12 ms·

This, my friends, is why we should colonize the upper atmosphere of Venus, where you could chill outside with only a respirator, rather than the inhospitable, i

This, my friends, is why we should colonize the upper atmosphere of Venus, where you could chill outside with only a respirator, rather than the inhospitable, irradiated, mangnetosphere free mars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operational_Concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operationa... https://spectrum.ieee.org/nasa-study-proposes-airships-cloud-cities-for-venus-exploration https://spectrum.ieee.org/nasa-study-proposes-airships-cloud...

actionfromafar 4y ago
A respirator and a teflon suit to keep the sulfuric acid clouds away from your skin?
- lkjdsklf 4y ago
  sure teflon might not be the most comfortable, but think of the speed we could get on a slip n' slide
meindnoch 4y ago
And what are we going to do there? Mine sulphuric acid from the clouds?
- haarts 4y ago
  Enjoy the view obviously. Cruise!
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    In case that wasn't sarcarsm - you won't see much, as you would be inside the acid clouds.
- andbberger 4y ago
  what are we going to do from mars
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Everywhere but Earth is really inhospitable, but if it were up to me, I'd pick the Moon first, then Mars, then some asteroids, then way down the list — after we've got space industry sufficient to make planet-sized mirrors — then I'd pick the planet where the surface-level condensation is lead vapour in an acid pressure cooker.
    - kspacewalk2 4y ago
      Okay, asteroids presumably make economic sense due to mining potential, but otherwise - why the hate for Venus? What's so special about being on the surface of a planet? Just don't go to where the lead vapour is, enjoy the cloudy view from 50km above the surface instead.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        Might be a monkey brain, but the mere possibility of falling 50km through crushing boiling acid is the kind of thing that'll stop me getting to sleep. More so than a deadly vacuum on the other side of a wall.
        kfarr 4y ago
        Yeah but iirc because of atmospheric density it's not crazy to build a floating habitat. At least no crazier then the tech required to get a crew and equipment to Venus in the first place
        wolverine876 4y ago
        If your habitat somehow fails on Mars, you have just as much chance of living. Mars' surface is much less hospitable than Venus at 50 km.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      The one big thing that Venus has, and every other option does not - is earthlike gravity. That is a big deal, so I am all for exploring options of terraforming Venus to remove that acid somehow, because despite as Space enthusiastic as I am - living inside hot acid clouds is also not my dream.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Tie things to string and dip them into the acid clouds. Upload the results to youtube for profit.
- unsupp0rted 4y ago
  Build a second basket for our eggs. There are obviously better baskets than Venus though. I'd sooner choose an orbital habitat.
  - smegger001 4y ago
    its not one or the the other though it is very possible to do all of them. build floating Venusian bubble cities, make O'Neill cylinders orbiting around every celestial body of note, while building tunnel cities on mars and the moon and hallow out asteroid and build Stanford Torus in them . We are planet of over 7 billion people we can do more than one thing, and the more varied and distant the baskets humanity is spread to the better.
  - poulpy123 4y ago
    There is no second basket possible and the idea that there is one is a recipe for disaster
    - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
      And NOT doing it is a good idea? Like the world governing fuckheads have their heads out of their asses yet after 30 years of the IPCC being validated? Like we keep being told that population will level out, but I've seen, what, HOLY CRAP, 4 billion people added since I was born, 3.7 --> 7.7. Because we are totally on top of species depletion? And the world government totally is stable with China and Russia and the US and EU and North Korea and Islam-land and everyone trying to get nukes? You know what is mind blowingly dumb? Wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending, in the US alone. With China starting to get greedy over space, I think we'll see plenty of investment soon.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Yes, for the deuterium, which is enriched by two orders of magnitude over the value here on Earth.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ansible 4y ago
Venus also does not have a magnetic field: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/in-search-of-an-ancient-global-magnetic-field-on-venus/ https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/in-search-of-an-ancient-g... So baseline humans would still want radiation protection.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  It does have plenty of atmosphere, so radiation isn't a problem. (The problem is everything else, as usually is the case on space.)
  - twawaaay 4y ago
    Venus has plenty of atmosphere above the surface, but not above the point where there is 1 ATM of pressure. In case of Earth most of protection comes from our magnetic field. The reason is that magnetic field sweeps ALL charged particles coming from the sun while atmosphere only stops some. When a particle drops into atmosphere it has a chance to collide with an air molecule, the deeper the higher the chance. But there is always some number of particles that were fortunate enough to reach far enough. Whereas magnetic field is constantly acting on every charged particle and deflects every single one of them. Only very highly energetic particles can cross magnetic field and these tend to come from outside our solar system and are very low in numbers. One thing we rely on atmosphere to take care is UV radiation which is photons which is not charged which means our magnetic field does nothing to it. Up to some energies UV is easily caught even by very thing protective layers (for example sunscreen!). It is not like you are going to be showing skin on Venus anyway -- you are going to be always enclosed with material that can stop UV, so this is not an issue. Over certain energies we land in X-ray territory and here our solutions are pretty limited but I do not see a reason why Venerian atmosphere at 1atm should be any more transparent to X-ray than ours.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      It has about as much atmosphere above the point where the pressure is 1ATM as we have on Earth. And no, we don't know if Earth's magnetosphere ever filters most of the incoming radiation (we don't such good measurement of the incoming radiation), what we know is that at sea-level, our atmosphere alone is enough. AFAIK, every time we measure it better, the effectiveness of our magnetosphere decreases. But it can only stop charged particles anyway, and air is very good at stopping those.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dividedbyzero 4y ago
Doesn't Venus have sulfuric acid clouds? Would that happen above those?
- twawaaay 4y ago
  It is much easier to construct a suit that will protect from sulfuric acid than one that will protect you from low pressure. The problem with pressure suits is that positive pressure prevents the suit from being flexible, requires it to be made from durable materials, makes doing anything very hard and if there is any puncture you will loose the pressure immediately. Sulfuric acid can be kept away with a tiny layer that covers your entire body. Also, you will not die (immediately) if you get a small puncture. Very minimal positive pressure is enough to keep vapours outside of your suit even in case of pretty large tear, giving you plenty of time to fix it.
echelon 4y ago
I've always felt people with these ideas are doing pie in the sky thinking and missing the other trends that would beat this concept out. Humans aren't suited for these environments. We evolved to fit this planet. These gasses, radiation levels, terrestrial foods, etc. The economics of going to Mars, Venus, etc. are iffy, and humans probably won't enjoy being there. It's McMurdo times about 1000. Getting back is hard. It's probably another hundred years before this is plausible with our technology and willpower. You know what will do great in these environments? Robots that don't have biological weakness. That don't need cellular respiration or biochemical inputs. We'll probably have gotten really far with robotics and AGI in those same 100 years. Basically, space will be inherited by our successors. Artificial intelligences. Humans just aren't fit for these environments. Robots and AIs are perfectly adaptable, though. Sci-fi sold us a fanciful picture of humans in space, because that's a fiction that is pertinent to our experience and is relatable. That isn't guaranteed.
- blamestross 4y ago
  If we go anywhere it will be spun-up asteroids. O'Neill cylinders make more sense for a living platform than even earth does. Once we actually have orbital infrastructure, Planets are a horribly unsafe high-cost-of-travel backwater to live on.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  I played a very interesting scifi game that solved the “how do humans travel millions of light years” problem with “well, they’re actually clones produced at the destination planet.” I’d list the title but it is a pretty major spoiler.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Sounds very interesting, could you share the title anyway? I once had an idea to write a collection of scifi stories with this premise, where every "seed" pod reaches a different planet and each society of clones evolves differently, providing a bunch of different stories related by a "framing" story.
blamestross 4y ago
Hang on tight for those gentle 185 mph breezes...
- wefarrell 4y ago
  Only a problem if you're anchored to the surface. Otherwise it's the changes in windspeed that you have to watch out for.
nostromo 4y ago
I like the plan to have robots build a very tall mountain platform on Venus that would allow us to walk around outside on another planet, in a t-shirt and jeans (and a respirator, as you mentioned). You could probably even grow plants on this mountain top. After the base is established, we could start trying to terraform the atmosphere to make more of Venus inhabitable. It's crazy to think that high-altitude Venus is more hospitable to us in many ways than is Antartica.
- Ankaios 4y ago
  The mountains aren't tall enough, unfortunately. The highest peaks reach about 10 km above the mean radius, while the "nice" part of the atmosphere is 50-ish km up.

actionfromafar 4y ago

A respirator and a teflon suit to keep the sulfuric acid clouds away from your skin?

lkjdsklf 4y ago
sure teflon might not be the most comfortable, but think of the speed we could get on a slip n' slide

meindnoch 4y ago

And what are we going to do there? Mine sulphuric acid from the clouds?

haarts 4y ago
Enjoy the view obviously. Cruise!
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  In case that wasn't sarcarsm - you won't see much, as you would be inside the acid clouds.
andbberger 4y ago
what are we going to do from mars
- ben_w 4y ago
  Everywhere but Earth is really inhospitable, but if it were up to me, I'd pick the Moon first, then Mars, then some asteroids, then way down the list — after we've got space industry sufficient to make planet-sized mirrors — then I'd pick the planet where the surface-level condensation is lead vapour in an acid pressure cooker.
  - kspacewalk2 4y ago
    Okay, asteroids presumably make economic sense due to mining potential, but otherwise - why the hate for Venus? What's so special about being on the surface of a planet? Just don't go to where the lead vapour is, enjoy the cloudy view from 50km above the surface instead.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Might be a monkey brain, but the mere possibility of falling 50km through crushing boiling acid is the kind of thing that'll stop me getting to sleep. More so than a deadly vacuum on the other side of a wall.
      - kfarr 4y ago
        Yeah but iirc because of atmospheric density it's not crazy to build a floating habitat. At least no crazier then the tech required to get a crew and equipment to Venus in the first place
      - wolverine876 4y ago
        If your habitat somehow fails on Mars, you have just as much chance of living. Mars' surface is much less hospitable than Venus at 50 km.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    The one big thing that Venus has, and every other option does not - is earthlike gravity. That is a big deal, so I am all for exploring options of terraforming Venus to remove that acid somehow, because despite as Space enthusiastic as I am - living inside hot acid clouds is also not my dream.
LarryMullins 4y ago
Tie things to string and dip them into the acid clouds. Upload the results to youtube for profit.
unsupp0rted 4y ago
Build a second basket for our eggs. There are obviously better baskets than Venus though. I'd sooner choose an orbital habitat.
- smegger001 4y ago
  its not one or the the other though it is very possible to do all of them. build floating Venusian bubble cities, make O'Neill cylinders orbiting around every celestial body of note, while building tunnel cities on mars and the moon and hallow out asteroid and build Stanford Torus in them . We are planet of over 7 billion people we can do more than one thing, and the more varied and distant the baskets humanity is spread to the better.
- poulpy123 4y ago
  There is no second basket possible and the idea that there is one is a recipe for disaster
  - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    And NOT doing it is a good idea? Like the world governing fuckheads have their heads out of their asses yet after 30 years of the IPCC being validated? Like we keep being told that population will level out, but I've seen, what, HOLY CRAP, 4 billion people added since I was born, 3.7 --> 7.7. Because we are totally on top of species depletion? And the world government totally is stable with China and Russia and the US and EU and North Korea and Islam-land and everyone trying to get nukes? You know what is mind blowingly dumb? Wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending, in the US alone. With China starting to get greedy over space, I think we'll see plenty of investment soon.
pfdietz 4y ago
Yes, for the deuterium, which is enriched by two orders of magnitude over the value here on Earth.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ansible 4y ago

Venus also does not have a magnetic field: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/in-search-of-an-ancient-global-magnetic-field-on-venus/ https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/in-search-of-an-ancient-g... So baseline humans would still want radiation protection.

marcosdumay 4y ago
It does have plenty of atmosphere, so radiation isn't a problem. (The problem is everything else, as usually is the case on space.)
- twawaaay 4y ago
  Venus has plenty of atmosphere above the surface, but not above the point where there is 1 ATM of pressure. In case of Earth most of protection comes from our magnetic field. The reason is that magnetic field sweeps ALL charged particles coming from the sun while atmosphere only stops some. When a particle drops into atmosphere it has a chance to collide with an air molecule, the deeper the higher the chance. But there is always some number of particles that were fortunate enough to reach far enough. Whereas magnetic field is constantly acting on every charged particle and deflects every single one of them. Only very highly energetic particles can cross magnetic field and these tend to come from outside our solar system and are very low in numbers. One thing we rely on atmosphere to take care is UV radiation which is photons which is not charged which means our magnetic field does nothing to it. Up to some energies UV is easily caught even by very thing protective layers (for example sunscreen!). It is not like you are going to be showing skin on Venus anyway -- you are going to be always enclosed with material that can stop UV, so this is not an issue. Over certain energies we land in X-ray territory and here our solutions are pretty limited but I do not see a reason why Venerian atmosphere at 1atm should be any more transparent to X-ray than ours.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    It has about as much atmosphere above the point where the pressure is 1ATM as we have on Earth. And no, we don't know if Earth's magnetosphere ever filters most of the incoming radiation (we don't such good measurement of the incoming radiation), what we know is that at sea-level, our atmosphere alone is enough. AFAIK, every time we measure it better, the effectiveness of our magnetosphere decreases. But it can only stop charged particles anyway, and air is very good at stopping those.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dividedbyzero 4y ago

Doesn't Venus have sulfuric acid clouds? Would that happen above those?

twawaaay 4y ago
It is much easier to construct a suit that will protect from sulfuric acid than one that will protect you from low pressure. The problem with pressure suits is that positive pressure prevents the suit from being flexible, requires it to be made from durable materials, makes doing anything very hard and if there is any puncture you will loose the pressure immediately. Sulfuric acid can be kept away with a tiny layer that covers your entire body. Also, you will not die (immediately) if you get a small puncture. Very minimal positive pressure is enough to keep vapours outside of your suit even in case of pretty large tear, giving you plenty of time to fix it.

echelon 4y ago

I've always felt people with these ideas are doing pie in the sky thinking and missing the other trends that would beat this concept out. Humans aren't suited for these environments. We evolved to fit this planet. These gasses, radiation levels, terrestrial foods, etc. The economics of going to Mars, Venus, etc. are iffy, and humans probably won't enjoy being there. It's McMurdo times about 1000. Getting back is hard. It's probably another hundred years before this is plausible with our technology and willpower. You know what will do great in these environments? Robots that don't have biological weakness. That don't need cellular respiration or biochemical inputs. We'll probably have gotten really far with robotics and AGI in those same 100 years. Basically, space will be inherited by our successors. Artificial intelligences. Humans just aren't fit for these environments. Robots and AIs are perfectly adaptable, though. Sci-fi sold us a fanciful picture of humans in space, because that's a fiction that is pertinent to our experience and is relatable. That isn't guaranteed.

blamestross 4y ago
If we go anywhere it will be spun-up asteroids. O'Neill cylinders make more sense for a living platform than even earth does. Once we actually have orbital infrastructure, Planets are a horribly unsafe high-cost-of-travel backwater to live on.
bobthepanda 4y ago
I played a very interesting scifi game that solved the “how do humans travel millions of light years” problem with “well, they’re actually clones produced at the destination planet.” I’d list the title but it is a pretty major spoiler.
- the_af 4y ago
  Sounds very interesting, could you share the title anyway? I once had an idea to write a collection of scifi stories with this premise, where every "seed" pod reaches a different planet and each society of clones evolves differently, providing a bunch of different stories related by a "framing" story.

blamestross 4y ago

Hang on tight for those gentle 185 mph breezes...

wefarrell 4y ago
Only a problem if you're anchored to the surface. Otherwise it's the changes in windspeed that you have to watch out for.

nostromo 4y ago

I like the plan to have robots build a very tall mountain platform on Venus that would allow us to walk around outside on another planet, in a t-shirt and jeans (and a respirator, as you mentioned). You could probably even grow plants on this mountain top. After the base is established, we could start trying to terraform the atmosphere to make more of Venus inhabitable. It's crazy to think that high-altitude Venus is more hospitable to us in many ways than is Antartica.

Ankaios 4y ago
The mountains aren't tall enough, unfortunately. The highest peaks reach about 10 km above the mean radius, while the "nice" part of the atmosphere is 50-ish km up.