Colonizing Venus - looking for sources

[nexium]

After the several years it would take to get organized, we can send a death row criminal in a partially inflated with mostly oxygen BA330 which I think will have 330 cubic meters of living space when and if fully inflated. It will take several years to get to Venus, as some gravity assist manuvers are required to keep the launch cost within reason. As the BA330 sinks slowly into the thick atmosphere of Venus, Helium and Oxygen inflate the BA330. The criminal astronaught can choose how much helium and oxygen are releaced and how much is kept as a reserve in case of leaks. Most of the non-essentuals need to be jutsuned to achieve nuetral boyancy at the Venus altitude with the lowest temperature. Body heat and life support waste heat will cause the inside temperature to stabilise at a some what higher temperature which may be uncomfortably hot, espescially if the BA330 is higher or lower than the coolist altitude.<br />If the criminal is reasonably co-operative in doing the desired science we can expect, solutions to flow from Earth in ideas and resupply, otherwise the criminal will be left to die. Neil

 

[brellis]

Considering the issues of atmospheric pressure surrounding Venus, wouldn't the more apt analogy be to 'float' a vessel? At that point wouldn't there be some comparisons to the oceanic voyages in pursuit of the New World? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Er...interesting idea (actually kind of creepy) but why not just send a person that actually wants to go? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[betelgeuze]

Manned mission to venus 1967:<br />http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670017910_1967017910.pdf<br /><br />Manned research station floating in the Venerean atmosphere(David Grinspoon):<br />http://www.funkyscience.net/imagebank/image_ills/researchstation.jpg<br /><br />

 

[mithridates]

Thanks a lot, that's exactly the kind of source I was looking for. Interesting how much more bold NASA seemed back then (before I was alive) with their assertion that "sure we can go to Venus and hang out there for forty days using Apollo technology" compared to the way they are now.<br /><br />In other news, I created an article on the Korean Wikipedia about the atmospere of Venus and it's on the main page right now in the did you know section, with the equivalent of "did you know that around 50 kilometres above the surface the atmosphere of Venus has a temperature and air pressure nearly the same as that on Earth?" Here's the image:<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">I must admit that I'm surprised to find so much resistance to the idea of exploring Venus on a board like this.</font><br /><br />I don't understand your surprise. Mars is the first and obvious choice for a manned mission and a subsequent permanent colony.<br /><br />Comparatively, and with only one manned mission to be funded, defend to me why Venus should be the target rather than Mars?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[ittiz]

I think it suprises him because Venus does contain the most earth like enviroment in the solar system besides earth itself. The atmosphere of venus would be a lot safer than the surface of mars for a few reasons. The only issue with colonizing venus is that there is so much gravity it would make it hard to launch back into space, especially since you can't use the materials there to build stuff. Although with all that CO₂ and H₂SO₄ there isn't any reason why you couldn't make hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel. Once highely heat resistant electronics are developed venus just may be a much cheaper place to explore than mars.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't understand either.<br />Venus is a hostile, hot, corrosive environment.<br /><br />Mars is low on atmospheric pressure and qxygen, but we have experience dealing with that.<br />It's a little chilly, but again, not intolerably so.<br /><br />It also has the best chance of having, or having had life.<br /><br />To me, it's a no brainer.<br />If we can't make it there, we can't make it anywhere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

I don't believe it should be the target instead of Mars, just the first target. Or if nothing else, I'd like to see it given consideration again. It hasn't been established that Mars is the first and obvious choice - the way I see it it's a toss-up between Mars, Venus and the Moon.<br /><br />Looks like we're not going anywhere soon though, so we have a lot of time to discuss this. -_-<br /><br />Why Venus should be the first target:<br />-similar gravity<br />-requires no power to stay afloat at 50 km altitude<br />-air pressure is the same making a rupture not so much a serious problem as one on Mars (ie you can just strap on an oxygen tank and go over to fix it without worrying about your blood boiling)<br />-lower delta V than to Mars<br />-shorter launch window allowing for more frequent trips back and forth<br />-distance to Earth is closer making communication a bit faster<br />-hydrogen and water can easily be harvested from the sulfuric acid in the clouds, all other elements essential for life are present<br /><br />Those are some of the reasons. I don't believe that at present funding though that we'll get to any of the three destinations. One other reason why I believe Venus should be focused upon again is to bring the subject back into the spotlight in the mass media and hopefully garner some more interest in space exploration as an added possible destination can't but help pique people's interest.<br /><br />And if we get to Mars first? Wonderful. I doubt you'd be able to find that many people happier than me if we were to finally land on Mars one day.<br /><br />Now let's hear your reasons for preferring Mars if you will. Not to debate, I'd just like to hear your point of view on this. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Once highely heat resistant electronics are developed venus just may be a much cheaper place to explore than mars. </font><br />And when we shall develop highly heat-resistant people?<br /><br />In all seriousness, heat dissipation <b>is the #1 problem</b>. In order to bring a capsule to the surface, and maintain an interior temperature of 21C, an incredible level of insulation and refrigeration would be required. The heat pump would need to somehow radiate heat out of the 21C capsule and into the sweltering 500C external environment. Building and maintaining such a heat pump on a decending capsule is quite difficult technologicially and will require huge amounts of power generation (which makes yet even more heat to contend and radiate away).<br /><br />The living quarters on/below the surface will have the same heat dissipation problems. How will we refrigerate the interior of the habitable are to 21C? What enormous power sources will we have to run the heat pumps?<br /><br />Now once you have a man on the surface, how will he be mobile, and not confined to his heavily insulated, refigerated, power-sapping habitat? Build a heavily insulated, refigerated, power-sapping habitat on wheels? Give me a break.<br /><br />It would be a one-way trip, since Venus has about the same gravitational well as Earth. Or are you suggesting that we somehow land or construct on the surface a booster capable of Venusian orbit (e.g. build or land a Russian Proton on the Venusian surface). And how would we build a gantry for this rocket on the surface? And how will we keep the rocket fuels cool in the sweltering 500C heat, throughout the entire launch?<br /><br />Finally, no one is working on designing a high-temperature electronics industry.<br /><br />I say we focus on the Moon, Mars, Ceres, Phobos and Diemos, Jovian Moons, Saturnian moons, Uranian and Neptunian moons, even Pluto first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Sigh.<br /><br />Nobody<br /><br />is<br /><br />proposing<br /><br />a<br /><br />mission<br /><br />to<br /><br />the<br /><br />surface. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[yoda9999]

The reason why we don't want to colonize the Venusian atmosphere is because we don't want to colonize any atmosphere. The goal is to colonize the surface of planets. Humans are surface dwellers. If we were bird creatures, then it would make sense. We rather colonize the surface of Mars or Titan than the atmosphere of Earth.<br /><br />The only advantage with the Venusian atmosphere seems to be the air pressure. But I don't think that alone is big enough reason. You still have to bring air to the colony.<br /><br />We are a long time from building a colony float inside an alien atmosphere. We don't even fully understand the Earth's weather systems. I don't think we fully understand Venus's weather systems. Venus has a wierd retrograde rotation, and day and night lasts hundreds of days. There are storms, lightning, and hurricanes we never seen before. We don't know how violent the weather is inside the atmosphere. A floating colony would be buffeted by solar storms, atmospheric storms, sulphuric acid rain, etc. There's also little visibility because so much light is blocked out. Who would want to build and live in such a dark dangerous place? <br /><br />You should edit your first post title so people will stop talking about the surface of Venus.

 

[mithridates]

Good idea. I've added a disclaimer to the op.<br /><br />And thanks for the on-topic response. It's 3:30 am here in Korea so it's time to go to bed but just before I do, in response to your comment about humans being surface dwelllers, I would counter that humans are 1.0 g dwellers as well. Good night. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't think you're paying attention. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Thank you Crazyeddie for expressing this so clearly.<br /><br /><br />I would like to also mention that returning from a balloon floating in the Venusian atmosphere to near orbit would be as nearly as daunting a task as returning from the surface. A booster perhaps the size of a Proton rocket would be required. I find it difficult to imagine any reason man would spend hundreds of billions of dollars in order to float above Venus in the corrosive opaque turbulent clouds for months; all the while hoping that the acids don't eat into and destroy the thin skin protecting my fully fueled Proton return rocket dangling by a cable below my tiny viewless cabin .<br /><br />if any science is being done while in this claustrophobic capsule, why couldn't it be done by better an unmanned craft? At least with an unmanned craft you would not have to waste 99.99% of the mass somehow delivering a fueled Proton return rocket to dangle under the balloon.<br /><br />Um, why would we want to do this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[ittiz]

I think you're missing the point. People wouldn't live on the ground! You wouldn't need heat resistant people! They would live in the upper atmosphere where the temp is perfectly comfortable even by earth standards. Like 50km up on venus the conditions outside are just like they are on earth except the air isn't breathable. Also the acid is no worry because a thin coating of plastic would make anything acid proof. You would only need high temp electronics for autonomous robot mining and exploring on the ground. Also high temp electronics <b>are</b> being developed. Look at this link: http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/venus/VenusColony_STAIF03.pdf It's a paper put together by one of NASA's planetary scientists about this very issue.<br /><br />On a side note there are plenty of people who would jump at the chance to go there. Although I do admit if a colony like that was set up it would probably be a scientific research station.

 

[nexium]

Hi mithridates. That a Venus balloon colony has twice the gravity of Mars is a good selling point, but a balloon colony in Earth's atmosphere has about 2.3 times the gravity of Mars, but we have not built a tethered nor a free flying balloon colony in Earth's atmosphere since the Hindenberg burned. Why not? We should build several here, before we attempt a balloon colony at Venus or Saturn whose upper atmosphere has about 2.3 times the gravity of Mars.<br />The optimum altitude in the atmosphere of Venus will vary at least slightly with lattitude and as the 444? hour day progresses. How will the first Venus balloon platform decide, if it should move higher or lower? Trial and error? Neil

 

[mithridates]

Hi. Yes I suppose we would be doing tests here on Earth first with balloon colonies before trying anything on Venus. Now that I think about it I guess wind tests would have to be done in a lab since we don't have any winds here that reach up to 300 kph, but for living in a balloon type location for long periods of time, that could certainly be done here. It couldn't be too high, maybe about 2 km above the ground because anything too high would have a really low air pressure whereas on Venus at that altitude we would still have a full bar.<br /><br />From what I can tell, anything within 52 to 55 km or so would be ideal. I assume that a colony would want to be a bit higher up where it's about 15C, as cooler temperatures are better in maintaining electronics and there would be a bit more sunlight.<br /><br />I think the first thing we need to do though are send in unmanned solar flyers to really check out the atmosphere and wind speed at that altitude - the wind speed is slower up at higher altitudes but the 'day' is also faster as well due to the smaller distance to travel, so that would probably be the best location. I assume we would first need a huge amount of data from these unmanned solar flyers before even considering sending people there. Luckily they seem to be just as cheap as Mars missions, and can stay active for as long as the rovers on Mars are so it should be no problem to have even a dozen small planes flying about and getting plenty of data until we feel we know enough to make a decision on whether to send people or not.<br /><br />BTW, I don't remember if I mentioned this but breathable air on Venus has a lifting power half that of helium on Earth, so in theory anything we can do on Earth with helium can be done on Venus with twice the volume of air. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Good news, the next article I wrote in Japanese on their Wikipedia on the atmosphere of Venus is on the front page right now in their featured new articles section (and will stay there for the entire day).<br /><br />Here's the image link, easier than uploading here (file's a bit over 100 KB):<br /><br />http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v180/mithridates/hehheh33.png<br /><br />Soon everybody in the world will know that the cloudtop environment is ideal! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Mithradates,<br /><br />Grats on the Wikipedia front page ! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Welcome back, Stevehw! haven't seen you post for a few months. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Do you mean in Venus' orbit or 50 km up in the clouds as proposed? If you mean 50 km up in the clouds, the cosmic radiation received there is less than what one receives on Mars, and is well-shielded.<br /><br />"The thick atmosphere provides about one kilogram per square centimeter of mass shielding from galactic cosmicradiation and from solar particle event radiation, eliminating a key difficulty in many other proposed spacesettlement locations. The gravity, slightly under one Earth gravity, is likely to be sufficient to prevent the adverseaffects of microgravity. At roughly one atmosphere of pressure, a habitat in the atmosphere will not require a high-strength pressure vessel." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Thanks! I'm considering the next one now. Hmm.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[djtt]

is just outside of the liquid water zone, with a surface and subsurface temp of about Minus 60 C.<br /><br />not true, mars can hold liquid water around the equators, average temp is about 20/30 lower then earth, still makes for spots permanently (significantly) above zero in certain parts

 

[mithridates]

Yes, and also in Hellas Planitia where the air pressure is 30% higher than "sea" level. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>