Colonizing Venus - looking for sources

[mithridates]

Weird if you imagine NASA trying to do it, not so weird though if you imagine a situation where private industry is involved. I'm really hopeful that we'll start to see average people gain an interest in space again when we finally discover rocky planets close to our size in the next decade or so. Well, now I'm talking about space development in general, not Venus anymore. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

If that's so, then how about you give us a rough estimate? At today's technology, give us the costs for a manned mission with six months at the following planets:<br /><br />-Venus, 50 km above the surface in the aerostats proposed by Landis<br />-Mars, at the surface with the designs proposed by the Mars Society<br />-Ceres, since you claim that "every other scrap of real estate in the solar system" will cost less.<br /><br />We're going to assume that the people don't mind the trip, and that the sky's the limit for the budget. In exactly what way will the proposed Landis aerostats cost more than the other destinations? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They probably won't<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That's all I needed to hear. The issue was with this:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Venus presents so many extreme engineering challenges that I can't imagine it ever being seriously considered for colonization.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not with another Venus vs. Mars debate. I like them both. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No one will want to live on what amounts to a giant blimp in the poisonous, caustic atmosphere of Venus.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm calling your bluff.<br /><br />http://www.micropoll.com/akira/MicroPoll?mode=html&id=27899<br /><br />Seriously though, why so grumpy? This place is a fresh breath of air compared to a number of the other negative boards on the web. You seem to be the one exception though. Why not chill a bit and realize that when we are talking about colonization of either Venus or Mars we might as well be talking about the manufacture and sales of lightsabers for all the good it does us way back in 2007? Both are absolutely impossible with the mindset we have now - it's this mindset we are up against, nothing else.<br /><br />(for everybody else, this is a poll. Please vote on your opinion <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I happen to agree with crazyeddie.<br />Venus is WAY down on the list of desirable exploration targets, you seem to get very offended when anyone suggests otherwise.<br />Sorry, you asked. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[keermalec]

I would actually tend to join in Mithridates' enthusiasme. I think you should read Landis' article to better understand why Venus may very well be more interesting to colonise than Mars.<br /><br />http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/venus/VenusColony_STAIF03.pdf<br /><br />In a nutshell, at 50km altitude Venus is the most earthlike environnement in the solar system apart from Earth itself. A colony there would be shielded from radiations meteorites and would have easy access to solar energy (2x more than on earth, per sq m of solar panel). This is all more than mars can offer. To this one must add that the time of transfer from Venus to other planets is less than that from Earth, because it is deeper into the sun's gravity well (though landis forgets to mention that the delta-vs will be larger too).<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

I'm not offended, it's just ridiculous to suggest that the rest of the entire solar system is a better target. I don't mind preferring Mars (I often contemplate the idea of going there, especially when I see some of the pictures we get from the surface, and a picture of the sun setting on Mars is my desktop background), but the constant fixation on the surface conditions when nobody is suggesting we go there strikes me as very odd. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

I was wondering about that. At the end of the paper he suggests that going from Venus to Ceres and Vesta would be quicker than from Earth, but does his omission of delta-v cancel that out? There are also the more frequent launch windows to consider as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Coincidentally, I just stumbled upon another article (from 1998 actually) about this very subject. I like the part about how it's time to stop sulking, grow up and realize that even though Venus isn't what we had hoped, it's still a perfectly suitable destination for research and colonization.<br /><br />http://www.lunar-reclamation.org/papers/venus_rehabpaper.htm#touring<br /><br />Parts in bold have been done by me.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Touring Venus from Above"<br /><br />A Fresh Look at a Forgotten World<br /><br />by Peter Kokh<br /><br />[The original article was published in MMM #114 April 1998, p. 8]<br /><br /> <br /><br />Prior to 1960, we basked in our mainstream expectation that underneath Venus' perpetual cloud cover, we would find a very warm oceanic world with scattered islands covered with steamy jungles and forbidding swamps. Writers like C.S. Lewis and Robert Heinlein made Venus a common setting for Solar System interplanetary adventure tales.<br /><br />Suddenly, crudely, without warning, in the early 60s, Earth-based radar shattered this unsuspected illusion. Venus was dry, self-cleaning-oven-hot, cursed with an unbreathable brimstone-dosed carbon dioxide atmosphere of crushing density.<br /><br />Overnight, Venus was "off the list." Off the list of places to explore. Off the list of places to tour. Off the list of worlds that might harbor life. Off the list for human colonization. Off the list of human horizons altogether. Venus remained in the heavens, of course, as an astronomical object, as an environmental object lesson, as a deceptively beautiful siren beacon, and as a significant gravity well useful for redirecting and accelerating objects bound for the outer solar system (like the Galileo probe on its way to Jupiter).<br /><br />This once-upon-a-time paradise world of C.S. Lewis' "Pearlandra" was suddenly the perfect</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[keermalec]

Hi Mithridates, in answer to your question, I calculated the approximate cost of an ion-drive ship going from Earth to the asteroid belt (Ceres) or from Venus to the asteroid belt, in response to Landis' claim that shorter trips from Venus would be more cost effective.<br /><br /> Earth Venus<br />--------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />delta-v to Ceres 11.27 km/s 15.98 km/s<br />time to Ceres 475 days 419 days<br /><br />ION DRIVE SHIP<br />---------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />payload 20 tons 20 tons<br />solar panel prod. 138 kW 310 kW<br />total mass 34 tons 46 tons<br />approximate cost 29 M$ 60 M$<br /><br />(the above assumes Hohman transfers and current ion-drive tech using O2, CO, or N2 as fuel).<br /><br />To me, Landis' statement that Venus is "closer" to the asteroid belt than Earth does not stand up to scrutiny. What counts in cost effectiveness is delta-v, not transfer duration.<br /><br />I would say Venus may be interesting to colonise from an atmosphere mining point of view (as far as mining Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen or other trace elements may be cost-efficient) but not as a base to the asteroids. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[chesh]

.."colonization of the clouds"<br /><br />You mean the hot, sulfuric and hydrochloric acid clouds?<br /><br />Those who believe they can live in strong acids have left the realms of reason.<br /><br />Venus is not called a h--l hole without good reason. Reasons which seem to be ignored here by those who, sadly, refuse to discuss the clear data on Venus. The clouds are hot, too, due to solar radiation which is twice as powerful as it is in earth's atmosphere.<br /><br />Ignoring data will not bring credibility to posts. There is a fantasy going on here, that Venus can in any way be colonized. <br /><br />The emperor of Venus colonization has NO clothes.

 

[mithridates]

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1984-128F<br /><br />If you call 308-316 K hot, then by all means do so. Any reason why we are to believe you over telemetry data from the exact area we're talking about? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[chesh]

Any reason to believe that the clouds are anything but full of concentrated sulfuric, hydrochloric and probably hydrofluoric acids?<br /><br />Your post is ignoring data. The ONLY safe place to orbit Venus is far out of the atmosphere. The near total lack of water is also an impossible problem to resolve.<br /><br />Your post posits a fantasy, that humans can or will want to live in the hot, acid laden clouds of Venus, where in just going outside, even with a pressure suit presents insurmountable materials problems. <br /><br />Regarding your 308-317 K. measures, how does anyone know that's the same all the time, esp. in times of solar flares and circulation from below? There might well be a good deal of heat occ. mixing from below. <br /><br />I'm all in favor of planetary research stations orbitting Venus, but nothing more than temporary probes are going to move around in the acid clouds before they are destroyed by the unalterable laws of corrosion.. Humans would not take the risk.<br /><br />In orbit, sure. "In the clouds" is likely a sort of description of the unreasonable hypotheticalspositted here. It's sci fi.<br /><br />What is your curious pre-occupation with this unlikely possibility, anyway? It has no scientific or realistic basis. Sci fi or fantasy story in the making?

 

[colbourne]

I think we are going to develop the technology for a sun shield this century. It will be used to cool the Earth as a cure to global warming.<br />Once the technology is developed it could be applied to Venus when desired.<br />The acid in the atmosphere can be removed by use of microbes. There are many microbes able to survive in strong acidic enviroments, and we could engineer these to clean up the atmosphere of Venus, at the same time converting the dense atmosphere to solids and liquids.<br />I do not think terraforming Venus needs to be that far off. Other than the ethical arguments and the need for more time to study Venus in its present state, I dont think there is much stopping us from commencing the process with in the next 50 years.<br /><br />1) Assume space shield built for Earth by 2040<br />2) Space elevator built on Earth to aid in construction of space shield.<br />3) Space shield (possibly no longer required) and moved to Venus by 2057 or a new one is constructed.<br />4) Microbes engineered and inserted into Venus atmosphere. 2010 -2060<br />5) Humans buld base in Venus atmosphere 2070<br />6) As pressure and temperature drops the base can descend to stay at ideal climate.<br />7) Eventually we could have a manned base on the surface. Probably many 100 years after cooling started.<br /><br />I personally would like to start straight away once ethical problems are overcome.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mithridates]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What is your curious pre-occupation with this unlikely possibility, anyway?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The pdf file in the op, of course. I didn't write it. You might want to read it again to avoid saying the following:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>even with a pressure suit presents insurmountable materials problems. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />since the area proposed has the same atmospheric pressure as Earth at sea level.<br /><br />Lastly, who ever made the claim that _anywhere_ outside of the Earth is safe? "Safe" seems to be an odd choice of words to use here. We don't travel to space because we're drawn by the safety. Luckily, I don't have to entertain "nobody would ever ever want to go there" claims anymore because of this:<br />http://www.micropoll.com/akira/MicroPoll?mode=html&id=27899<br />The majority of the people that voted were from a board that has nothing to do with astronomy, by the way (I post often on a board for English teachers in Korea because I live there). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">If we add water to Venus and cool it with a shade or ring of some sort the crust will become thicker, and plate tectonics will start again.</font><br /><br />Can you explain to me how this will "restart" plate tectonics?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">With a thick cloud cover, high albedo and a low CO2 level Venus could conceivably maintain an Earth-like temperature.</font><br /><br />What evidence is there that Venus wasn't "Eartlike" (including water) 2 or 3 billion years ago.<br /><br />In fact, if you consider how much carbon is locked up in the oceans on Earth, one could argue that Venus may have had large oceans that evaporated, liberating carbon and facilitating the runaway greenhouse effect.<br /><br />Also remember that water vapor is a very effective <b>greenhouse enhancer</b>.<br /><br />The notion is fraught with problems. Venus receives far greater solar energy that Earth due to its relative proximity to the Sun.<br /><br />Venus only rotates once every (242?) days, it has no significant <b>magnetosphere</b> to protect the surface from radiation, and in light of the fact that the Sun grows more luminous every day, the heating problem will only be compounded.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mithridates]

In regards to one of your points I should note that the atmosphere itself provides protection against radiation in being so thick:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The thick atmosphere provides about one kilogram per square centimeter of mass shielding from galactic cosmic<br />radiation and from solar particle event radiation, eliminating a key difficulty in many other proposed space<br />settlement locations. The gravity, slightly under one Earth gravity, is likely to be sufficient to prevent the adverse<br />affects of microgravity. At roughly one atmosphere of pressure, a habitat in the atmosphere will not require a high-<br />strength pressure vessel.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This is yet another area (along with atmospheric pressure) in which Venus eliminates a difficulty we would have with most other locations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

While I agree with a number of your points (that terraforming is wildly unrealistic in the short term, etc), you can't continue on with the "no one in their right mind would want to go" - at present we have over 40% saying that they would go tomorrow if they could, and most of the votes are from a board that has nothing to do with astronomy. You're going to have to let that one go.<br /><br />And besides, I know you'd go yourself. If you were offered a ticket to Venus right now to live in an aerostat, three months there, three months back, six months in the aerostat and with about the same safety we have for LEO travel now, as if you wouldn't jump at the chance. And for the sake of argument, refusing the trip provides no benefit to any other destination. We'll say the world's only trillionaire just died and his will specifically states that the two options are 1) sending crazyeddie to live on an aerostat 50 km above the surface of Venus for a mission taking a year, or 2) giving all of the cash to his pet elephant to eat, who loves the taste of $100 bills, there's no way you wouldn't go. As if you'd just stay here and post on uplink.space.com instead. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I just have no desire at all to visit in person, or terraform Venus.<br /><br />Where is the poll that says 40% would want to go? <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 put it up twice in the last page, but here it is again:<br /><br />http://www.micropoll.com/akira/MicroPoll?mode=html&id=27899<br /><br />BTW, at the risk of repeating myself yet again, I have no problem with anybody preferring Mars as a destination - I only have an issue with anybody pretending that for some reason Venus is an impossible destination (again, not talking about the surface or terraforming) or that nobody would ever want to go there. That's just not true. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

That's rather odd. You would be worried about dropping down below and being roasted while there, but wouldn't give a second thought to what could happen if a problem were to occur in the void of space? Remember, we're assuming the same level of safety here. And besides, since breathing air is what keeps the aerostat afloat, you would have to lose the air for it to fall which would mean you'd run out of air long before it got too hot to survive. <br /><br />Edit: I wonder if it's merely a lack of imagination? You think boring blimp in caustic atmosphere, I think step one towards this:<br /><br />http://homepages.ius.edu/bcbane/cloud%20city.jpg<br /><br />After all, who would want to live in a strange continent months from Europe, cold, lacking in any amenities whatsoever and full of savages that like to scalp their enemies? The same arguments have been proposed over and over again every time something difficult comes up, but innovation, curiosity and sheer willpower always win in the end. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

How does one find out about that poll if not here at SDC?<br /><br /> <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 post on other boards and administer another one. Here's the thread if you're curious:<br /><br />http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=80125 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

So you're saying that 41% of 37 posters on a Korean Job Search site is making the case that lots of people want to go?<br /><br />Sorry, that doesn't convince me.<br /><br />Hey, mith (if I can call you that) I understand it is your dream, but very few people here on SDC, who are very aware of the issues involved, are in your camp.<br /><br />Try running the same poll here, I suspect the result would be quite different.<br /><br />Like I say, it's your dream, so don't let me stop you (and I know you won't <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ), but this audience seems not to be as enthused as you are.<br /><br />Wayne <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 _did_ run the poll here. You can vote on it, as can anybody who clicks on the link. Traffic is lower here, so I put a link up somewhere else too.<br /><br />The poll was made in response to "nobody in their right mind would want to go", and even with only a few dozen it's obvious that this isn't the case. I'm not attempting to show anything else.<br /><br />I also don't accept the assumption of people "not in my camp" being "aware of the issues involved" - removing the comments from people who were opposed to the idea due to the assumption that the proposal was for a colonization of the surface (pretty much most of the first five pages or so) or terraforming (a great mass of other posts), plus the multiple posts written by me, you, crazyeddie and a few others, the consensus seems to be that the idea is doable. I do not consider posters who do not read the original post and cannot differentiate between the surface and an aerostat 50 km above it to be "aware of the issues involved." Too much of this thread has been knee-jerk "Venus is hell" responses.<br /><br />Yes, you can call me Mith. Anyhow, that's enough for tonight (it's 4 am here in Korea). Apologies if I seem irritated. I do consider us all to be on the same side here, just with different priorities and preferences. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>