The possibility of the colonization of Venus put forward by NASA

[bearnard97]

This is a video about the possibility of the colonization of Venus put forward by NASA. Personally, I think the idea of colonizing Venus is a completely useless idea. Even more useless than colonizing Mars. Venus's environment is even more harsh than the environment on Mars which will we should understand that the life of human beings will be changed completely as a result of the harsh environment of Venus and will not be the same as we have on Earth.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7A0O_4J5LE

 

[Justo Miranda]

In the future, an artificial cloud of dust could be created in a polar orbit that would decrease solar radiation, but even if they found a means of cooling the planet's surface, the change would produce earthquakes for hundreds of years.

 

[Dilandu]

In the future, an artificial cloud of dust could be created in a polar orbit that would decrease solar radiation, but even if they found a means of cooling the planet's surface, the change would produce earthquakes for hundreds of years.

I suspect cloud of inflatable reflectors in Venus-Sun L1 Lagrange point would be better.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Old aerostat habitats thread, including more background on HAVOC.

 

[Grey Havoc]

"No colonisation of Venus on the surface".

I wonder about that. Underground stations and bases are a possibility for example. At the very least there are likely to be mines to help support the atmospheric habitats, albeit probably mostly automated.

 

[Justo Miranda]

In the future, an artificial cloud of dust could be created in a polar orbit that would decrease solar radiation, but even if they found a means of cooling the planet's surface, the change would produce earthquakes for hundreds of years.

I suspect cloud of inflatable reflectors in Venus-Sun L1 Lagrange point would be better.

The reflectors should be of enormous size and would need a propulsion system to maintain orientation towards the planet. The dust cloud could disperse by eroding a small asteroid by robots, it would not be necessary to travel there.

 

[Dilandu]

The reflectors should be of enormous size and would need a propulsion system to maintain orientation towards the planet. The dust cloud could disperse by eroding a small asteroid by robots, it would not be necessary to travel there.

Why maintain orientation, if they are just a reflecting balls?

 

[Justo Miranda]

"No colonisation of Venus on the surface".

I wonder about that. Underground stations and bases are a possibility for example. At the very least there are likely to be mines to help support the atmospheric habitats, albeit probably mostly automated.

The question is: Why should someone live there? What can humans do in those habitats that robots can't do?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Robots still need to be repaired onsite, working using remotes via waldos, virtual cockpits etc. still has its limitations. And beancounters will always complain about the cost of fully autonomous maintenance droids and the like...

 

[Justo Miranda]

The reflectors should be of enormous size and would need a propulsion system to maintain orientation towards the planet. The dust cloud could disperse by eroding a small asteroid by robots, it would not be necessary to travel there.

Why maintain orientation, if they are just a reflecting balls?

I guess you mean inflatable ballons, but how can you prevent them from being drilled by micro meteorites?

 

[Justo Miranda]

Robots still need to be repaired onsite, working using remotes via waldos, virtual cockpits etc. still has its limitations. And beancounters will always complain about the cost of fully autonomous maintenance droids and the like...

It will not be so in a few years, they will be able to repair themselves using a centralized artificial intelligence

 

[Justo Miranda]

Old aerostat habitats thread, including more background on HAVOC.

There is also the problem of solar radiation... Venus has no magnetic field... how to shield a floating city without greatly increasing its weight?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Placing it at least initially on or near the terminator line might help there.

It will not be so in a few years, they will be able to repair themselves using a centralized artificial intelligence

We arguably had the technology for just that back in the 1980s, before it was thrown away in the 1990s post-Cold War in favour of what was supposed be cheaper and better software based AI systems, networked or otherwise. Didn't work out that way of course. Somehow I suspect that the ever present beancounters will squeeze every single penny if the Floating City goes ahead. And humans may be seen as much cheaper than expensive robots, for some roles at least.

 

[yasotay]

I think I would rather go for the swampland in Florida.

 

[Dilandu]

I guess you mean inflatable ballons, but how can you prevent them from being drilled by micro meteorites?

Numbers)

 

[Sundog]

Venus would be great if we could terraform it. Get it a moon from the Asteroid belt. The usual stuff. I say that, just because it's in a better place in the "habitable zone" than Mars, and it's closer to the size of Earth with similar gravity. Maybe in a thousand years or so if Humanity still exists.

 

[sat_dxer]

In The Terraforming of Venus article (JBIS 1987) the rotation problem is addressed with one idea of building a surface metallic windings with complex orbiting current generators to spin up the planet, with itself being the armature.
But would a civilization be willing to invest the enormous amounts of time & energy involved in such a project of this scale?

 

[Orionblamblam]

What can humans do in those habitats that robots can't do?

Make babies.

 

[Justo Miranda]

I guess you mean inflatable ballons, but how can you prevent them from being drilled by micro meteorites?

Numbers)

Harrison M. Jones; I. I. Shapiro; P. E. Zadunaisky (1961). H. C. Van De Hulst, C. De Jager and A. F. Moore (ed.). "Solar Radiation Pressure Effects, Gas Leakage Rates, and Air Densities Inferred From the Orbit Of Echo I".

 

[bearnard97]

A better idea can be to make investments in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already said a few words on this forum but in another thread about satellite technology that can track animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers or about special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save them. https://www.skyrora.com/blog/satellites

 

[Justo Miranda]

It would be much better to make investments in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers. Also, there are special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save it. https://www.skyrora.com/blog/satellites

We all have interesting ideas about what could be done with taxpayers' money, preferably those who live and work in another country.

 

[Nik]

IIRC, light pressure may be used to station-keep a 'parasol' provided the parasol is orbiting to sunwards of logical Lagrange point. Also, you would only need a fraction of steering if parasol is sorta-louvred, diverting surplus sunlight just-wide rather than full-on retroflecting. 'Crossing the Beams' up-sun of planet allows tensile rather than compressive design....

The mentioned loopy-thingy is a truly grand project, but needs vast local infrastructure before it can begin operation. IIRC, there was a well-devised proposal to set modular 'decks' afloat in upper atmosphere, where conditions are relatively benign. O2 / N2 having much lower density than CO2, there'd be buoyancy a-plenty by 'cracking' latter. Which process also deals with toxic CO and removes SO2. IIRC, the rate-limiting resource was N2 to dilute the oxygen unto fire-safe...
Remember Apollo 1...

CO2 96.5%
N2 3.5%
SO2 150 ppm
Argon ~70 ppm
H2O ~20 ppm
CO 17 ppm
Helium ~17 ppm
Neon ~7 ppm

 

[Dilandu]

It would be much better to make investments in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers. Also, there are special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save it. https://www.skyrora.com/blog/satellites

You see, all this "why settle Mars, let's fix Earth" narrative missed one important point. On Mars, peoples are only challenged by threats and problems set by nature. Which, for all its deficiencies, is neither intelligent nor malicious, and thus no matter how big problems of Martian settlements would be, they could be solved by technology.

On Earth, attempts to "fix things" are hampered mostly not by nature, but by other peoples opposition. Nearly in any problem on Earth, there are multiple parties with different interests in play. And humans could be both intelligent AND malicious; and this could not be solved by technology alone.

So to put it simply, settlement on Mars is much more doable than preservation of the Earth.

 

[Orionblamblam]

It would be much better to make investments in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers. Also, there are special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save it. https://www.skyrora.com/blog/satellites

You see, all this "why settle Mars, let's fix Earth" narrative missed one important point. On Mars, peoples are only challenged by threats and problems set by nature. Which, for all its deficiencies, is neither intelligent nor malicious, and thus no matter how big problems of Martian settlements would be, they could be solved by technology.

Until, of course, things get going on Mars. Some people will grow up there in domes or underground, and that'll be the Mars they know and love. And some will want to terraform the place. These goals will conflict at some point, especially if the terraformers want to start dropping iceteroids and build up oceans. All the people living at the bottom of Valles Marinaris will be miffed at the flooding.

 

[TMA1]

I get a little frustrated by the argument that we should not expand outward. Focus just on earth. There is something about it that strikes me as unhealthy. Same with only using robotics. This all has more to it than just acquisition of facts and bean counting.

That said it is clear the moon is the best first step. Mars is not as ideal as some make it out. In fact habitats would be pretty similar to something found on the moon. We need to get an initial foothold onto the moon with enough key infrastructure to start laying permanent residence through tunneling and building a base both above and below ground. If we got to the point of production and fabrication on the moon the ability to transport vehicles and products into orbit would be vastly easier. Also on earthside we need a mass driver, doesn't need to be safe enough for human travel just enough to get essential stuff into orbit relatively cheaply.

 

[Justo Miranda]

It would be much better to make investments in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers. Also, there are special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save it. https://www.skyrora.com/blog/satellites

You see, all this "why settle Mars, let's fix Earth" narrative missed one important point. On Mars, peoples are only challenged by threats and problems set by nature. Which, for all its deficiencies, is neither intelligent nor malicious, and thus no matter how big problems of Martian settlements would be, they could be solved by technology.

Until, of course, things get going on Mars. Some people will grow up there in domes or underground, and that'll be the Mars they know and love. And some will want to terraform the place. These goals will conflict at some point, especially if the terraformers want to start dropping iceteroids and build up oceans. All the people living at the bottom of Valles Marinaris will be miffed at the flooding.

Perhaps you could get rain on Mars by placing a very fragmented comet in a rather elliptical orbit that rubs the planet's atmosphere at its perigee.

 

[Justo Miranda]

It would be much better to make investments in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers. Also, there are special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save it. https://www.skyrora.com/blog/satellites

You see, all this "why settle Mars, let's fix Earth" narrative missed one important point. On Mars, peoples are only challenged by threats and problems set by nature. Which, for all its deficiencies, is neither intelligent nor malicious, and thus no matter how big problems of Martian settlements would be, they could be solved by technology.

On Earth, attempts to "fix things" are hampered mostly not by nature, but by other peoples opposition. Nearly in any problem on Earth, there are multiple parties with different interests in play. And humans could be both intelligent AND malicious; and this could not be solved by technology alone.

So to put it simply, settlement on Mars is much more doable than preservation of the Earth.

Technology cannot solve the lack of a magnetic field on Mars. Terraforming could not prevent the high doses of radiation that reach the surface of the planet during solar storms

 

[Dilandu]

Technology cannot solve the lack of a magnetic field on Mars

Wrong. It could. We could put a big loop of conductive wire into the Mars-Sun L1 Lagrange point, and put a current into it, thus creating the magnetic "shadow shield" in front of Mars. It would bend the incoming charged particles trajectories - a bit, but enough for them to miss Mars.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Technology cannot solve the lack of a magnetic field on Mars

Wrong. It could. We could put a big loop of conductive wire into the Mars-Sun L1 Lagrange point, and put a current into it, thus creating the magnetic "shadow shield" in front of Mars. It would bend the incoming charged particles trajectories - a bit, but enough for them to miss Mars.

True only in part, that device could not protect the planet from cosmic rays, on Mars there are no northern lights

 

[bearnard97]

It would be much better to make investments in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers. Also, there are special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save it. https://www.skyrora.com/blog/satellites

You see, all this "why settle Mars, let's fix Earth" narrative missed one important point. On Mars, peoples are only challenged by threats and problems set by nature. Which, for all its deficiencies, is neither intelligent nor malicious, and thus no matter how big problems of Martian settlements would be, they could be solved by technology.

On Earth, attempts to "fix things" are hampered mostly not by nature, but by other peoples opposition. Nearly in any problem on Earth, there are multiple parties with different interests in play. And humans could be both intelligent AND malicious; and this could not be solved by technology alone.

So to put it simply, settlement on Mars is much more doable than preservation of the Earth.

Yeah, I guess most people do not understand the importance of environmental preservation campaign. They think only about the money they make on resources of Earth

 

[Justo Miranda]

It would be much better to make investments in technology and projects that can preserve Earth. I have already mentioned on this forum but in another thread satellite technology that can track rare species of animals to prevent them from being killed by poachers. Also, there are special satellites that can observe coral reefs in order to help scientists to save it. https://www.skyrora.com/blog/satellites

You see, all this "why settle Mars, let's fix Earth" narrative missed one important point. On Mars, peoples are only challenged by threats and problems set by nature. Which, for all its deficiencies, is neither intelligent nor malicious, and thus no matter how big problems of Martian settlements would be, they could be solved by technology.

On Earth, attempts to "fix things" are hampered mostly not by nature, but by other peoples opposition. Nearly in any problem on Earth, there are multiple parties with different interests in play. And humans could be both intelligent AND malicious; and this could not be solved by technology alone.

So to put it simply, settlement on Mars is much more doable than preservation of the Earth.

Yeah, I guess most people do not understand the importance of environmental preservation campaign. They think only about the money they make on resources of Earth

There are people who think that there is half the population left over (the others) and throughout history they have always found a pretext for their phobias.

 

[Dilandu]

Yeah, I guess most people do not understand the importance of environmental preservation campaign. They think only about the money they make on resources of Earth

And other peoples think only about money they make out of environmental preservation campaign. "Green" could be capitalized quite well, you know, if you persuade peoples that they should pay more for the same products to ensure they are made by "green" means. Switching on "green energy" represent a very lucrative market for decades. And accusations of "not being green enough" are perfect way to block competitors.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Nature is nothing more than a blind force that tries to kill us from the first day of life and succeeds the last, against this we only have intelligence, science, technology and the will to apply them for the benefit of ALL humanity. In 1973 it was not true that oil was running out and now it is not true that the planet cannot sustain our well-deserved welfare system. Natural resources, here and on asteroids, are as infinite as our imagination.

 

[DWG]

Technology cannot solve the lack of a magnetic field on Mars

Wrong. It could. We could put a big loop of conductive wire into the Mars-Sun L1 Lagrange point, and put a current into it, thus creating the magnetic "shadow shield" in front of Mars. It would bend the incoming charged particles trajectories - a bit, but enough for them to miss Mars.

I was going to suggest wiring up the core as the core of an electromagnet, but this is considerably more achievable!

And of course there's the simpler alternative of just digging in, plenty of articles on using Martian regolith for radiation protection.

 

[DWG]

1:10 "Think of a helium balloon"

Shows picture of hot air balloon *headdesk*

 

[Dilandu]

Nature is nothing more than a blind force that tries to kill us from the first day of life and succeeds the last, against this we only have intelligence, science, technology and the will to apply them for the benefit of ALL humanity. In 1973 it was not true that oil was running out and now it is not true that the planet cannot sustain our well-deserved welfare system. Natural resources, here and on asteroids, are as infinite as our imagination.

 

[Grey Havoc]

1:10 "Think of a helium balloon"

Shows picture of hot air balloon *headdesk*

To be fair, last minute editing foul ups have a long history.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The problem is both choice and phobia. There are too many who "rail against the dying of the light" and choose profit over longevity for others. or other species.

Doing the right thing need not be hyper expensive but those who decide that their life is finite so they will grab what they can, tend to have much influence over political partly's, just as the eco extremists hold sway over their financial backers and the media who can smell blood in the water half an ocean away.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The problem is both choice and phobia. There are too many who "rail against the dying of the light" and choose profit over longevity for others. or other species.

Profit is hardly the enemy of longevity of others or other species. Economic systems that disdain personal profit have had dismal environmental and humanitarian records. You want good times for all? The best you can do is a profit-motive system with reasonable regulations. You want Earth to be nice and clean and alive then make damn sure that trillionaires can make a profit turning big asteroids into piles of gravel and dust, sifting them for water and platinum. Make sure than Evil Energy Conglomerates can pave the moon with PV arrays to provide *vast* amounts of power to Earthlings with no CO2 emissions whatsoever. Make sure that robber barons can drop mountains onto dead worlds to turn them into DisneyPlanet.

 

[Justo Miranda]

The electric lighting system of our cities has saved the lives of more whales than green persuaders