spin and create many Asteroid colonies then even colonizing mars or Venus.

Typical asteroids will likely disintegrate, if we spin them fast enough to produce even 1/10g which is likely worse than useless, otherwise asteroids are a better option near term. I agree: no justification to build a floating city(s) near term, but there is at least a tiny niche as humans expand into our solar system. Neil

The amount of fuel, time, and support supplies. Reaching an asteroid, matching course, and rendezvous will require much more of each. That is not even counting "hanging on" long enough to accomplish what you are proposing. That kind of work in zero-G is not a simple exercise. Even drills or TBMs rely on gravity, you push too hard and your space rock just floats away. True, we will develop methods in time, but it will require awhile to do that, while at the same time we are using up consumables.

The advantage of Venus (.9 G), Mars (.3 G), or even the moon (.1 G) is gravity. That is not even accounting for locally available materials that you do not have to expend fuel or a lot of energy to get.

 

[neilsox]

The 0.88 g of the Venus cloud tops is a big advantage for humans, but the light level may not be higher than the best solar energy locations on Earth's surface and possible loss of buoyancy can be fatal. The cancer risk may not be better than Earth average either.
For asteroids that orbit inside the orbit of Mars, the delta v, time and supplies should be about the same, rather than "much more." When a 50 ton lander bumps a tiny 5000 ton asteroid, the asteroid won't change course, but a tiny bit, because of the inertia of the asteroid. I agree some tasks are difficult in freefall, but others are easier, so near zero g may be an advantage after the habitat is completed, except for the health problems. Living in a hollowed asteroid should be much like living in the ISS = international space station, Mir or sky lab. Low air pressure with high oxygen content may prove best for all off Earth habitats other than the cloud tops of the gas giant planets, which require high delta v to leave.
Can we really make more than slight use of dirt/rock/ore from the surface of Venus in cloud top habitats without seriously over heating the habitat? Neil

 

[rockett]

Can we really make more than slight use of dirt/rock/ore from the surface of Venus in cloud top habitats without seriously over heating the habitat? Neil

By the time we retrieved them, I should think they would have cooled to approach ambient temperature...

 

[NicknamedBob]

The 0.88 g of the Venus cloud tops is a big advantage for humans, but the light level may not be higher than the best solar energy locations on Earth's surface and possible loss of buoyancy can be fatal. The cancer risk may not be better than Earth average either.
For asteroids that orbit inside the orbit of Mars, the delta v, time and supplies should be about the same, rather than "much more." When a 50 ton lander bumps a tiny 5000 ton asteroid, the asteroid won't change course, but a tiny bit, because of the inertia of the asteroid. I agree some tasks are difficult in freefall, but others are easier, so near zero g may be an advantage after the habitat is completed, except for the health problems. Living in a hollowed asteroid should be much like living in the ISS = international space station, Mir or sky lab. Low air pressure with high oxygen content may prove best for all off Earth habitats other than the cloud tops of the gas giant planets, which require high delta v to leave.
Can we really make more than slight use of dirt/rock/ore from the surface of Venus in cloud top habitats without seriously over heating the habitat? Neil

Venus has been cited as being a location from which it would be easier to get to and from those hollowed-out asteroids in a timely fashion. Its orbit brings it around to a favorable launching position quite rapidly, more rapidly than does that of Earth. Keep in mind that "the asteroids" are not clumped neatly together. Any particular rock will have its own favorable times for launch to and from the inner planets.

The orbit of Venus will be like an express transit line, while that of Earth would be like a local, that takes forever to get to its stops.

And commuting, so to speak, from Venus to the asteroid belt would have advantages for the commuters. They could rebuild their strength in the relatively normal gravity of Venus as they cash in their wages for toil in the asteroid belt like cowboys come to the end of a cattle drive.

Also, those minerals and ores they've been handling would be welcome arrivals as well. All the necessary machines, air pumps, door latches, airplane hardware and other necessities for life on Venus could be fabricated from the metals harvested from the asteroids.

Equally, rather than go out to the asteroids, some might choose to fish a little closer to home by dredging materials up from Venus' hellish surface. A different version of "the deadliest catch".

"Can we really make more than slight use of dirt/rock/ore from the surface of Venus in cloud top habitats ..."? Most assuredly so. I would conjecture that even the crudest and simplest habitat in the atmosphere of Venus will have the equivalent of a "back porch", where neighbors would set down their little planes, and where the equivalent of forges and kilns could be constructed. With computer-aided manufacturing, even relatively crude manufacturing facilities can be made to produce high-quality goods. There would certainly be a demand for them!

Venus would have a high demand for devices necessary to function there, such as atmosphere suits to protect from the acid in the atmosphere, air bottles and re-breathers to deal with working outside, and tools and devices of all kinds to put together more habitats, as well as to produce items for export to other places including Earth!

There would also be a need for more advanced manufacturing facilities, including factories for durable plastics to shelter each habitat from the corrosive atmosphere, assembly plants for making more advanced atmospheric craft and even space ships of various types.

Implicit in these fancies is the need to get material and personnel from the atmospheric habitats up into Venus orbit, and thence outward to other destinations. Equally, one would need to bring new people and materials in, or down to the floating cities.

This would require what has already been described, a spinning, orbiting octopus-like construction that dips its tentacles into the highest reaches of Venus' tenuous upper atmosphere. There it would capture or release atmospheric vessels designed to fly down to the free-floating habitats, or using rockets, to fly up from them to be captured and taken up to orbit. Once in orbit, of course, a vessel released at the upper extreme of the orbiters rotation could arc off to virtually any point in the solar system.

Most intra-habitat transportation would be by airplanes flying on solar electric power during the long Venusian day. In the equally long Venusian night only chemically fueled emergency transport would be available.

Another thing to consider, as far as excess heat is concerned, is that each habitat could easily cool itself by rising to a higher altitude. This might require some pressurization modifications. Each habitat would also likely have the equivalent of life boats, in that a catastrophic breakup of the habitat would be designed to be along specific lines, so that sections would retain buoyancy, or have it established by the emergency expansion of compressed gases into normally flaccid flotation chambers.

I know I wouldn't risk my neck, or tempt the hand of providence to send me to a fiery oblivion, without seeing to some good emergency procedures! Typically, the advantage is that good planning will create a much more comfortable environment, as well as a safer one. Simple air-lock areas with well-tended gardens would be an example.

 

[neilsox]

I did not mean that we can never build cloud top habitats at Venus, only that the early adapters will suffer considerable discomfort and risk. Lots stronger than Kevlar will increase options for both Venus and for Dark Sky Station at 50 to 100 kilometers above the surface of both planets. The graph is likely for day time conditions, so the habitat is likely about 15 degrees c cooler, just before sunrise. More efficient photo voltaic panels will likely be mass produced soon, so more energy will be available for air conditioning and material processing without going to ten times the area of the habitat for PV panels. I agree with extensive human presence in the inner solar system, Venus cloud top habitats can be an important part of the space ecconomy. Near term however Venus cloud top habitats have little utility other than learning how to do it. Blowout appears about as dangerous for Venus cloud top at coolest ambient temperature as it is on the surface of Mars. Yes independent compartments reduce the blowout hazard for both planets, especially Venus, where loss of some compartments can mean decent into a firey Hell. Neil