(no title)
cyrus_ | 8 years ago
- Closer than Mars
- 90% of Earth gravity (compared to 30% for Mars)
- Atmospheric shielding mass equivalent to Earth's (protected from solar radiation, unlike Mars)
- Large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid, with some other trace gasses. You can make fuel, extract water and grow plants from that.
- At 50km altitude, you have ~1atm of pressure, and breathable air is a lifting gas, so you can put a balloon full of air up there and it will float and support a good amount of extra weight. If it punctures then it will just slowly leak, not explosively decompress.
- Temperature ranges from 27-75C, so thermal issues are pretty easy.
- Ample solar influx for power.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Venus
Obviously you're floating in the air, so you'd have to bring in metals and minerals externally, e.g. from earth or via asteroid mining, or maybe in the future we could build machinery capable of mining the surface despite its brutal conditions. Or, you know, forests in balloons that you gather timber from.
So yeah, "build a cloud city on Venus" is definitely a crazy idea, but not nearly as infeasible as "terraform Mars" I think! Furthermore, as this paper demonstrates, there are some incredibly interesting and unresolved scientific questions that justify going (as if the sheer beauty of "cloud cities on Venus" is not reason enough!)
ValleyOfTheMtns|8 years ago
First things first, lets get a probe floating around in the clouds of Venus.
avz|8 years ago
Spacecraft in the Venera program successfully deployed balloons following atmospheric entry, see [1]. The balloons stayed up in the atmosphere for more than 46 hours.
> how do you launch a rocket within the atmosphere?
Atmospheric launch into a suborbital trajectory was demonstrated by White Knight, see [2]. There exist air-to-space missiles, see [3]. Admittedly, none of these are fully fledged space launches from the atmosphere, but they show it's not entirely outside the real of the plausible.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_program#Balloon [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_White_Knight [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT
sohkamyung|8 years ago
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/nasa-study-...
c22|8 years ago
everdev|8 years ago
forapurpose|8 years ago
When I've brought up similar points to the parent's, one response was that Mars offers solid ground which provides a base for heavy equipment (factories, etc.) and has minerals. I don't nearly enough to weigh all the factors.
KodiakLabs|8 years ago
cyrus_|8 years ago
hackeraccount|8 years ago
That said, I'm totally on board - it's the closest thing to Earth in the solar system.
seszett|8 years ago
The high number here though is for going from low orbit to the surface, I think. It is very high because of Venus' very slow rotation, but the atmosphere probably makes that point moot, as you can pretty much "just" aerobrake as needed and use the wind to get going in the right direction at the right altitude.
So if you don't need to actually get down to the surface with a delta-V of 0 relative to the ground, the delta-V you need relative to Earth is indeed lower than the one needed to get down on Mars ground.
It makes it very hard to leave, though.
keithly|8 years ago