6 ms·

I, too, have concerns about how well humans will thrive in low gravity (the moon, Mars, etc). Over time, we could evolve a branch of humanity, "Homo ares", for

I, too, have concerns about how well humans will thrive in low gravity (the moon, Mars, etc). Over time, we could evolve a branch of humanity, "Homo ares", for Mars, but it won't be easy. Venus is just a tragic waste of a planet. So close to Earth in size, so wrong in every other way.

btkramer9 7y ago
I've always wondered if Venus was as habitable as Mars on the surface which we'd choose. The lower gravity well of Mars makes it much easier to come back from which is practically a requirement to go there. But like you said, the jury is still out on how well we can live in lower gravity. Getting back from Venus after just beginning to colonize it may not be possible with current technology.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  I would choose Venus. The depth of the gravity well is less important when the colonists are being lowered into it from above rather than thrown out from the bottom. If you need something in orbit, you don't drop it down to the planet in the first place. But as things are, the relative effort to terraform Venus, compared with Mars, is absolutely colossal. It essentially requires a full-blown robotic asteroid mining industry, wherein olivine asteroids are diverted directly to Venus, and magnesium and calcium are mined, sent to Jupiter to produce saturated hydrides, and those sent on to Venus. It will take 1000 years, minimum. Mars can get realistic results within 200 years, just by diverting water-ice comets and managing temperature.
- magduf 7y ago
  Getting back from Venus is as easy as launching from Earth: i.e., completely doable with present-day technology. The only issue is getting it there to begin with, but that's not really hard, though we'd probably need to launch several rockets here on Earth, and assemble stuff in space, to get all the mass needed for a single launch on Venus. Landing stuff on this hypothetical Venus would be much easier than on Mars, since this Venus has an atmosphere, and Mars only has an "atmosphere" (one that's 1/200 the pressure of Earth's, not really much of one), so we'd be able to use aerobraking, parachutes, etc. In fact, landing stuff on today's Venus is pretty easy, and the Soviets were doing this ages ago; the only problem is that landers didn't last long because of the heat and corrosive atmosphere.
wmeredith 7y ago
> Over time, we could evolve a branch of humanity, "Homo ares" These were called Belters (as in asteroid belt) in the excellent book series The Expanse, which is also an excellent sci-fi show available on Amazon.
- ghaff 7y ago
  The Expanse is quite good. But the earth/Mars/Belt differences are mostly cultural at least in the TV series. The "Belters" meme in SF has been around for a long time though. See Larry Niven for example. (And I'm sure it's older than that.)
  - JdeBP 7y ago
    Jeff Prucher's Brave new words gives its earliest attestation for the word as Niven's Warriors in 1966.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      I would have guessed Heinlein but I don't see evidence he used that particular term although he had similar tropes in his books--e.g. Loonies in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
      - JdeBP 7y ago
        For similar tropes, see the meteor miners in E.E. Smith's Grey Lensman.
    - rootbear 7y ago
      Oh, that looks like an interesting book! I read a lot of Niven back in college and I wondered if he invented the word "Belter", for Asteroid Belt dwellers.
  - tomjakubowski 7y ago
    Beltalowdah physiological difficulty in adapting to gravity is a recurring plot point on the show. The culture difference exists in part because no Belter can survive long periods on Earth.
bobloblaw45 7y ago
Moon humans would be so weak I bet it would be easy to beat them up and steal all their moon cheese.
svaigsq 7y ago
Venus has 80% of Earth mass. Mars has 10% of Earth Mass. The simple math suggests, that these planets are destined to be combined in some distant future, but not by current civilization, so there is no real reasons to be concerned about anything at all. Any of those projects of colonization in space is even greater waste of resources, compared to colonies in northern Canada, Antarctica, artificial islands or underwater cities.
- btkramer9 7y ago
  I think you underestimate how radically different a world we'd live in if we had and inter solar system logistics network between colonies, earth and asteroids. It would be like another industrial revolution with untold and unimaginable changes. Likely with artificial islands, underwater cities, climate change reversal existing as mere side effects.
magduf 7y ago
Maybe we should work on terraforming it: use various processes to change the atmosphere and stop the runaway greenhouse affect, shed the excess heat into space, and build an earth-normal atmosphere. However, it does seem like building rotating space stations (like O'Neil cylinders) is much more feasible.

btkramer9 7y ago

I've always wondered if Venus was as habitable as Mars on the surface which we'd choose. The lower gravity well of Mars makes it much easier to come back from which is practically a requirement to go there. But like you said, the jury is still out on how well we can live in lower gravity. Getting back from Venus after just beginning to colonize it may not be possible with current technology.

logfromblammo 7y ago
I would choose Venus. The depth of the gravity well is less important when the colonists are being lowered into it from above rather than thrown out from the bottom. If you need something in orbit, you don't drop it down to the planet in the first place. But as things are, the relative effort to terraform Venus, compared with Mars, is absolutely colossal. It essentially requires a full-blown robotic asteroid mining industry, wherein olivine asteroids are diverted directly to Venus, and magnesium and calcium are mined, sent to Jupiter to produce saturated hydrides, and those sent on to Venus. It will take 1000 years, minimum. Mars can get realistic results within 200 years, just by diverting water-ice comets and managing temperature.
magduf 7y ago
Getting back from Venus is as easy as launching from Earth: i.e., completely doable with present-day technology. The only issue is getting it there to begin with, but that's not really hard, though we'd probably need to launch several rockets here on Earth, and assemble stuff in space, to get all the mass needed for a single launch on Venus. Landing stuff on this hypothetical Venus would be much easier than on Mars, since this Venus has an atmosphere, and Mars only has an "atmosphere" (one that's 1/200 the pressure of Earth's, not really much of one), so we'd be able to use aerobraking, parachutes, etc. In fact, landing stuff on today's Venus is pretty easy, and the Soviets were doing this ages ago; the only problem is that landers didn't last long because of the heat and corrosive atmosphere.

wmeredith 7y ago

> Over time, we could evolve a branch of humanity, "Homo ares" These were called Belters (as in asteroid belt) in the excellent book series The Expanse, which is also an excellent sci-fi show available on Amazon.

ghaff 7y ago
The Expanse is quite good. But the earth/Mars/Belt differences are mostly cultural at least in the TV series. The "Belters" meme in SF has been around for a long time though. See Larry Niven for example. (And I'm sure it's older than that.)
- JdeBP 7y ago
  Jeff Prucher's Brave new words gives its earliest attestation for the word as Niven's Warriors in 1966.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I would have guessed Heinlein but I don't see evidence he used that particular term although he had similar tropes in his books--e.g. Loonies in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
    - JdeBP 7y ago
      For similar tropes, see the meteor miners in E.E. Smith's Grey Lensman.
  - rootbear 7y ago
    Oh, that looks like an interesting book! I read a lot of Niven back in college and I wondered if he invented the word "Belter", for Asteroid Belt dwellers.
- tomjakubowski 7y ago
  Beltalowdah physiological difficulty in adapting to gravity is a recurring plot point on the show. The culture difference exists in part because no Belter can survive long periods on Earth.

bobloblaw45 7y ago

Moon humans would be so weak I bet it would be easy to beat them up and steal all their moon cheese.

svaigsq 7y ago

Venus has 80% of Earth mass. Mars has 10% of Earth Mass. The simple math suggests, that these planets are destined to be combined in some distant future, but not by current civilization, so there is no real reasons to be concerned about anything at all. Any of those projects of colonization in space is even greater waste of resources, compared to colonies in northern Canada, Antarctica, artificial islands or underwater cities.

btkramer9 7y ago
I think you underestimate how radically different a world we'd live in if we had and inter solar system logistics network between colonies, earth and asteroids. It would be like another industrial revolution with untold and unimaginable changes. Likely with artificial islands, underwater cities, climate change reversal existing as mere side effects.

magduf 7y ago

Maybe we should work on terraforming it: use various processes to change the atmosphere and stop the runaway greenhouse affect, shed the excess heat into space, and build an earth-normal atmosphere. However, it does seem like building rotating space stations (like O'Neil cylinders) is much more feasible.