Colonizing Venus - looking for sources

mithridates · Oct 5, 2006

And now back on topic to address your other post: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />that neutralizes radiation <hr /></blockquote> The cloud cover already does this, thankfully. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Why dont we build floating cities right here in our OWN atmosphere then. <hr /></blockquote> Because the air we breathe doesn't float on Earth. If it did float as breathable air does on Venus you can bet we'd have floating cities. All we'd have to do is fill a balloon with regular air and up it would go. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Other than pure research, or extreme adventure types -- who would want to live there? And what do you realistically want to do there?<hr /></blockquote> Why not just go with pure research and adventure types? It's an entire planet. People have no problems with going to Antarctica and the void of space itself for pure research, why not Venus? The other objective would be to create a livable space there, then bring more and more people over until eventually you have a colony. Then I guess you'd do whatever you do in a regular city - wake up, go for a walk in the gardens, work, download a movie and watch that, get bored and get permission to go fly in the clouds for a bit. No more dangerous than sailing in a boat over a few miles of water that causes hypothermia and death in a number of minutes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

vonster · Oct 5, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />This may be a bit off topic, but which keyboard do you use? I learned the Dvorak keyboard last year and I'm glad I did. I never had carpal tunnel syndrome but I've heard about others who did and had it reduced. For me it's resulted in an improved typing speed and 100% more fun when typing<hr /></blockquote> lol .

mithridates · Oct 5, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />lol <hr /></blockquote> ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

casualphilosoph · Oct 5, 2006

Does not make much sense doing it here, you need expensive helium, have to build it outside on top of the ballons instead in a safe and confined inside and the air about the clouds is cold and thin. Also you can not get much carbon with our CO2 concentration out of the atmosphere, additionally you block sunlight from the earth and hinder air traffic. Well the largest mountain on venus is 11 km high and if i understand it right 50km is above the zone of most weather conditions, all that stay is atmospheric management within the ballon and dumping weight occasionally or building new ballon space(as you gain weight trough the extraction of C from CO2), you do not need to care much about direction control. And if you want to go up to space you can probably use airplane rocket hybrids. Build a spacelift would also be nice but will probably even be harder than on earth.

vonster · Oct 5, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />?<hr /></blockquote> seriously i was just kidding about the carpal tunel, its all in fun but i do hear the dvorak keyboards are great for that -- its true .

hungrrrry1 · Oct 5, 2006

i don't see the need to go to venus for much more than getting information about the planet itself...what use will it have? Probably not much in our time...if somehow in the future we could terraform the planet to maybe mine it, then colonization may be good but I don't think there is even a concept yet of how we could terraform venus so that we could use its surface for anything except robotic missions which would mean no use in colonization of the planet. In the atmosphere of venus a colony is good for what exactly? A science crew would be the extent of it and of a maximum of 5 people likely...maybe we would have a better use for venus in 1000 years and then maybe we could come up with a way to utilize the planet better but I doubt even then. Mars is the most likely planet that we could make a "colony" on and grow it requiring less work than venus no question. Terraforming on Mars would likely be difficult too but at least we could start right on the surface of the planet instead of in a balloon...if you want to float in a balloon you don't have to leave any planet to do that and the views would be more spectacular here over the earth than any other rocky ball in this solar system

casualphilosoph · Oct 6, 2006

Jeez, why do I get the feeling you did not read much of the previous posts or links? The point is we do not need to terraform venus, the technology to mine from venus surface is starting to develop right now and we can build many, many ballons to populate venus large enough for agriculture, living space etc and can get most resources important for life chemical from the venus atmosphere. Besides on earth we do not fly in ballons we fly on baskets etc attached to ballons and we do not build venus ballons for the view but for practical purposes.

ldyaidan · Oct 6, 2006

IF (big IF) we can overcome the obsticles, I can see the "Cloud Cities of Venus" being high dollar vacation spots for the rich and shameless. Maybe Bigalow would come up with something. Rae

dragon04 · Oct 6, 2006

Without outlining the formulae (I'll let you do that), I'll just say that for every pound one wishes to float, 16 cubic feet of Helium is required. In rough terms, a helium balloon the size of a hot air balloon would be required to "float" 2 people that weigh 225lbs each. Let's just use the Space Shuttle as an example. It weighs roughly 200,000 pounds with no payload. If we wished to float the shuttle, it would require a helium balloon 600 or so feet in diameter. An average 1 story home without the foundation weighs about 160,000 pounds. How much does a city weigh? Even a small settlement of, say, 50 people would require a balloon miles in diameter. Floating cities would not be an engineering impossibility, but they would be impractical in the extreme. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

green_meklar · Oct 6, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />And let's not forget Jupiter's crushing gravity....just because you're living in a floating city doesn't mean you're immune from weighing two and a half times your normal Earth weight!<hr /></blockquote> That's certainly true. Probably any floating cities on Jupiter would be populated by robots to begin with, until people could get themselves cybernetic bodies to deal with the gravity problem (either that or live underwater and wear breathing apparatuses all the time

). <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If we wished to float the shuttle, it would require a helium balloon 600 or so feet in diameter. An average 1 story home without the foundation weighs about 160,000 pounds. How much does a city weigh? Even a small settlement of, say, 50 people would require a balloon miles in diameter.<hr /></blockquote> Are you accounting for the fact that Venus' atmosphere is much denser than Earth's at the level where we want to build the town? Like someone said before, the idea is to live inside the balloon, and just have it rigid and filled with normal air so you can breathe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ________________Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming! </div>

mithridates · Oct 6, 2006

Not to worry, that is taken care of in the original article: "Since breathable air is a lifting gas, the entire lifting envelope of an aerostat can be breathable gas, allowing the full volume of the aerostat to be habitable volume. For objects the size of cities, this represents an enormous amount of lifting power. A one-kilometer diameter spherical envelope will lift 700,000 tons (two Empire state buildings). A two-kilometer diameter envelope would lift 6 million tons. So, if the settlement is contained in an envelope containing oxygen and nitrogen the size of a modest city, the amount of mass which can be lifted will be, in fact, large enough that it could also hold the mass of a modest city. The result would be an environment as spacious as a typical city." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

casualphilosoph · Oct 6, 2006

Hmm Dragon are you sure your calculations are correct? if I use a 100 feet ballon that the link below says lifts 33,000 pound and multiplicate it with 6*6*6=216 thats more than 200,000 pound, roughly the same result using a 1 gramm per liter calculation and converting it to pound.(the venus article says the lifting force of breathable air will be half of the helium lifting force) http://science.howstuffworks.com/helium2.htm

search · Oct 7, 2006

This was a post that got mixed somewhere and although might be already oudated I will bring it to this thread where should originally be. Thanks to those (Newtonian, Mithridates, Saiph and Ittiz) who noticed the glitch: There is several reasons why Mars is prefered and not Venus (info from wikipedia): Venus atmosphere Atmospheric pressure 9.3 MPa Carbon dioxide ~96.5% Nitrogen ~3.5% Sulfur dioxide .015% Argon .007% Water vapor .002% Carbon monoxide .0017% Helium .0012% Neon .0007% Carbonyl sulfide Hydrogen chloride Hydrogen fluoride trace 'The pressure at the planet's surface is about 90 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 °C. This makes Venus' surface hotter than Mercury's, even though Venus is nearly twice as distant from the Sun and receives only 25% of the solar irradiance." I do not know about you but I would feel quite unconfortable 1km under water at 400c... Mars Atmosphere Atmospheric pressure 0.7–0.9 kPa Carbon dioxide 95.32% Nitrogen 2.7% Argon 1.6% Oxygen 0.13% Carbon monoxide 0.07% Water vapor 0.03% Nitric oxide 0.01% Neon 2.5 ppm Krypton 300 ppb Xenon 80 ppb Ozone 30 ppb Methane 10.5 ppb "The atmosphere of Mars is relatively thin; the atmospheric pressure on the surface varies from around 30 Pa (0.03 kPa) on Olympus Mons to over 1155 Pa (1.155 kPa) in the depths of Hellas Planitia, with a mean surface level pressure of 600 Pa (0.6 kPa)[citation needed], compared to Earth's 101.3 kPa. The equivalent pressure of Mars' atmosphere can be found at a height of 35km above the Earth's surface. The scale height of the atmosphere is about 11 km, higher than Earth's 6 km. The atmospher

casualphilosoph · Oct 7, 2006

Well first thx for the information and then....SURFACE! SUUUUURRRFACE!!!! That s only on the SURFACE! God its really depresses me after that has been said again and again and again there are still people that talk about surface conditions, I mean you do not have to read all but at least the starting post and skim a little bit trough previous posts. Arghh I really could get a headache sorry if it sounded insulting just wanted to get of some steam <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

search · Oct 7, 2006

Read the beginning of my post...

casualphilosoph · Oct 7, 2006

Hmm thought the comments where put in between the post by you sorry Search. Steve higher radiation in higher altitude does not mean more temperature, otherwise mount everest would be a pretty hot place. heat radiation has to be absorbed in order to become warmth and higher densities, the ground, dust particles and droplets(clouds etc) help to keep warmth from escaping as radiation. Thats the reason why the atmosphere is not 500 degree or more besides you can get informatuion regarding temperature and altitude relations when googling. Example: http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/vel/1918vpt.htm Ah before I forgot it, I am studying physics that why I am wondering whats unscientifically regarding floating cities? And when you want no cities we could at least cultivate some floating algaes bioengineered beforehand to fit Venus conditions (there are algaes that float in the ocean using gas so it should not be so far of if we use some extremophiles mixed with such Dna).

dragon04 · Oct 8, 2006

It's a matter of pragmatism to me, steve. It was neither "practical" nor "cost effective" to put men on the Moon. But there was a political and psychological impetus to do it. Scientific insight was a bonus. However, when one starts to consider the colonization of Venus vs. Mars, it behooves us to look at things in more simplistic terms, I think. I could go point by point (again and as many have) in comparing the balance sheet points between colonizing Mars or Venus, but the only concept people need understand is that colonizing Mars is a much less extravagant venture that floating cities in the Venusian atmosphere. I think it's fair to say that yes, we could develop the technology and expertise to attempt to float an outpost in the Venusian atmosphere, but in terms of resources and logistics, why would we do so? I think what our friends are missing here is that basing a permanent human presence on any planet outside our own is a very complicated, very risky, and very resource intensive undertaking. Even if resources and money were not the issue, we would colonize Mars first. Why? Because it would be the easiest. Many of the neccessities are easily obtainable on Mars. There is water there. There is CO2 there. there is shelter there (or the portential for shelter). Boring holes in solid rock and being "cave dwellers" might be inglamorous compared to an aesthetically pleasing floating city, but it's practical, and time tested. The engineering issues involved are known and mastered quantities. I'm left with the conclusion that proponents of a Venusian colony are basing their arguments entirely on its emotional appeal as opposed to practical value. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

mithridates · Oct 8, 2006

That's funny, because the only emotional response I've seen so far is "you can't go to Venus, that's the hell planet!" which is something that really needs to be rethought. I like the idea of colonizing Mars too; that beautiful blue sunset taken by one of the rovers is the background to my desktop. All that I want to see is Venus put back on the drawing board. Now once again, here are the reasons: -Much closer than Mars, quicker orbit which means more launch windows. That's crucial. Communication time is reduced as well. http://sajri.astronomy.cz/asteroidgroups/hildaorb.gif <--nice animation showing just how much closer Venus is and how much more frequent the launch windows are -almost a full g of gravity means we don't have to investigate the long-term effects of microgravity before going -Not floating cities but aerostats (much smaller) using existing technology could be made to float without needing any fuel -Water is easier to obtain on Venus than Mars because it can be extracted from the H2SO4 in the clouds. On Mars you have to plan out just the right site first and stay there. -Less radiation than Mars thanks to the thick atmosphere -Crucial errors such as holes in one's habitat do not mean instant death as they do on Mars (looks pretty tame but it makes your blood boil) whereas on Venus you have a full bar of pressure that makes a hole in the habitat something you have to fix, but with more time to spare and it can be done with a simple oxygen tank and protective suit -easier to grow plants, solar radiation is just about as strong from below as from the top giving much more solar power as well What it would lack compared to Mars of course would be the ability to actually go and hike around, walk up and down canyons and valleys and so on. Venus would be more along the lines of long-term scientific investigations on the ocean. They do j <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

casualphilosoph · Oct 8, 2006

Steve, so you say George Landis as well as the one who did the temperature chart above where wrong? Well if you can find a temperature chart or source that contradict the ones I found I will surely doubt my claims however until then there seems to be no base to your claims regarding venus atmosphere temperatures. Also I did mention that I study physics, to point out I know how to look in critical ways true to the scientific way of thinking, without only relying on personal feelings as there seems to be arguments saying people that are pro venus are only argumenting emotianally. Dragon regarding mining resources mars is superior but its far easier building floating cities bit by bit than terraforming a whole planet , ok we could rely on underground domes with artificial atmosphere however overpressure, lack of natural sunlight are no less problems than hull managment and altitide managment on venus.(even if we assume that Mars low gravity is not really damaging for human bodies). They reason I prefer Venus over Mars is that I estimate that suitable pressure, temperature and light are harder to aquire conditions for colonizing than suitable minable ground and ice reserves. I admit that it might be necessary to get some additional hydrogen from outside of venus as they amount of hydrogen in venus atmosphere and minerals is alittle bit low, however its also to be speculated if Mars does not need an additional Infusion of atmosphere gas beside its frozen reserves for terrraforming.

dragon04 · Oct 8, 2006

-Water is easier to obtain on Venus than Mars because it can be extracted from the H2SO4 in the clouds. On Mars you have to plan out just the right site first and stay there. I don't follow this logic. Explain to me the exact equipment, its cost, and most importantly its mass to extract water from the Venusian atmosphere for a colony of, say 100 as opposed to a few guys with something as rudimentary as electric chainsaws going out and cutting chunks of water ice, returning them and melting them to provide a potable water supply? -Crucial errors such as holes in one's habitat do not mean instant death as they do on Mars How would such "holes" occur under half a kilometer of rock? As for atmosphere leeching out through the rock itself, simple rubber based paint would create a sufficient seal. -Less radiation than Mars thanks to the thick atmosphere Again. A non-issue if one is underground. In addition, an aerostatic Venusian colony is far more susceptible to the effects of solar flares than an underground Martian colony. On Mars you have to plan out just the right site first and stay there. A logistically insignificant issue. Other than nomdaic peoples, we've done that here on Earth for time immemorial. -almost a full g of gravity means we don't have to investigate the long-term effects of microgravity before going Granted, Mars' gravity is only roughly 1/3 of Venus', but it's hardly "microgravity". I think maybe the most obvious argument is that Mars provides the greatest potential on order of magnitude for outward exploration and expansion within the Solar System. The economy of such activity compared to Earth or Venus is staggering in comparison. Take the harvesting <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

mithridates · Oct 8, 2006

Hold on, one step at a time. I don't think anybody's looking at turning a profit from colonizing the Moon, Venus or Mars just yet. Even so, there are apparently a few ways to make some money without simply mining materials (a very unimaginative way to make money IMO): "Landis has suggested that as more of his floating cities were built, they could form a solar shield around the planet, and could simultaneously be used to process the atmosphere into a more desirable form, thus combining the solar shield theory and the atmospheric processing theory with a scalable technology that would immediately provide living space in the Venusian atmosphere. If made from carbon nanotubes, recently fabricated into sheet form, then the major structural materials can be produced using carbon dioxide gathered in situ from the atmosphere. The recently synthesised amorphous carbonia might prove a useful structural material if it can be quenched to STP conditions. According to Birch's analysis such colonies and materials would provide an immediate economic return from colonizing Venus, funding further terraforming efforts." Water: Water can be extracted from H2SO4 through a chemical process, but I'm afraid I don't know any more about it than that. As for the other points: "How would such "holes" occur under half a kilometer of rock?" -- /> are you telling me you're 100% certain that any mission to Mars would never suffer a problem of this nature? How is a colony powered if it's always half a km under the ground in the dark? Does it use solar cells on the surface? Who goes up to the surface to check them? Back to making money: there are a ton of other ways to make money off of a colony. Write a book. Sell it. It's the first book written about Venus, from a person on Venus. There you have an instant 100 million copies sold. Charge money for speeches and interviews. Charge laboratories to do research for them that can only be done on another pla <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

mithridates · Oct 8, 2006

Oh, I should mention that we should colonize the Moon first even in spite of its non-friendly and largely useless nature. It's just too close to ignore. While doing that we should have solar flyers on Venus, more and more advanced robotic probes on Mars, and have a good debate for a few years on which planet to try first. It won't be for a while yet anyway so there's plenty of time to debate the options. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

dragon04 · Oct 8, 2006

I don't think anybody's looking at turning a profit from colonizing the Moon, Venus or Mars just yet. I didn't say anything regarding potential profitability. I'm speaking on the terms of economy in the literal sense. are you telling me you're 100% certain that any mission to Mars would never suffer a problem of this nature? How is a colony powered if it's always half a km under the ground in the dark? Does it use solar cells on the surface? Who goes up to the surface to check them? Half a kilometer if intervening rock is no guarantee of a big impact in the perfect place at the perfect time having a catastrophic effect, but within reasonable parameters, I think. Solar power on Mars is not an unreasonable notion. In practice, albeit on a small scale, Spirit and Opportunity have more than satisfied the operational feasibility. Nuclear power would be the most obvious main source of a Martian colony, but not the only one. Who goes up to the surface to check them? Obviously, technicans do. If radiation is your main concern, maintenance can easily be done at night. The point is that the economy of Man's exploration of the larger solar system lies outward, not inward. Water can be extracted from H2SO4 through a chemical process, but I'm afraid I don't know any more about it than that. On Mars, no "process" is required. Other than human effort and heat above the freezing point of water. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

casualphilosoph · Oct 8, 2006

Although we might sometimes need some new water supply, would most water not be recycled and cleaned? Well i do not think a purification plants chemical processes are less complicated then a chemical extraction of hydrogen or water. Also the chemical processing of materials is required in any case as we somehow need to get the other constituents of atmosphere and fertile soil.(as the mars atmosphere is not thick enough we have to extract those from solid or fluid materials) Well I also think we not necessary will have air leaks trough damage, its more that we will have to build airlocks and that those will lose certain amounts of atmosphere that have to be reclaimed. Although I still do not know are we talking about Mars now or after some atmospheric terraforming? Well if theres was already done some atmospheric terraforming we probably can reclaim most of gas lose. (the gas reserves supposed to be on Mars were sufficient for 1/3 earth atmospheric pressure if I remember right? Oh and how much atmosphere again could Mars hold stable with his gravity?) Hmm that nuclear power thing is one of those that worry me ,as we still have no stable and efficient fusion reactor and building and operating something like that on Mars takes a lot of effort and money.

mithridates · Oct 8, 2006

What I'm saying is that even if you're far below the surface, *somebody* has to go up to check things all the time. I wasn't talking about radiation. And why does our exploration lie "outward"? Why? Who says? That certainly came out of nowhere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----- http://mithridates.blogspot.com </div>

Colonizing Venus - looking for sources

mithridates

Guest

vonster

Guest

mithridates

Guest

casualphilosoph

Guest

vonster

Guest

hungrrrry1

Guest

casualphilosoph

Guest

ldyaidan

Guest

dragon04

Guest

green_meklar

Guest

mithridates

Guest

casualphilosoph

Guest

search

Guest

casualphilosoph

Guest

search

Guest

casualphilosoph

Guest

dragon04

Guest

mithridates

Guest

casualphilosoph

Guest

dragon04

Guest

mithridates

Guest

mithridates

Guest

dragon04

Guest

casualphilosoph

Guest

mithridates

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page