6 ms·

We will settle Venus long before attempting Mars. Anybody talking about going to Mars is spouting marketing vapor.

ceejayoz 10y ago
This is a really odd claim. A Venus settlement requires flying cities. I have a hard time imagining how anyone thinks that's easier than a greenhouse on Mars. Wiki says: > Furthermore, water, in any form, is almost entirely absent from Venus. The atmosphere is devoid of molecular oxygen and is primarily carbon dioxide. In addition, the visible clouds are composed of corrosive sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide vapor.
- bilbo0s 10y ago
  Especially in 300+ Km/H winds. It'd be like building a cloud city in Hurricane Katrina.
  - gene-h 10y ago
    Of course if one moves with the wind then the apparent windspeed, or airspeed, is zero.
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      I wouldn't assume there are no wind gusts on Venus.
lucb1e 10y ago
That's the first time I've heard anyone say that. Care to elaborate on why it would be easier than on Mars?
- aetherson 10y ago
  So the advantages of Venus: 1. It's closer. 2. It has essentially Earth-normal gravity. 3. It has an atmosphere that can shield you from radiation and meteorites. 4. It's closer to the sun, so solar power works well there. 5. The atmosphere makes available a variety of useful elements that would be difficult to get on most other parts of the solar system. 6. As it happens, there's a fairly happy medium in the atmosphere in which pressure is something generally like Earth pressure and temperatures are something generally like Earth temperatures and that part is also above most of the really corrosive stuff in the atmosphere. The downsides: 1. You have to develop floating habitats. Those seem possible in theory, but would certainly be an engineering challenge, to say the least. 2. Every element that is not prevalent in the atmosphere of the planet (such as, for example, every metal) is wildly inaccessible. 3. It's a deep gravity well to get into and out of, and also you'd have to land and launch from flight, which is another big engineering challenge.
  - lucb1e 10y ago
    Thanks for the elaborate response! The flying fortresses is one thing, but not being able to get at solids to build with necessitates all materials coming from other planets. That would make it extremely expensive to grow beyond a non-permanent establishment. The solar and gravity advantages seem relatively small. The distance is on average 1.5 times as large, which I'd guess is not a major difference in the kind of planning you have to do for the trip. So you need the same life support as you need on Mars (enclosed space with atmosphere to breathe in, water, food) plus a couple of extra downsides. But as a bonus you get radiation and meteorite protection. That doesn't sound any easier to me overall.
    - aetherson 10y ago
      I'm pretty skeptical about the possibilities of colonizing Venus. I think you're underselling a few things, though: 1. We don't at all know what the gravity advantage is. It might be a net disadvantage -- like, maybe there's no real advantage of earth gravity, and it makes launch and land more difficult. But, on the other hand, maybe 10 or 20 years of Martian gravity causes disastrous health consequences for humans. We don't know! We're pretty confident that 10 years of zero gravity would cause disastrous health consequences. It is reasonable to imagine that Martian gravity would be a lot better. On the other hand, it would also be reasonable to imagine it wouldn't be enough better. Venus gravity is pretty clearly safe for humans. 2. There are a lot of advantages to being surrounded by abundant gasses that you need to create your own atmosphere, and also to have a much less than 1 atmosphere pressure differential between your hab and your surroundings. On Mars, you could mine dry ice to replenish your atmosphere, but only in some areas, and with a lot more infrastructure than it would take to suck in some Venus atmosphere and process it into breathable atmosphere. 3. Radiation protection is a pretty big deal for long term habitability. Like, it's not necessarily a giant problem for a scientific outpost, but if you want human habitation to cover hundreds of square kilometers and be viable over centuries, how are you dealing with the radiation on Mars? Is everything subterranean? (subarean?) That's a huge amount of additional effort.
      - lucb1e 10y ago
elsonrodriguez 10y ago
The longest lived lander to make it onto the surface of Venus lasted less than 2 hours. Atmospheric probes haven't even made it past a day. Meanwhile, we have rovers on Mars that have outlived their mission parameters by years. You're going to have to explain how we're going to settle Venus before Mars.
- mixmastamyk 10y ago
  Proponents of Venus suggest floating cloud cities rather than building on the hellish surface.
  - elsonrodriguez 10y ago
    Absolutely. However my focus is still on track records vs OP's assertion, and the our longest jaunt in the Venusian atmosphere (A balloon probe) was under a day. Even so, I fully believe we're capable of building a floating habitat on Venus, but I think it'll be like our Antarctic bases: A valuable scientific outpost in a hostile environment totally dependent on outside supplies, and not a frontier for human colonization. This is what is ultimately compelling about Mars, we can live there, thrive there, and eventually, breathe there.
    - gene-h 10y ago
      And why wouldn't a Mars base be dependent on outside supplies? Mars is still a hostile environment. So one thing that makes Venus attractive is the atmosphere contains everything needed to make breathable air, water, fuel, and plastics[0]. On Mars, water is hard to obtain as one has to extract it from dirt. One of the issues with systems that process granular materials is that they don't work very well. They are over designed, always break down, and typically operate at 63% of their design capability. Oh and scaling laws don't apply to granular materials as they do for fluids, making scale up expensive. Mining the atmosphere of Venus could be a much simpler process[2]. Currently, liquid oxygen, a product which we 'mine,' from Earth's atmosphere is about as expensive per ton($175) as concrete. In addition air separation plants require so little maintenance that they are often unmanned. At the very least most places that process granular materials require a person to periodically unjam things. [0]http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venus-isru-what-do-we-have-to-work-with/comment-page-1/ http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venus-isru-what-do-we-h... [1]http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050198938.pdf http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2005019... [2]http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venus-isru-benefits-of-atmospheric-feedstocks/ http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venus-isru-benefits-of-...
antisthenes 10y ago
Even more likely than that - we'll turn Earth into Venus long before we send a single person to another planet (if ever).
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  It's my understanding that while we can turn Earth into a pretty hazardous place that we do not have the total carbon required to re-create the exact venusian environment on Earth. Your point still stands, however, regardless of exaggeration :(
- stale2002 10y ago
  You vastly overestimate the consequences our actions have on the planet. The planet has been much different in the past. No scientists at all, think that our effect on the planet is going to make it literally unlivable. Trillions of dollars in damages over the next century maybe. But trillions of dollars in damages is just an Iraq War.
  - vkou 10y ago
    The planet have been different in the past. Most of this past is incompatible with human civilization, as we know it. For example, many scientists believe that the Permian extinction happened due to a rapid release of greenhouse gases, and rise in temperatures - by ~6C. 95% of the Earth's species were wiped out in a few years. These kinds of events aren't trillions of dollars of damages. They are billions of human deaths, as ecosystems collapse, as the tropics and subtropics become uninhabitable. Unfortunately for us, while CO2 may not cause such a drastic change in temperatures over the next few decades, methane release very well might.
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    I really wish I could share in your baseless optimism.
matthoiland 10y ago
Am I the only one who gets the joke?
- livingparadox 10y ago
  Could you explain the joke for those of us who don't?
  - oaktowner 10y ago
    "marketing vapor" -- Venus is shrouded in clouds.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

This is a really odd claim. A Venus settlement requires flying cities. I have a hard time imagining how anyone thinks that's easier than a greenhouse on Mars. Wiki says: > Furthermore, water, in any form, is almost entirely absent from Venus. The atmosphere is devoid of molecular oxygen and is primarily carbon dioxide. In addition, the visible clouds are composed of corrosive sulfuric acid and sulfur dioxide vapor.

bilbo0s 10y ago
Especially in 300+ Km/H winds. It'd be like building a cloud city in Hurricane Katrina.
- gene-h 10y ago
  Of course if one moves with the wind then the apparent windspeed, or airspeed, is zero.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    I wouldn't assume there are no wind gusts on Venus.

lucb1e 10y ago

That's the first time I've heard anyone say that. Care to elaborate on why it would be easier than on Mars?

aetherson 10y ago
So the advantages of Venus: 1. It's closer. 2. It has essentially Earth-normal gravity. 3. It has an atmosphere that can shield you from radiation and meteorites. 4. It's closer to the sun, so solar power works well there. 5. The atmosphere makes available a variety of useful elements that would be difficult to get on most other parts of the solar system. 6. As it happens, there's a fairly happy medium in the atmosphere in which pressure is something generally like Earth pressure and temperatures are something generally like Earth temperatures and that part is also above most of the really corrosive stuff in the atmosphere. The downsides: 1. You have to develop floating habitats. Those seem possible in theory, but would certainly be an engineering challenge, to say the least. 2. Every element that is not prevalent in the atmosphere of the planet (such as, for example, every metal) is wildly inaccessible. 3. It's a deep gravity well to get into and out of, and also you'd have to land and launch from flight, which is another big engineering challenge.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  Thanks for the elaborate response! The flying fortresses is one thing, but not being able to get at solids to build with necessitates all materials coming from other planets. That would make it extremely expensive to grow beyond a non-permanent establishment. The solar and gravity advantages seem relatively small. The distance is on average 1.5 times as large, which I'd guess is not a major difference in the kind of planning you have to do for the trip. So you need the same life support as you need on Mars (enclosed space with atmosphere to breathe in, water, food) plus a couple of extra downsides. But as a bonus you get radiation and meteorite protection. That doesn't sound any easier to me overall.
  - aetherson 10y ago
    I'm pretty skeptical about the possibilities of colonizing Venus. I think you're underselling a few things, though: 1. We don't at all know what the gravity advantage is. It might be a net disadvantage -- like, maybe there's no real advantage of earth gravity, and it makes launch and land more difficult. But, on the other hand, maybe 10 or 20 years of Martian gravity causes disastrous health consequences for humans. We don't know! We're pretty confident that 10 years of zero gravity would cause disastrous health consequences. It is reasonable to imagine that Martian gravity would be a lot better. On the other hand, it would also be reasonable to imagine it wouldn't be enough better. Venus gravity is pretty clearly safe for humans. 2. There are a lot of advantages to being surrounded by abundant gasses that you need to create your own atmosphere, and also to have a much less than 1 atmosphere pressure differential between your hab and your surroundings. On Mars, you could mine dry ice to replenish your atmosphere, but only in some areas, and with a lot more infrastructure than it would take to suck in some Venus atmosphere and process it into breathable atmosphere. 3. Radiation protection is a pretty big deal for long term habitability. Like, it's not necessarily a giant problem for a scientific outpost, but if you want human habitation to cover hundreds of square kilometers and be viable over centuries, how are you dealing with the radiation on Mars? Is everything subterranean? (subarean?) That's a huge amount of additional effort.
    - lucb1e 10y ago

elsonrodriguez 10y ago

The longest lived lander to make it onto the surface of Venus lasted less than 2 hours. Atmospheric probes haven't even made it past a day. Meanwhile, we have rovers on Mars that have outlived their mission parameters by years. You're going to have to explain how we're going to settle Venus before Mars.

mixmastamyk 10y ago
Proponents of Venus suggest floating cloud cities rather than building on the hellish surface.
- elsonrodriguez 10y ago
  Absolutely. However my focus is still on track records vs OP's assertion, and the our longest jaunt in the Venusian atmosphere (A balloon probe) was under a day. Even so, I fully believe we're capable of building a floating habitat on Venus, but I think it'll be like our Antarctic bases: A valuable scientific outpost in a hostile environment totally dependent on outside supplies, and not a frontier for human colonization. This is what is ultimately compelling about Mars, we can live there, thrive there, and eventually, breathe there.
  - gene-h 10y ago
    And why wouldn't a Mars base be dependent on outside supplies? Mars is still a hostile environment. So one thing that makes Venus attractive is the atmosphere contains everything needed to make breathable air, water, fuel, and plastics[0]. On Mars, water is hard to obtain as one has to extract it from dirt. One of the issues with systems that process granular materials is that they don't work very well. They are over designed, always break down, and typically operate at 63% of their design capability. Oh and scaling laws don't apply to granular materials as they do for fluids, making scale up expensive. Mining the atmosphere of Venus could be a much simpler process[2]. Currently, liquid oxygen, a product which we 'mine,' from Earth's atmosphere is about as expensive per ton($175) as concrete. In addition air separation plants require so little maintenance that they are often unmanned. At the very least most places that process granular materials require a person to periodically unjam things. [0]http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venus-isru-what-do-we-have-to-work-with/comment-page-1/ http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venus-isru-what-do-we-h... [1]http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050198938.pdf http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2005019... [2]http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venus-isru-benefits-of-atmospheric-feedstocks/ http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venus-isru-benefits-of-...

antisthenes 10y ago

Even more likely than that - we'll turn Earth into Venus long before we send a single person to another planet (if ever).

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
It's my understanding that while we can turn Earth into a pretty hazardous place that we do not have the total carbon required to re-create the exact venusian environment on Earth. Your point still stands, however, regardless of exaggeration :(
stale2002 10y ago
You vastly overestimate the consequences our actions have on the planet. The planet has been much different in the past. No scientists at all, think that our effect on the planet is going to make it literally unlivable. Trillions of dollars in damages over the next century maybe. But trillions of dollars in damages is just an Iraq War.
- vkou 10y ago
  The planet have been different in the past. Most of this past is incompatible with human civilization, as we know it. For example, many scientists believe that the Permian extinction happened due to a rapid release of greenhouse gases, and rise in temperatures - by ~6C. 95% of the Earth's species were wiped out in a few years. These kinds of events aren't trillions of dollars of damages. They are billions of human deaths, as ecosystems collapse, as the tropics and subtropics become uninhabitable. Unfortunately for us, while CO2 may not cause such a drastic change in temperatures over the next few decades, methane release very well might.
- antisthenes 10y ago
  I really wish I could share in your baseless optimism.

matthoiland 10y ago

Am I the only one who gets the joke?

livingparadox 10y ago
Could you explain the joke for those of us who don't?
- oaktowner 10y ago
  "marketing vapor" -- Venus is shrouded in clouds.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]