3 ms·

True but you basically lose the benefits of being on a planet. The point at which you're just floating in atmosphere I would argue you might as well be in orbit

by XorNot 6mo ago

True but you basically lose the benefits of being on a planet. The point at which you're just floating in atmosphere I would argue you might as well be in orbit for all the resupply complexities, but few of the benefits - I.e. an orbital structure without significant atmosphere around it means high Isp low thrust engines like ion drives are practical to come and go from it and a lot of the energy is free from solar.

swiftcoder 6mo ago
There are other advantages versus orbital habitats, not least that your station doesn't have to be a pressure vessel - equal pressure within and without makes big structures a lot simpler.
- AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
  All right, but if outside is one atmosphere of sulfur dioxide, you still don't want any air leaks.
  - vidarh 6mo ago
    At the right height the pressure would be equalised, and so while a leak isn't great, they'd be slow and manageable.
- Ancapistani 6mo ago
  The atmosphere would also block the majority of radiation, which is a huge concern for proposed orbital or Martian settlements.
  - vidarh 6mo ago
    Even better than just the atmosphere itself: Venus has an induced magnetosphere.
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> you might as well be in orbit for all the resupply complexities The difference is in air pressure and gravity. Gravity means comfort for astronauts. It also makes, I suspect, science and industry a bit easier. I don’t know what air pressure means. Spacewalks probably get easier. But now your structures have to deal with aerodynamic forces, which is annoying. Making up for that, you’re suspended in a soup of precursors and reagents—that opens up ISRU possibilities. And you should be getting less radiation in atmosphere. On the whole, if you’re doing planetary science, I think being in the atmosphere is hard to beat. If you’re doing any industry, being near raw materials beats shipping anything unprocessed out of a gravity well. So if you’re staying for a while, you dip in. If, on the other hand, you’re just visiting for a few days, yeah, take a lander and then get back out again.

by XorNot 6mo ago

swiftcoder 6mo ago

There are other advantages versus orbital habitats, not least that your station doesn't have to be a pressure vessel - equal pressure within and without makes big structures a lot simpler.

AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
All right, but if outside is one atmosphere of sulfur dioxide, you still don't want any air leaks.
- vidarh 6mo ago
  At the right height the pressure would be equalised, and so while a leak isn't great, they'd be slow and manageable.
Ancapistani 6mo ago
The atmosphere would also block the majority of radiation, which is a huge concern for proposed orbital or Martian settlements.
- vidarh 6mo ago
  Even better than just the atmosphere itself: Venus has an induced magnetosphere.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> you might as well be in orbit for all the resupply complexities The difference is in air pressure and gravity. Gravity means comfort for astronauts. It also makes, I suspect, science and industry a bit easier. I don’t know what air pressure means. Spacewalks probably get easier. But now your structures have to deal with aerodynamic forces, which is annoying. Making up for that, you’re suspended in a soup of precursors and reagents—that opens up ISRU possibilities. And you should be getting less radiation in atmosphere. On the whole, if you’re doing planetary science, I think being in the atmosphere is hard to beat. If you’re doing any industry, being near raw materials beats shipping anything unprocessed out of a gravity well. So if you’re staying for a while, you dip in. If, on the other hand, you’re just visiting for a few days, yeah, take a lander and then get back out again.