4 ms·

> There was a great paper in JBIS in April: Conceptual Design of a Crewed Platform in the Venusian Atmosphere (abstract only). It summarises two comprehensive s

by ardy42 6y ago

> There was a great paper in JBIS in April: Conceptual Design of a Crewed Platform in the Venusian Atmosphere (abstract only). It summarises two comprehensive studies of how to float crewed scientific missions in the clouds of Venus. The mock-ups look like a cross between dirigibles and the space station. Alien. I don't see the point of a crewed scientific mission like these to Venus's atmosphere, except to claim the credit for just having sent humans there. It seems like accepting a lot of risk for very little gain, since, unlike Mars, it's not like there'd be any complex manipulation or interaction with the environment to do there.

genmon 6y ago
The British Interplanetary Society (JBIS is their journal) has a great history of publishing the first engineering studies for grand projects -- crewed Moon missions (1938), geosynchronous satellites (1945), interstellar missions (1973), and more: https://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/the-british-interplanetary-society/visionary-thinking https://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/the-british-interplanet... I agree with your general point (why send humans when robots will do?) but the engineering feasibility studies push the envelope of what we can imagine -- and reveal where more work is required. I tend to read JBIS from that perspective.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I agree with your general point (why send humans when robots will do?) That's not my general point, actually. I'm generally supportive of sending humans on exploration missions, but blimps on Venus seems off. It's like a manned mission down into the lava pool of an active volcano. Sure, maybe you could actually do it, but there's little point to do so except for the bragging rights. If humans wanted to visit the atmosphere of Venus, it seems a lot safer and more practical to do it in a supersonic rocket plane. Then you don't have to worry about launching a manned return rocket from a dirigible.
  - genmon 6y ago
    I see. Yes, in the paper the scope was set to be model it on the space station: there's a habitable zone of the atmosphere about 50km up, and the mission parameters were to base there for ~10 years with multiple human/robot missions to the surface and a rotating crew. Other approaches (such as a supersonic plane) weren't considered.
  - kavi87 6y ago
    It's not just about bragging, we are pretty sure that there aren't any life on Mars but Venus is another story. All we know is that the temperature is too high even for earth extremophiles but that's not an actual observation of the absence of life like on Mars, it's a conjecture. No entity has ever looked around on Venus for more than a few minutes and nothing has moved even 1 m at the surface. Venus won't have the potential for economic wealth like Mars colonization may have but at one point we will have to look and confirm scientifically if there is life or not.
- imglorp 6y ago
  Unfortunately the cited paper from OP is paywalled, further dragging down humanity. Anyone know how to find it on Sci-Hub? https://www.jbis.org.uk/paper/2020.73.115 https://www.jbis.org.uk/paper/2020.73.115
gambiting 6y ago
You could make the same argument about the ISS, yet it exists and we send people there all the time. A research station in the atmosphere of Venus would, naturally, study the atmosphere of Venus. If we ever ran out of things to research while there(unlikely) then it would simply be abandoned, just like the ISS will be one day.
- nradov 6y ago
  The ISS is primarily a jobs program, and secondarily a way to maintain our manned spaceflight infrastructure in case we ever decide to leave LEO again. The scientific research is barely an afterthought.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    I consider it an excuse for Russia to keep their rocket scientists employed after the fall of the soviet union. Nobody wants a starving rocket scientist driven by desperation to take a job designing ICBMs for some evil dictator.
    - andbberger 6y ago
      There is definitely some truth to this statement but, uh, it's been a while
  - andbberger 6y ago
    Well that's demonstrably false we have not maintained manned spaceflight capability. It's an orbital laboratory. The only one we have.
    - nradov 6y ago
      It's more important to preserve the infrastructure rather than actually maintaining organic manned spaceflight capability. If we have all the infrastructure intact then the capability can be spun back up in a few years just by increasing funding. But once the industrial base disappears then it's effectively gone forever.
detritus 6y ago
I could agree with a compromise - a research station in orbit, and then mechanised exploration and 'settling' of the atmosphere itself. If there's any chance at all now that Venus might have life, I'd think it worthy of about the same amount of funding Mars missions have had in their search for organics. Atmospheric Venutian [life] could be very interesting and potentially very useful. If it's found to exist in any way, I'd not be too surprised to see an entirely privately-funded* mission in a couple of decades. Venus is energetically cheaper to get to versus Mars too. I think it's a compelling target - 'Tomorrow's Antarctica'. You've got to have people there to do the science stuff. - ed * as in Biotech etc funded.

by ardy42 6y ago

genmon 6y ago

The British Interplanetary Society (JBIS is their journal) has a great history of publishing the first engineering studies for grand projects -- crewed Moon missions (1938), geosynchronous satellites (1945), interstellar missions (1973), and more: https://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/the-british-interplanetary-society/visionary-thinking https://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/the-british-interplanet... I agree with your general point (why send humans when robots will do?) but the engineering feasibility studies push the envelope of what we can imagine -- and reveal where more work is required. I tend to read JBIS from that perspective.

ardy42 6y ago
> I agree with your general point (why send humans when robots will do?) That's not my general point, actually. I'm generally supportive of sending humans on exploration missions, but blimps on Venus seems off. It's like a manned mission down into the lava pool of an active volcano. Sure, maybe you could actually do it, but there's little point to do so except for the bragging rights. If humans wanted to visit the atmosphere of Venus, it seems a lot safer and more practical to do it in a supersonic rocket plane. Then you don't have to worry about launching a manned return rocket from a dirigible.
- genmon 6y ago
  I see. Yes, in the paper the scope was set to be model it on the space station: there's a habitable zone of the atmosphere about 50km up, and the mission parameters were to base there for ~10 years with multiple human/robot missions to the surface and a rotating crew. Other approaches (such as a supersonic plane) weren't considered.
- kavi87 6y ago
  It's not just about bragging, we are pretty sure that there aren't any life on Mars but Venus is another story. All we know is that the temperature is too high even for earth extremophiles but that's not an actual observation of the absence of life like on Mars, it's a conjecture. No entity has ever looked around on Venus for more than a few minutes and nothing has moved even 1 m at the surface. Venus won't have the potential for economic wealth like Mars colonization may have but at one point we will have to look and confirm scientifically if there is life or not.
imglorp 6y ago
Unfortunately the cited paper from OP is paywalled, further dragging down humanity. Anyone know how to find it on Sci-Hub? https://www.jbis.org.uk/paper/2020.73.115 https://www.jbis.org.uk/paper/2020.73.115

gambiting 6y ago

You could make the same argument about the ISS, yet it exists and we send people there all the time. A research station in the atmosphere of Venus would, naturally, study the atmosphere of Venus. If we ever ran out of things to research while there(unlikely) then it would simply be abandoned, just like the ISS will be one day.

nradov 6y ago
The ISS is primarily a jobs program, and secondarily a way to maintain our manned spaceflight infrastructure in case we ever decide to leave LEO again. The scientific research is barely an afterthought.
- bluGill 6y ago
  I consider it an excuse for Russia to keep their rocket scientists employed after the fall of the soviet union. Nobody wants a starving rocket scientist driven by desperation to take a job designing ICBMs for some evil dictator.
  - andbberger 6y ago
    There is definitely some truth to this statement but, uh, it's been a while
- andbberger 6y ago
  Well that's demonstrably false we have not maintained manned spaceflight capability. It's an orbital laboratory. The only one we have.
  - nradov 6y ago
    It's more important to preserve the infrastructure rather than actually maintaining organic manned spaceflight capability. If we have all the infrastructure intact then the capability can be spun back up in a few years just by increasing funding. But once the industrial base disappears then it's effectively gone forever.

detritus 6y ago

I could agree with a compromise - a research station in orbit, and then mechanised exploration and 'settling' of the atmosphere itself. If there's any chance at all now that Venus might have life, I'd think it worthy of about the same amount of funding Mars missions have had in their search for organics. Atmospheric Venutian [life] could be very interesting and potentially very useful. If it's found to exist in any way, I'd not be too surprised to see an entirely privately-funded* mission in a couple of decades. Venus is energetically cheaper to get to versus Mars too. I think it's a compelling target - 'Tomorrow's Antarctica'. You've got to have people there to do the science stuff. - ed * as in Biotech etc funded.