Colonizing Venus - looking for sources

[nbound]

It only reaches that temperature in the middle of the daytime in summer... This is also only a surface temperature... even if there was a huge block of ice below the surface it wouldnt melt because of the insulating effect of the dust

 

[jamesfox]

Just to point out something: the layer in the atmosphere where the proposed balloon-colonies would float lies above the clouds, so they would not be surrounded by poisonous, opaque clouds. Also, volatiles (including water) can be extracted or synthesized from the atmospheric gases.<br /><br />However, *why* is something that is a bit more unclear. While the atmosphere of Venus provides good radiation shielding an an earthlike gravity, Earth provides all that and more. The paper from Landis uses transit times to the asteroids to illustrate an advantage, but one would think that delta-V would make space space colnies more economical.<br /><br />One could probably use floating colonies to support robotic mining operations on the venusian surface, but I feel doubtful that venusian metals would be economical enough to have any sort of advantage in an inner solar-system market. Ultimatly, the only possibility that might work would be to make scientific bases more self-sufficient.

 

[casualphilosoph]

Hmm I really do not understand why Mars is seen as such a good choice for living.<br />Even terraformed(and you have to do that first to even life there) its cold, the atmosphere is thin, the gravity is disturbingly low and you need atomic or fusion power plants cause you can not rely on solar energy.<br /><br />In comparision Venus atmosphere as stated before has far better conditions.<br />Ir really seems to be rather a psychological barrier that makes response to Venus atmosphere colonization so bad.<br /><br />However I see some rather false assumptions how it would feel living in a floating town.<br />First you not live in a small place attached to a ballon, you life within the ballon that is filled with earth similar atmosphere, so you have abundant space.<br />Second velocity is measured in comparision to your moving system so if you move on the wind with the same speed as the wind the felt wind speeds are rather low, only differences in wind speed are what felt to be unpleasant.<br />Third, you might not notice but every person who lives on the second floor has air below its feet he only does not think about it, so if you build large and solid(rigid) enough structures you might not feel the acceleration forces and not fell different then when standing on the floor of a building)<br />Oh I forgot to mention, but there are people that life on boats for more than 70% of their life and they do not seem to mention the fact they life on a moving surface.<br /><br />Also there is something I wonder about with the increasing buoyancy at lower altitude and the strong winds, if you are equipped with small wings fitting on the back of your clothes(protection suit) would you be able to keep an altitude with agreeable temperature? If so you could maybe be rescued even if you have an accident that makes you fall.

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Hmm I really do not understand why Mars is seen as such a good choice for living.</font><br /><br />With respect to floating Venusian cities, it's because we are a terrestrial species, not an arboreal one. We do terra firma rather well, in fact. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[green_meklar]

We may have evolved as a terrestrial species, but that doesn't prevent us from living in floating towns. As we all know, many people have traveled around in airships in the past. In fact, it was actually the preferred mode of air travel during the 1930s, before the Hindenburg disaster. If we built the floating towns big enough, then even lots of wind and turbulence might not have that much effect on the interior, in which case it would be much like living in a normal building. I really don't think the fact that we evolved on the ground alone in any indicates that we shouldn't go building floating towns in the venusian atmosphere.<br /><br />Although at the same time, I think the place where floating cities would <i>really</i> shine is on Jupiter. Essentially, on Jupiter you don't have much choice as to how to build a city, because the only solid surface is under thousands of kilometers of boiling atmosphere. And considering how interesting the jovian planetary system is (I'd consider it the most interesting one in the Solar System after Earth), a floating city in Jupiter's atmosphere could be a useful thing to have. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[casualphilosoph]

Living in a floating space is not the same as flying trough the air, so that has nothing to do with beeing an aerial species, in fact most aerial aspects would probale beeing taken care of by computers and as terrestical species I must say, that living in such harsh environment as Mars only because I have a little probem with being in midair does not suit me at all.<br />Jeez sometimes I wonder about our human narrowmindedness in such matters or is it rather a deficency of scientificially viewpoint?<br />If we want to colonize other planets we have to undergo some compromises and instead of living in a relaively dark , low gravity environment (mars) beeing inside a ballon with bright sunlight and sufficent gravity feels much better.<br /><br />I mean, we even do not need to change or genetic make up which would probably the compromise for most other worlds out there.

 

[green_meklar]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Jupiter's radiation is way too intense to allow floating cities, or even close in habitats.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Even right down in the atmosphere? I was under the impression the bulk of the radiation is outside the atmosphere, where there isn't anything to keep the particles from reaching very high energy levels.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Even the inner moons are bathed in this extreme radiation, making surface conditions there very marginal for habitats.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Again, from what I've heard, once you get a few meters down into the dirt, almost all the radiation is gone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[casualphilosoph]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Look, the surface temps on Venus are about 500 C. There are NO effective heat protections there. Any life would be vaporized within seconds. Including human beings.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Why the hell should I care about the surface? I mean do I care about the pressure at the bottom of the ozean or the temperature in the arctic? No cause I life in a suitable region for my own survival rather than those places.<br />Even if we terraform a planet, this does not necessary mean all of it becomes habitable it only means that at least a certain region is fit for our needs and if those regions is above ground, why not?<br /><br />Regarding Jupiter and its moons I do not know much, he is almost an own solar system and might even provide a minor amount of fusion reactions within him that create radioactivity,so precise information is needed for any speculation.<br />However probably steve is right that jupiter is not really suited for habitats within his atmosphere, although gas mining stations might become abundant in the future.<br /><br />P.S.: You know thinking that there might be intelligent lifeforms out there that might terraform planets which where very earthlike to one more "suitable" to them and that we might terraform planets which would be ideal for certain lifeforms makes me rather worried and amused about or own self centered perspectives.<br />Maybe someday some life forms (silicium maybe) could be created to life on the surface while we stay in the clouds, a nice coexistance would that be <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.

 

[vonster]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I must say, that living in such harsh environment as Mars only because I have a little probem with being in midair does not suit me at all.<br /><br />Jeez sometimes I wonder about our human narrowmindedness in such matters or is it rather a deficency of scientificially viewpoint?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><br />Honestly Ive been reading this, and it seems to me you are taking an irrational viewpoint and hanging onto it for dear life.<br /><br />What you are proposing is very far-fetched. If we absolutely have to choose one or the other:<br /><br />There is every reason to spend the resources to land on solid ground on Mars and colonize it ... VS .. colonizing the atmosphere of Venus.<br /><br />What you are proposing is an interesting intellectual excerise at best, an even remotely practical or desirable plan ... no.<br /><br />Really I think you might just be winding everyone up here. <br /><br />.<br />

 

[search]

Did you read this?<br />http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/venus/VenusColony_STAIF03.pdf#search="colonizing%20venus"<br />

 

[mithridates]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Look, the surface temps on Venus are about 500 C. There are NO effective heat protections there. Any life would be vaporized within seconds. Including human beings. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That's nice. Care to explain what surface temperature has to do with anything in this thread?<br /><br />Let's say I have a friend who is going to climb a high mountain in Tibet next week. Would you recommend I advise him to wear a t-shirt, hat and sandals on the way up because the weather in Cuba around sea level can get pretty hot? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There is every reason to spend the resources to land on solid ground on Mars and colonize it ... VS .. colonizing the atmosphere of Venus. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Because...? Unfortunately "there is every reason" followed by a list of exactly 0 reasons isn't very convincing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

That reminds me, I told myself that the next time someone brings up the surface as an argument against a proposed mission NOT ON THE SURFACE that I would put up this image to help explain the concept a bit better. I wrote it as easily as possible. I hope it's clear now but if you have any questions on what the difference between up and down is, please ask.<br /><br />http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v180/mithridates/nosurface.jpg <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">a floating city in Jupiter's atmosphere could be a useful thing to have.</font><br /><br />The extreme radiation that Jupiter emits makes any habitation of Jupiter's atmosphere virtually impossible.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">If we built the floating towns big enough, then even lots of wind and turbulence might not have that much effect on the interior,</font><br /><br />Size truly doesnt matter. It would take very little force comparatively speaking to destroy a floating city if it resonates.<br /><br />It's much more practical and easy to colonize Mars. If we had the money and the will, we could do it today. Mars itself is a big ball of raw materials for construction. Can't make structural components from thin air, or thick air might be more appropriate in the case of Venus.<br /><br />And other than the fact that it would be very cool, <b>why</b> a floating Venusian City?<br /><br />I can boost a TBM to Mars and excavate an entire city within the native rock. I don't have to provide for any protection from radiation under a kilometer of rock.<br /><br />All I need is a water supply, and sufficient room for agriculture (and livestock if I want to get extravagant).<br /><br />Mars has a roughly 24 hour rotational period. Venus, on the other hand rotates once every 243 days. So I spend 8 Earth months trying to get rid of heat while my city is "sunside".<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I really don't think the fact that we evolved on the ground alone in any indicates that we shouldn't go building floating towns in the venusian atmosphere.</font><br /><br />The fact that we're ground dwellers doesn't preclude us from building floating cities. But we're far more proficient in all things terrestrial. We don't have to develop new techniques or technology to dig a tunnel network and live in it.<br /><br />By no means am I saying that we should never have floating cities. I'm saying that at least for the foreseeable future, a Mars colo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mithridates]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Mars has a roughly 24 hour rotational period. Venus, on the other hand rotates once every 243 days. So I spend 8 Earth months trying to get rid of heat while my city is "sunside". <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I should mention that the winds up around 50 km where exploration and colonization have been proposed encircle the planet every four days, so day and night would be twice as long as that on Earth. Not quite the 24/25 hour ideal, but still much better than the Moon for example. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[green_meklar]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Size truly doesnt matter. It would take very little force comparatively speaking to destroy a floating city if it resonates.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Given that it's going to be floating in an atmosphere considerably denser than Earth's, I think most vibrations that get caught in it should dissipate fairly quickly. If not, then we can always install a device to change its harmonic frequency over time so that all the vibrations get messed up before they can cause any damage.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>And other than the fact that it would be very cool, <b>why</b> a floating Venusian City?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Well, maybe if we're going to try to terraform Venus, or want a base for some solar power satellites close to the Sun, or even just for scientific purposes (although in the latter case it would probably be pretty small).<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>at least for the foreseeable future, a Mars colony would be infinitely more simple to create and maintain, and far more practical in terms of resources and expense.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I'm not denying that. I think we're mostly just talking about the possibility of a floating town in the venusian atmosphere rather than actually planning to make one. Sometimes it's fun just to play around with theories and see what sort of odd stuff you come up with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Luckily, for the time being we don't need to put all that much thought into convincing people about the possibility of floating aerostat habitats - I think that debate will take care of itself once we get solar flyers put into the atmosphere at that altitude and show people how easy it is to explore that part of the atmosphere.<br /><br />On the other subject, I'm not sure that the environment of Venus will ever be terraformed. Given how much easier it is to create a floating city in the atmosphere compared to changing the whole thing, by the time we get to the level that we are able to change the atmosphere we might have a few thousand to a few million people living in cities in the atmosphere that wouldn't be eager to have their environment change. Unless it were possible to keep them afloat.<br /><br />There's also the interesting fact that the more environments are built in the upper atmosphere the more the solar energy of the sun would be blocked from reaching the surface and eventually would provide a cooling effect.<br /><br />Anyhow, let's start with the solar flyers and go from there:<br /><br />http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7354 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[vonster]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In reply to:<br /><br />There is every reason to spend the resources to land on solid ground on Mars and colonize it ... VS .. colonizing the atmosphere of Venus.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Because...? Unfortunately "there is every reason" followed by a list of exactly 0 reasons isn't very convincing.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />My days of courting carpal tunel syndrome in my hands by typing out long, futile debates about moot points with irrational anonymous strangers online are just about done.<br /><br />Sorry, you missed me in my days of glory - where i would swiftly despatch large herds of such proponents with great vigor<br /><br />.<br /><br />.<br /><br /><br />

 

[vonster]

Here:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>a floating city in Jupiter's atmosphere could be a useful thing to have.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The extreme radiation that Jupiter emits makes any habitation of Jupiter's atmosphere virtually impossible.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If we built the floating towns big enough, then even lots of wind and turbulence might not have that much effect on the interior<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Size truly doesnt matter. It would take very little force comparatively speaking to destroy a floating city if it resonates.<br /><br />It's much more practical and easy to colonize Mars. If we had the money and the will, we could do it today. Mars itself is a big ball of raw materials for construction. <br /><br />Can't make structural components from thin air, or thick air might be more appropriate in the case of Venus.<br /><br />And <b>other than the fact that it would be very cool, why a floating Venusian City?</b><br /><br />I can boost a TBM to Mars and excavate an entire city within the native rock. I don't have to provide for any protection from radiation under a kilometer of rock.<br /><br />All I need is a water supply, and sufficient room for agriculture (and livestock if I want to get extravagant).<br /><br />Mars has a roughly 24 hour rotational period. Venus, on the other hand rotates once every 243 days. So I spend 8 Earth months trying to get rid of heat while my city is "sunside".<br /><br />I really don't think the fact that we evolved on the ground alone in any indicates that we shouldn't go building floating towns in the venusian atmosphere.<br /><br />The fact that we're ground dwellers doesn't preclude us from building floating cities. But we're far more proficient in all things terrestrial. We don't have to develop new techniques or technology to dig a tunnel network and live in it.<br /><br />By no means</p></blockquote>

 

[qso1]

It may develop this way. The timeline is sort of a guidline rather than any sort of absolute or prediction:<br /><br />2020-25:<br />Near earth space industrialization which if lunar base and construction experience are aqquired, experience will be gained for a mars base.<br /><br />2025-2050:<br />Mars first, easiest to do with present and projected near term technology.<br /><br />2030-2070s, Venus:<br />If it can be shown to be a profitable venture. I seriously doubt people will live in the venusian atmosphere anytime soon, much less live on the surface which may not be practical or possible for perhaps a century or more.<br /><br />2050-2080s, Jupiter:<br />Probably about as difficult a proposition as Venus but in fifty or more years, we may develop new technologies to deal with construction of cloud colonies. The big questions would be what the purpose of such colonies would be but then, its too far out too really know.<br /><br />2080s and beyond:<br />The tech to colonize venus and jupiter will likely be applicable to pretty much anywhere else in our solar system. I have even considered the possibility of interstellar travel vehicles going to earthlike worlds but unmanned probes going to harsh worlds beyond SOL and the tech derived from the unmanned probes being utilized for venus, jupiter, etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[casualphilosoph]

Excuse me but the problem is that the arguments given are not really convincing and some of the arguments are simply false in my eyes:<br /><br />1Jupiter is not comparable with Venus you can not use arguments for Jupiter to account against Venus.<br /><br />2Size always matters, local statistical differences are equalized and by using dampening materials, structures,or alternating different materials resonance catastrophes can be countered.<br /><br />3Hm, either melting Mars Polar ice and creating an atmosphere which still is toxic needing larger amounts of nitrogen, argon or another gas as a puffer which either has to be imported or chemically seperated from Mars minerals , also we need greenhouse gases once we reduce the the Co2(might even take up some hundred years in worst case) or building deep tunnels into the rock creating isolated atmospheres and using Mars Water and Minerals with enclosed nitrogen, oxgen, carbon etc to sustain oneself.(artificial light is needed and digging spacious underground rooms is quite laborous and requires large industrial machines for digging and transportation, even more so if you want to reach deeps that naturally sustain better atmospheric pressure.)<br /><br />4 You can make construction materials from air, that is what photosynthesis for example is all about and carbon based materials are a quite promising field regarding high performance materials.(And if you had read http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/venus/VenusColony_STAIF03.pdf<br />which was given the link to before you would know that even mining from the surface from Venus is not that far of)<br /><br />5Why? Cause its a more earthsimlar living space than terraformed Mars.<br /><br />6Like i said making space underground (for agriculture), even more a one kilometer deep space is quite laborous(although lower Mars gravity is abig help regarding that)<br /><br />7Wh

 

[vonster]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Excuse me but the problem is that the arguments given are not really convincing and some of the arguments are simply false in my eyes:<br /><br />1Jupiter is not comparable with Venus you can not use arguments for Jupiter to account against Venus.<br /><br />2Size always matters, local statistical differences are equalized and by using dampening materials, structures,or alternating different materials resonance catastrophes can be countered.<br /><br />3Hm, either melting Mars Polar ice and creating an atmosphere which still is toxic needing larger amounts of nitrogen, argon or another gas as a puffer which either has to be imported or chemically seperated from Mars minerals , also we need greenhouse gases once we reduce the the Co2(might even take up some hundred years in worst case) or building deep tunnels into the rock creating isolated atmospheres and using Mars Water and Minerals with enclosed nitrogen, oxgen, carbon etc to sustain oneself.(artificial light is needed and digging spacious underground rooms is quite laborous and requires large industrial machines for digging and transportation, even more so if you want to reach deeps that naturally sustain better atmospheric pressure.)<br /><br />4 You can make construction materials from air, that is what photosynthesis for example is all about and carbon based materials are a quite promising field regarding high performance materials.(And if you had read http://powerweb.grc.nasa.gov/pvsee/publications/venus/VenusColony_STAIF03.pdf<br />which was given the link to before you would know that even mining from the surface from Venus is not that far of)<br /><br />5Why? Cause its a more earthsimlar living space than terraformed Mars.<br /><br />6Like i said making space underground (for agriculture), even more a one kilometer deep space is quite laborous(although low</p></blockquote>

 

[green_meklar]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>On the other subject, I'm not sure that the environment of Venus will ever be terraformed. Given how much easier it is to create a floating city in the atmosphere compared to changing the whole thing, by the time we get to the level that we are able to change the atmosphere we might have a few thousand to a few million people living in cities in the atmosphere that wouldn't be eager to have their environment change. Unless it were possible to keep them afloat.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Or you could land them. Put some big pads on the bottom of the floating towns and then lower them gently to the surface by adding ballast. Once they're down, you can terraform the place and they'll stay down and out of harm's way.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There's also the interesting fact that the more environments are built in the upper atmosphere the more the solar energy of the sun would be blocked from reaching the surface and eventually would provide a cooling effect.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I think that would take a <i>lot</i> of floating towns, even with Venus' smaller surface area.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>A - DO you actually (truly) believe that a species that can barely get routine access to space without blowing up, <br /><br />... that we will be able to float a <b>safe</b> (ie even remotely acceptable risk) habitable solution in the atmosphere of a hellish and dangerous planet anytime within the next 300 years? 500? 1000?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Certainly. For one thing, the technology required to float in the air is quite different from the technology required to blast rockets up into space, and we've been doing the former for about five times as long as the latter. For another thing, even 300 years is a hell of a long time. Imagine where we were in 1706, then project that into the future, while keeping in mind that technology is advancing at an <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>________________</p><p>Repent! Repent! The technological singularity is coming!</p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

There's a 99.9% better chance that a Martian colonist will be writing Sci-Fi stories about floating Venusian cities in the next century than vice versa.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">What so simple regarding the building of the mars colony?</font><br /><br />It's not simple. The important point that <b>compared to building a floating city in Venus' atmosphere</b>, it is.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[mithridates]

That's a pity. 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. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>