Floating Cities On Venus 501
Geoffrey.landis writes "Some of you may have heard me talk about colonizing Venus. Well, for those who haven't, Universe Today is running story about floating cities on Venus. It's a reasonable alternative for space colonies — after all, the atmosphere of Venus (at about 50 km) is the most Earth-like environment in the solar system (other than Earth, of course). '50 km above the surface, Venus has air pressure of approximately 1 bar and temperatures in the 0C-50C range, a quite comfortable environment for humans. Humans wouldn't require pressurized suits when outside, but it wouldn't quite be a shirtsleeves environment. We'd need air to breathe and protection from the sulfuric acid in the atmosphere.'"
Atmospheric dynamics (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we know enough about the atmospheric dynamics of Venus? Is there something similar to a jet stream that might catch your city and throw it around?
cost of getting things to Venus (Score:3, Insightful)
"Floating Cities On Venus " (Score:5, Insightful)
Spending (Score:2, Insightful)
Only? (Score:4, Insightful)
We'd need air to breathe and protection from the sulfuric acid in the atmosphere.
It's so simple!
Wait a minute...
Argumentative. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is quite nice as a there-and-back science mission but for a long term colony it's a terrible environment. The local resources are incredibly difficult to get hold of if you have to send a balloon down to get them, remember that the record for longest lasting machine on the Venusian surface is slightly over an hour.
The only reason to go there and take humans along is if space travel has become cheap and easy enough that you can do it on a whim.
So we'd need to... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Wear suits to protect us from the poisonous atmosphere and lack of oxygen.
2) Stay under cover to protect us from the various radiation (no magnetic field as I understand it).
3) Keep a complex life support system functioning in a complex artificial environment where failure means death.
So how exactly is this different from the moon, mars or even space itself? It actually seems more difficult and worse environment for humans than any of those.
Re:Back to the future IV (Score:5, Insightful)
100 years?
There are places that are like that NOW. You just don't hear too much about it on a regular basis.
I have actually been to China, and I can tel you.. I BELIEVE that 16 out of 20 of the worlds most polluted cities are in that country.
We don't need to go to Venus to have to take those kinds of precautions. I think we will need to take similar precautions in 25 years in certain parts of the world. Actually, scratch that. Those parts of the world will have people that cannot AFFORD to take those kinds of precautions.
Considering the cost of colonizing Venus though, I highly doubt that "regular" people will get to go at all.
Re:Should put something on our moon.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think before we talk about other places, we should probably get the kinks out of everything by putting something on our own moon.
How about building cities that float in the oceans on earth first? We can already go there, and even do go there all the time. We can get back to land just as easily as we can get to the ocean. It's very fast to get there, weeks or hours depending on whether your city is large enough to have an airport. Going to the moon sounds nice, but we should make and follow through on plans to do something more practical first.
Re:Spending (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Modify people, not planets. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd beg to differ, and I bet you'll find the majority of folks agree with me. (Disclaimer: I am pro-genetic engineering and pro-stem cells. Also, I'm pro-Devil's Advocate.)
If you're against Stem Cell research, odds are it has something to do with the "Right-to-life," "Life begins at birth," and other such nonsense. That belief will almost never change in a person, it's too strong and central of a belief.
Genetic engineering has shades of gray. Most everyone supports advancing new drugs to fight diseases, but there are precious few of us who look forward to a GATTACA-esque world. Giving humans the ability to survive "naturally" on Venus is quite a few steps beyond Ethan and Uma.
Re:Spending (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how long we should all be huddled up on a single ball of rock, waiting for another ball of rock to kill us all in one swell foop.
Eggs, singleton baskets, etc.
Pure science-fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)
While possible in theory, I think it is incredibly unlikely that humans will build any kind of colony on other planets. Simply put : the projected technological growth curve suggests that we will have self replicating robots (and possibly artificial intelligence smart enough to control them) within a century.
Why would we go to the hassle of creating compromise habitats on other planets (moon, mars, the rest) when we could simply place linear accelerators (aka railguns) to launch raw materials into orbit? Self-replicating factories on the moon would mine materials and manufacture more robots and parts. The finished bots as well as raw materials would be launched into orbit, to be used to manufacture gigantic rotating habitats.
The habitats would be MUCH posh-er than anything that could be made on a planet, with near perfect control of the internal environment.
RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
He's talking about the far future.. of course, you probably think human-kind doesn't have a far future.
Re:Should put something on our moon.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting off is the hard part.
Actually, getting off could be easier on Mars. (minds out of the gutter, people!)
In situ propellant materials are definitely available on the moon, but in solid form, and even there the best alternatives look like aluminum with oxygen (hard to turn into a solid rocket) or hydrogen with oxygen (but in rare dirty ice form). So until we're ready to create a moon colony (i.e. with mining and manufacturing/refining equipment) rather than just a moon base, the only way to get off the rock is to do like Apollo did and bring all the rocket fuel you need all the way from Earth.
On Mars, on the other hand, carbon dioxide is most of the atmosphere - no need for mining equipment to bake O atoms out of rock, just an air filter to pull them in CO2 molecules out of the sky. We've already tested the sort of compact equipment that would let even a small mission turn that into carbon monoxide and oxygen. You can burn those together directly, or if you want higher performance you can bring your own H2 (which is only a small fraction of your total fuel+oxidizer needs by weight) and burn it directly against local oxygen or bulk it up into methane first using local carbon.
Your other points are all well taken, though. We've made enough flubs in Low Earth Orbit alone that it seems clear that we should practice walking before we run.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:1, Insightful)
A moon robot is more interesting than a few extra healthy people on a planet of 6.7 billions.
Re:One question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Atmospheric dynamics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:1, Insightful)
Or, better yet:
Homeless Lady: "Please, my children are starving and need medicine, can you help us?"
David Cross: "Fuck you lady, I have a computer to buy, internet service to pay for, and a whole lot of time to waste making illogical bullshit arguments on Slashdot."
Homeless Lady: "Oh... that is comforting news. Thank you."
Re:why Venus? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, of course, at some point we could instead stop multiplying exponentially. That would solve the problem, too. Given the fact that the first world countries generally have very low birth rates (and not because they historically had!) raising the living standard for everyone to our level might make a couple regular planets go a long time. Of course we still need to figure out where to get all the water and electricity, but we need to figure that out anyway.
Re:Should put something on our moon.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've often thought that more or less self-sustaining colonies in the oceans and on Antarctica would be a good indication that we're ready to start colonizing other planets. After all, both of those two environments are easier to live in than space and you don't have to spend millions to get to either one.
Re:One question (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheap electricity!
It's got the sulfuric acid, all we need is lead!
Re:So we'd need to... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pure science-fantasy (Score:3, Insightful)
Now THAT'S science fantasy!
Re:So we'd need to... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Temperature
Not exactly a problem unless you go outside and even then it's not much of a problem since spacesuits mostly are there to keep you from cooking to death (vacuum is a great insulator). That said equipment may benefit but that's only outside equipment and then you have the corrosion which evens it out.
2. Atmospheric Pressure
A mixed blessing given the toxic atmosphere since it will get in through holes which isn't a problem with vacuum.
3. Heat dissipation
A good argument however two of the places I mentioned are giant rocks into which heat will dissipate quite nicely.
4. Waste disposal (if you subscribe to the argument that disrupting the lunar or Martian landscape with heaps of trash would be wrong, but tossing down where sulfur, pressure, and intense heat will take care of it and where we'll never see it is not such a problem)
Garbage would likely be recycled heavily in most such colonies since unlike Earth most things wouldn't be absurdly abundant.
5. More natural radiation shielding than the Moon or Mars or space itself outside of Earth orbit
Not really, the moon and mars have soil which you can pile on top of things. Space has plenty of nicely sized rocks you can procure for the purpose. Venus only has as much protection as you can drag to it.
6. Gravity
So does the moon and mars although to lesser extents while space habitats can be spun.
7. Clouds (I'm serious. Staring at a constant, motionless lunar landscape for months would be less than pleasant once the novelty wears off. At least Venus has movement).
Clouds will also get boring and on venus the only thing you'll have is clouds. At least on the moon and mars you can go and get some nice different views.
It's not exactly a plug-n-play Earth, but it's got a lot of benefits compared to the three environments you mention, and really just two fundamental disadvantages: corrosive atmosphere and the need to stay aloft. Dealing with the former is not exactly rocket science, pun intended. It's a challenge, sure...but we've overcome greater ones to get this far. Venus may well be the most practical next step (if we solve the "keeping a city in the air" bit).
Venus also lacks natural resources that aren't in the atmosphere (ie: everything will need to be dragged there), floating cities limit maximum density of materials, failures can be much more catastrophic, it's heavier gravity well makes leaving it more difficult, it is incapable of supporting a space elevator and probably a lot more.
Floating cities (Score:5, Insightful)
How about building cities that float in the oceans on earth first?
We have already. They are called Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
Re:Instant Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
but is the temperature 50 km above the surface of Venus hotter than the temperature 50 km above the surface of Mercury?
Probably. I can't imagine Mercury having much of an atmosphere at all above 50km.
Re:Doing things in the wrong order (Score:5, Insightful)
"Artificial" gravity does have some really weird effects. Coriolis force and all that.
1) you don't have to fight yet another gravity well.
I'd put "not having a gravity well" at the top of the list of disadvantages of space stations. If you have a gravity well, you can have all sorts of amenities known from Earth, such as a _real_ kitchen, plumbing, _real_ toilets, _real_ showers, and once the planetary outpost can support luxury items, maybe even a swimming pool.
Re:don't trust the locals (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doing things in the wrong order (Score:5, Insightful)
Build a big enough space station and you can have a swimming pool. Maybe even a 0.5G swimming pool - which could be amusing (if people can avoid killing/crippling themselves), and maybe even a "flying room" - where you can strap on wings and fly about for fun.
Whatever disadvantages space stations have, talking about building planetary outposts without knowing how to build sustainable space stations, is like talking about building space stations without knowing how to get off the Earth.
After all with current tech it is still going to take months to travel to another planet, and if you go down to the planet's surface, how are you going to get back up?
Technology capabilities will determine its fate (Score:3, Insightful)
At the time you have the technological capabilities to start building cities that float in the atmosphere of Venus, one is probably well into the era of molecular nanotechology. That means one probably already has restrictions on the removal of CO2 from the Earth's atmosphere (don't want to kill all the plants, cyanobacteria, plankton, fish, etc.) and one is well along on stripping the ice-caps from Mars and the atmosphere of Venus of the easily available carbon. This is because carbon availability becomes a limiting resource and of significant concern in the nanotech era.
Depending upon how much carbon is stripped from the atmosphere of Venus, one doesn't have the hellish temperature problem which exists now and it can be made quite comfortable on the surface. The magnetic field problem and lack of water are more significant problems and one may need to consider a phase of planetary comet bombardment to replenish the water. And unless means are developed to restart core circulation to beef up the magnetic field one is facing the problem of a very dry planet (all water circulating in pipes rather than streams or rivers). Though one could speculate as to whether sufficient particle accelerators could be developed to split the available C or O back into H so one could maintain the atmospheric H2O content even with a solar wind stripping away the H.
Now, of course if one has the capabilities to play with planets and the solar system as a whole like this, as I discuss in my chapter in "Year Million", then one is also likely to have the resources which can dismantle the whole planet, presumably to contribute to the construction of our solar system's Matrioshka Brain. Now whether to use the material in Venus for this purpose, or whether to turn it into a water world with lots of islands upon which many different evolutionary scenarios are played out (using real matter as the computronium for evolution). [For those of you who don't see this, think hundreds of thousands to millions of independent "Jurassic Park"s] is going to be one of the fierce debates we have later in this century or perhaps the next one.
Re:All things considered... (Score:1, Insightful)
You don't need water for Venus. You need Hydrogen. H2 + CO2 -> H20 + C
Re:Doing things in the wrong order (Score:2, Insightful)
You might get going faster, but you'll have a lot more lumps and bruises from face-planting yourself.
One of the advantages of doing it with space stations first is that ubiquitous SF plot device, the escape module. If something goes drastically wrong on the ISS, they pile into a Soyuz, blow clamps, and come home.
If something goes drastically wrong on Mars, they... die like rats. That would be about it, yes?
We don't even yet have (Score:3, Insightful)
...floating cities on the oceans of THIS planet...
Re:Venus proves GW skeptics (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus, the curious mind might be tempted to reasonably ask, why is Venus not 2250 times as hot as the earth?
Because no one who knows the science behind it and is in their right mind would suggest a completely linear relationship between "mass of CO2 in the atmosphere" and "surface temperature of planet". You can linearize it around a point, but the difference between Venus and Earth is so massive that a linearization for one of the planet will be completely bogus if applied to the other. (The heat loss by radiation, for example, is proportional to the fsckin' 4th power of the temperature. And that's just one of lots of nonlinearities.)
Or, conversely, if we examine the two knowns of CO2 planetary heating in the entire human experience, we could probably conclude that a doubling of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere would yield a fraction of a degree in heating, not the massive amounts of heating preached to us by the IPCC.
CO2 amounts for about 10% of the total greenhouse effect on Earth (i.e. the difference in temperature between an atmosphere-less black body receiving the same solar irradiance (-18C), and the actual avergae temperature of Earth's surface (14C) ) ... so about 3.2 degrees.
The problem with Earth is that _any_ warming will trigger a number of positive feedback effects, such as increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (which is also a greenhouse gas, and amounts for a whopping 36% of the total greenhouse effect mentioned above), liberating trapped methane from clathrates and previous permafrost areas, reducing the planets albedo by reducing ice cover, etc, etc.