Mars One Contracts Paragon To Investigate Life Support Systems 118
thAMESresearcher writes with news about the progress of Mars One. From the article: "Mars One has taken a bold step toward their goal of establishing a human settlement on Mars in 2023 by contracting with its first aerospace supplier, Paragon Space Development Corporation. ...
The contract will enable the initial conceptual design of the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) and Mars Surface Exploration Spacesuit System. During this study, Paragon will identify major suppliers, concepts, and technologies that exist today and can be used as the baseline architecture for further development. The ECLSS will provide and maintain a safe, reliable environment for the inhabitants, providing them with clean air and water. The Mars suits will enable the settlers to work outside of the habitat and explore the surface of Mars."
It's been 60 years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever puts money in this apparently...
Re: (Score:2)
That was back when we reached the moon. Does anyone really believe that technology is only catching up to travelling to Mars now? Seriously, who could be that gullible.
And you think the world has been quietly researching life support systems for space travel for the last 60 years in the hope a market will open up before their patents expire?
Re:It's been 60 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, getting there doesn't have to require anything fancy. Surviving the trip will be considerably more difficult. Actually establishing a Mars base - nothing quite so audacious has been attempted in all of Human history.
Mars offers some serious hurdles compared to the moon.
- It's further away with a considerably greater orbital specific energy, so considerably larger rockets are necessary especially since:
- There's going to be a much longer trip outside the Earth's protective magnetosphere, so much heavier shielding and/or much greater speed will be necessary, and we don't really have much experience with actually providing such
- Longer trip times (most plans I've seen call for at least 1-6 months, one-way) means we need much better life support systems. A lot of that has been developed for the ISS, but operating without hope of resupply makes things dicier.
- Extended stay on Mars: this is a serious endeavor. Maybe we can just drop an ISS-equivalent system and have it function well enough for a while, but more likely we'll need a more self-sufficient ecosystem, and there's still very limited research as to how to actually pull that one off.
- Return trip: Not only is Mars much further away than the moon, it has a far more substantial gravity well: so we'll need a bunch more fuel, almost as much as for the trip out. The obvious solutions are to either make it there (a potentially major undertaking on a hostile planet), or send it ahead, probably via the interplanetary transport network (in which case we need to worry about what years of radiation exposure is doing to it) Also:
- Takeoff could be a problem. While SpaceX and others are working on it no-one has (so far as I know) ever successfully built and tested a reusable launch vehicle, which means we need to design something new that can land and take off again, even if only under 1/3 G.
None of those are inconsiderable problems, and we don't have a Cold War dick-waving competition going on to anymore to goose things along. Part of me wishes the war could have lasted another decade or so to actually get us established in space - then again considering how close we came to WW3 on multiple occasions it's probably just as well it ended when it did.
Re:It's been 60 years (Score:4, Interesting)
- Return trip: Not only is Mars much further away than the moon, it has a far more substantial gravity well: so we'll need a bunch more fuel, almost as much as for the trip out. The obvious solutions are to either make it there (a potentially major undertaking on a hostile planet), or send it ahead, probably via the interplanetary transport network (in which case we need to worry about what years of radiation exposure is doing to it) Also:
- Takeoff could be a problem. While SpaceX and others are working on it no-one has (so far as I know) ever successfully built and tested a reusable launch vehicle, which means we need to design something new that can land and take off again, even if only under 1/3 G.
Visit the Mars One [mars-one.com] website, there is no return trip planned. They go to great length to explain the reasons for this, most of which make some sort of sense. The main reasons are the fact that there is no available technology to do it, so that would delay the mission and increase the cost, and the weight considerations of sending a vehicle capable of making the return trip with all of the necessary fuel etc.
A further consideration, and not an insignificant one, is the impact on the bodies of the crew/colonists of an extended time away from Earth's gravity well. In order for the base to be established and real work to be done the time on Mars would have to be more than a few weeks.
This is quite a brave adventure and an attempt at colonisation rather than a flag planting exercise.
Re: (Score:1)
Still seems stupid to me. Why would having a colony in Mars actually be better than having a colony in space instead? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3537441&cid=43146845 [slashdot.org]
What's so great about Mars for colonies? It's not like you can have plants and livestock on Martian soil without in effect building a "spaceship" over them to protect them from Mars's hostile environment.
What they should do is investigate how to build space stations with artificial gravity and radiation shielding. Then you c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why would having a colony in Mars actually be better than having a colony in space instead?
A colony on Mars would have access to planetary resources, such as ice, to provide water, oxygen, and hydrogen. The settlement could also theoretically be excavated below the surface and covered with "soil" to provide better radiation shielding. The presence of an atmosphere, even if it's a lot less than Earth's, gives at least a little bit of safety and time to respond to life support emergencies than a space station would. It would act as the first stage for longer term, higher population, colonization
Re:It's been 60 years (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget CO2 in those planetary resources - Mars has roughly the same partial pressure of CO2 as Earth, it's just that that's all there is (also conveniently some trace nitrogen) Just pump it into your greenhouses and the plants will do the rest.
Also sand - add a binding agent and you've got "concrete", if you can find resources to make the binding agent locally so much the better, but even without that all you need to build a basic habitat is an airlock, a big inflatable dome (doesn't even have to be that durable), and enough binding agent to coat it inside and out with a nice thick layer of "concrete".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A colony near/attached to a suitable asteroid would have access to plenty of water and other raw materials. With the benefit of not being stuck in a gravity well. And in the main stations you could have the benefit of a proven 1G environment for actual living (rather than mere survival). You won't get that 1G on Mars as easily and cheaply as you can in space.
How much extra safety and time do you think Mars atmosphere will give you to respond to an emergency? Mars' atmospheric pressure is typically less than
Re: (Score:2)
Why would having a colony in Mars actually be better than having a colony in space instead?
A colony on Mars would have access to planetary resources, such as ice, to provide water, oxygen, and hydrogen. The settlement could also theoretically be excavated below the surface and covered with "soil" to provide better radiation shielding. The presence of an atmosphere, even if it's a lot less than Earth's, gives at least a little bit of safety and time to respond to life support emergencies than a space station would. It would act as the first stage for longer term, higher population, colonization than could be supported on a space station.
Watch the video, it shows a settlement on the surface. I agree though building underground may provide adequate protection against radiation. At least for shorter stays, however those going are planned to live there permanently.
Having space stations, in orbit and on the moon, can give people a chance to see if they can handle a trip to Mars. Where they will spend the rest of their life. The trip to Mars is supposed to take 7 months, so if the people going can live in a space station for 7 months they can ha
Re: (Score:3)
They both have their advantages. A space station can never hope to be self-sufficient though, well not without mining asteroids. In fact an asteroid base dug into a large asteroid make even more sense - lots of raw materials, and all that relatively useless rock still makes great radiation and meteorite shielding. Otherwise you need to make it yourself, and we're talking something like a yard or two of lead (or equivalent mass of other stuff - on Earth we've got ~60 miles of air) to shield against cosmic
Re: (Score:1)
Why would Mars have greater potential to grow into a true (and thriving) colony or nation, than a collection of space stations? On Mars the atmosphere will remain 1/100th that of Earth, the "gravity" will remain 38% that of Earth. That isn't going to change for
Re: (Score:3)
Not just attached to, the space station has to be *inside* the asteroid if you want to use its mass for radiation and meteorite shielding, otherwise you'll need several meters of manufactured shielding. And if you're in an asteroid field then everything from pebbles to mountains are bouncing off each other around you, even if infrequently. A little extra shielding is a Good Thing. More is Even Better.
It's true that a wheel shape isn't necessary, but it's a convenient shape to maximize the "ground" area a
Re: (Score:3)
The mining module stuck to the asteroid does not have to spin. The space station 1g part does not have to be a wheel shape nor does it have to be attached to the asteroid. It can be a "bucket" + tethers + docking hub + counter weights (supplies etc).
Without spin I don't know how there will be weightiness and it's been shown that weightlessness [wikipedia.org] has ill health effects.
Why would Mars have greater potential to grow into a true (and thriving) colony or nation, than a collection of space stations? On Mars the atmosphere will remain 1/100th that of Earth, the "gravity" will remain 38% that of Earth. That isn't going to change for a long time. So all your living areas are still going to be like space stations. So where's that greater potential going to come from?
Living chambers can be dug into the ground, the deeper it's dug the more radiation shielding there is. The video linked to shows shelter being setup on the surface, with a roving robot assembling it with delivered supplies, before the first humans arrive. Those first humans can then tunnel and mine into Mars to get the raw materials to build underground shelter. which they would be carving
Re: (Score:2)
"Still seems stupid to me. Why would having a colony in Mars actually be better than having a colony in space instead? "
Gravity - some studies indicate that long term in zero-g (microgravity) causes health problems
And stuff like water, and minerals that you can mine and use - it takes a lot of effort to get stuff up into orbit, or to a Lagrange point.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean all we have to do is invent a brand new branch of science to produce gravity? Well that sounds much easier
You seem to be way behind the times. Have you even heard of Newtonian physics yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Methods_for_generating_artificial_gravity [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
- Longer trip times (most plans I've seen call for at least 1-6 months, one-way) means we need much better life support systems. A lot of that has been developed for the ISS,
The video says the trip will take 7 months.
- Extended stay on Mars: this is a serious endeavor. Maybe we can just drop an ISS-equivalent system and have it function well enough for a while, but more likely we'll need a more self-sufficient ecosystem, and there's still very limited research as to how to actually pull that one off.
It also says the first people going will be living there the rest of their lives.
- Return trip
See above.
- Takeoff could be a problem.
Same there.
I'd like to see studies compare going straight to Mars versus establishing a Moon base first and using that as the departure point for Mars. Of course we could also study whether using a Lagrange point between the earth and moon may be more practical. A factory there could build a rocket with a life support system for the trip to Mars, with building supplies sent t
Re: (Score:2)
-
-
-
-
That all depends on the plan, I believe there's currently 3-4 different groups planning independent missions.
Why build at the lagrange point rather than LEO? Even if you plan to launch from there for some reason it takes the same amount of energy to move the ship in pieces as it does whole, and a LEO is a lot more convenient to get to. The Moon is even worse since you're dropping Earth-originating stuff into a new gravity well (which takes fuel since you can't aerobrake) and then lifting it back out a
Re: (Score:2)
Why build at the lagrange point rather than LEO? Even if you plan to launch from there for some reason it takes the same amount of energy to move the ship in pieces as it does whole, and a LEO is a lot more convenient to get to. The Moon is even worse since you're dropping Earth-originating stuff into a new gravity well (which takes fuel since you can't aerobrake) and then lifting it back out again when you're done. Unless we're using local materials of course, but that would likely require an extremely mature Moonbase to be possible.
Lagrange because they're "between earth and moon" and if the raw materials are mined from the moon it would be easier because there's less gravity to overcome. Yes that would require a moon station but building and operating it would allow training on how to do it on Mars. It would be practical experience. Build a station on the moon as an exercise in training which can then be directly transferred to Mars. Having people live on the Moon would also be training for how to live on Mars once the 7 month journe
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're being overly optimistic - you want to get a moon colony with a mining operation, a refinery, and a factory all established in order to save a few bucks on a Mars mission? And you want to do it as a training exercise?!? I fully agree that if we *had* such a base it would make a Mars mission much easier, but establishing it in the first place would be a challenge even larger than establishing a Mars colony, which after all is not aiming to do mining or factory work in the short term. The Moo
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're being overly optimistic - you want to get a moon colony with a mining operation, a refinery, and a factory all established in order to save a few bucks on a Mars mission?
In my post you replied to where did I say anything about saving money? In any post where did I say anything about saving money by establishing a lunar operation or colony to save money to go to Mars? Nowhere, that's where. Where I did say something about saving money was where it came to heavy lift rockets. I specifically stated SpaceX and Falcon9 proved commercial operations could lower the costs of launch over what NASA paid.
Since you don't understand that, or are intentionally misstating I did say I see
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, bad day? ...easier because there is less gravity to overcome...
That is a concept directly tied to cost and not much else, so I assumed that was your motivating consideration.
It's a design study (Score:4, Insightful)
This most likely won't result in much more than spending a bunch of money on a design study. Just look at how many times NASA went through billions in studies to come up with zilch eventually. The main difference here, being the private sector, is that sane investors will pull the plug before it reaches mere millions, not billions.
Wake me up when they start building something. Until then, it's PR.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least when they start talking about something other than the ECLSS and trajectory design. There's a whole host of issues that weren't covered in Tito's paper...
That being said, Paragon's name was already linked with Mars One's when the project was first announced a couple of weeks back, so this is either actually just PR or bad reporting on SpaceRef's part.
Re: (Score:2)
Spending money to get more eyes on the design is not necessarily a bad thing. Okay, it's probably not worth wasting money to start training astronauts (which Mars One is supposedly going to do this year) since we already know how to do that. But design studies tend to build on themselves. For anybody keeping score:
Mars Direct [wikipedia.org]: the original mission to Mars plan by Robert Zubrin, which included a return flight, first developed in 1990 and expanded upon in his book The Case for Mars. Elements of this plan
2023 seems a bit unrealistic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about terraforming the place? It'd take between 2 and 5 centuries, and by then we'd have much better space vehicles to get there, and no need for spacesuits and airtight houses once there.
Re:2023 seems a bit unrealistic (Score:4, Interesting)
Its pretty well established that you don't need people in the mix to explore Mars. Certainly not to choose a good landing spot for habitats. And if I'm going to risk life and limb to step foot on Mars (or to get into LEO for that matter) there had better be a place to sleep, a place to poo, and plenty of food to eat when I get there. Right now we know enough about Mars to pick a good landing spot. We've done it several times for rovers etc. To get humans on there is not only a fantastic challenge, but at this point its not necessary. It will always be cheaper to build a civilization of robots to inhabit- at least they can be solar or nuclear powered. Humans are incredibly difficult to keep alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Its pretty well established that you don't need people in the mix to explore Mars. Certainly not to choose a good landing spot for habitats. And if I'm going to risk life and limb to step foot on Mars (or to get into LEO for that matter) there had better be a place to sleep, a place to poo, and plenty of food to eat when I get there. Right now we know enough about Mars to pick a good landing spot. We've done it several times for rovers etc. To get humans on there is not only a fantastic challenge, but at this point its not necessary. It will always be cheaper to build a civilization of robots to inhabit- at least they can be solar or nuclear powered. Humans are incredibly difficult to keep alive.
LEO == Low Earth Orbit
this is supposed to go to mars.
Re: (Score:2)
And if I'm going to risk life and limb to step foot on Mars (or to get into LEO for that matter) there had better be a place to sleep, a place to poo, and plenty of food to eat when I get there.
Clearly, you're more of a tourist than adventurer. Wouldn't want you to have to sacrifice anything on your space holiday... Perhaps you're better suited to weekend camping in your (literal) back yard.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you'd probably want to send most stuff by Interplanetary Transport Network ahead of time, or at least via a more efficient (and slower) orbital transfer. The humans with their need to eat, breathe, and avoid prolonged high-intensity radiation exposure could then make the trip much more quickly and have their supplies waiting for them. (possibly leaving years apart, but arriving at the same time) Or assuming a site was selected ahead of time everything could be dropped from orbit to the desired si
Re: (Score:2)
Habitats, vehicles and other infrastructure are not what's been holding us back. We've had technology to make these for decades. If we had to, we could come up with adequate ones from scratch inside of a year.
The problem has always been our rockets. The most powerful rocket ever built was the Saturn V. It costs $ billions per single launch and that's still not enough to lift a Mars capsule with all the fuel and supplies necessary for a manned landing. So we need multiple Saturn V launches and assemble the s
Re: (Score:2)
Habitats, vehicles and other infrastructure are not what's been holding us back. We've had technology to make these for decades. If we had to, we could come up with adequate ones from scratch inside of a year.
The problem has always been our rockets. The most powerful rocket ever built was the Saturn V. It costs $ billions per single launch and that's still not enough to lift a Mars capsule with all the fuel and supplies necessary for a manned landing. So we need multiple Saturn V launches and assemble the spacecraft in orbit, and that just increases the cost and complexity to insane levels. I don't remember the exact number, but in the 90's President H. Bush was toying with the idea of a manned Mars mission and asked NASA if it can be done, and the reply he got was "Yes we can do it, for 200 billion", after which Bush quietly dropped the idea.
By your own description of the problem, the problem is *not* our rockets, but our checkbook and our willingness to use it.
because of cost 2023 seems a bit unrealistic (Score:2)
SpaceX and Falcon9 has proven it does not have to cost nearly as much. Privately and commercially financed projects typically cost much less than government projects. NASA and the rest of the International Space Station partners are using Falcon9 rockets to supply the ISS because it is cheaper. However even if a lot of the cost can't be shaved off I have no problem with with projects like this trying. As long as taxpayer money is not spent let them go for it.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember the exact number, but in the 90's President H. Bush was toying with the idea of a manned Mars mission and asked NASA if it can be done, and the reply he got was "Yes we can do it, for 200 billion", after which Bush quietly dropped the idea.
...and not long after that, the Mars_Direct [wikipedia.org] proposal came along, which can be done with today's heavy-lift rockets, without assembling stuff in orbit, and much cheaper. AFAICS, it's just the political will that's missing.
Venus is half the distance versus Mars (Score:5, Interesting)
Floating cities (standard Earth atmosphere is buoyant in CO2) on Venus are a better idea ; there is a zone/atmospheric layer where the N/O2 inside the inflatable city would make it perpetually buoyant, and the temperature and pressure are just like earth normal. One could probably survive exposed with just regular earth scuba gear. Thick CO2 atmosphere protects from radiation, and the CO2 can easily be converted to oxygen and water from the abundant H2S04. Power would come from solar or throwing wires down to collect electricity from the thermal differential of the surface and the cloud layer. even the sulfuric acid 'rain' would be very useful....one probably have to rely on fungus and bacteria for food though, cultured in giant floating industrial complexes. mars has too thin an atmosphere, too cold, too little water, too much radiation. Robots that can hack 480 C temp. would mine the surface for minerals and attach nitrogen balloons to float up ore. I estimate that 20 trillion humans could live comfortably in the atmosphere of Venus.
The extreme lower and higher pressure atmospheric zones of Venus aren't practical, but could be exploited with much effort and technical concern, so I left them out. Possibly, automated industrial centers could occupy those layers. The "Goldilocks" layer has Earth standard atmospheric pressure so damage to the floating dome would not be immediately catastrophic.
Re:Venus is half the distance versus Mars (Score:5, Funny)
And what, prithee, do you intend to do about the wind?
Don't pack beans as part of the supplies.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For that same cost you might as well h
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs Home Depot when you've got a 3D printer? All the chemical resources are there to make a variety of materials, including plastic, cement, glass, various metals, fuel, etc..
Who needs a magnetosphere when you've got tons of regolith laying around to use as radiation shielding? As for the atmosphere, there is one on Mars, it's just not very thick. Nonetheless, it contains all the elements you need to manufacture earth-normal air for your habitat.
Re: (Score:2)
you can't actually use all that land surface without building structures that practically cover the entire land surface
That's true for Venus, but not for Mars. The long-term goal is terraforming, which will take a few centuries to complete, but at least for Mars there are several plausible ways to do it. (For Venus, not so much.)
As for "very bad weather" damaging the buildings... we've had multiple rovers on Mars for several years, and so far the weather has not done much damage to any of them. Aside from the occasional dust storm coating their solar panels, they have mostly out-performed their design expectations by a long
Re: (Score:1)
We are stuck in a somewhat hospitable gravity well. I don't consider being stuck in an inhospitable gravity well an advantage. So what is the advantage of colonizing Mars over space colonies amongst the asteroids?
Is there evidence that 38% gravity is enough for humans to do fine in? If it isn't well you're stuck with it. Whereas on a space station you can set it to a wide range including 38% (and thus do better "long term living on Mars" experiments). You could even have different areas with different "g".
Re: (Score:2)
Your points are all valid, I just don't think any of them are show-stoppers for Mars colonization. The only question mark, as you rightly point out, is whether or not .38g is enough for humans to be healthy over the long term. We don't have any solid data on that. But this will likely change in the next few years as research is done with mice and later humans in centrifugal apparatus. My gut feeling is that we'll be able to adapt, though over time the Martian population will diverge genetically from Terrans
Re: (Score:1)
They may not be showstoppers, but my question was why would a colony on Mars be better than a colony in space (near suitable asteroid(s)). So far I have seen no good reasons given.
But this will likely change in the next few years as research is done with mice and later humans in centrifugal apparatus.
Are there even any such projects being done right now? The only one I see didn't even get started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Gravity_Biosatellite [wikipedia.org]
And it wasn't even initiated or supported by NASA. Which just reinforces my low opinion of NASA - they've declined a lot since the 1970s.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing I don't understand. What's the point of colonies on Mars and Venus when you can't actually use all that land surface without building structures that practically cover the entire land surface in use (to keep people, livestock, plants etc alive)? It's not like surrounding a large area with fencing/walls and letting the cows/crops just grow. You have to cover all those areas or your crops/livestock will die. And the soil might not even be that productive.
What's the point when we do it now with buildings in cities? It's to make the land in question more useful to us.
As to the soil itself, it's has advantages and drawbacks. Apparently, it is to a large part, volcanic soil, which tends to be very fertile once it is weathered by terrestrial processes. That is, of course, countered by the fact that it hasn't been exposed to terrestrial processes. So there will some period of time when soil in the astrogeology sense gets turned into soil in the agricultural se
space and asteroids instead of Mars and Venus? (Score:2)
What's the point of colonies on Mars and Venus when you can't actually use all that land surface without building structures that practically cover the entire land surface in use (to keep people, livestock, plants etc alive)?
A lot of land is not needed to grow food. The majority of the land used in agriculture now is used to grow food for animals such as cows. Reduce, not eliminate just reduce, the amount of meat people eat and a lot less land would have to be used for food.
It's not like surrounding a large area with fencing/walls and letting the cows/crops just grow. You have to cover all those areas or your crops/livestock will die.
I don't know, and I doubt anyone else does either, how much crops can be grown on the surface of Mars. However say 10 people make the trip, they can bring enough food with them for 13 months. With the trip lasting 7 months, if a resupply ship with 6 months o
Re: (Score:1)
There's no proof that 0.38g is good enough for humans long term. Nobody has done any exp
Re: (Score:2)
My point was unlike on Earth whether on mars or in space you still need to build structures to enclose your farm. You can't get away with a cheap fence. You may even need to process the Martian soil first before you can use it. Whereas in space you just do hydroponics/aeroponics or whatever and it works (NASA's plans for Mars involve aeroponics anyway - so they're not even going to use the martian soil for growing food).
Why can't techniques be used on Mars that can be used on asteroids? Actually though I didn't say it I thinking of using hydroponics though aeroponics should be feasible. Also what I was thinking was that samples of living soil [the-living-soil.com], which would include ants and worms along with micro-organisms would be taken too. This initial soil can be mixed with Martian "dirt" to increase growing media.
There's no proof that 0.38g is good enough for humans long term. Nobody has done any experiments on that. Best way to do test is to put a centrifuge in space. But if you can put a centrifuge in space or spin the space station (or swing it with tethers and counterweights), then you no longer have that weightlessness problem.
And a centrifuge can't be built on Mars? We can build one on Earth but not Mars?
As for the radiation problem you need to solve that before sending people to Mars anyway. Otherwise they'd just get fried on the trip there.
Do you have scientific evidence humans can no
Re: (Score:2)
For example: you missed my statement "NASA's plans for Mars involve aeroponics anyway" and that post you are replying to was just because you had difficulty understanding my previous post.
So I'm not going to waste anymore time replying to you.
Re:Venus is half the distance versus Mars (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, I think the technology for that's a bit off yet, we haven't even managed to even keep a probe alive on Venus for more than a couple hours despite 50 years of trying - not even the atmospheric ones. Between the high temperatures, the corrosive gasses, the high winds, and violent lightning storms it's not a friendly place. Definitely not someplace you'd want to experience with only Scuba gear. Not to mention those surface-mining robots will have to survive not only the lead-melting surface temperatures and corrosive weather, but also the 92-atmosphere air pressure - equivalent to being about 1km underwater on Earth.
There's also a major problem with buoyancy - unless your city skin is rigid then any downdraft will cause the pressure to rapidly increase, and the volume to decrease, reducing buoyancy and speeding the descent. Similarly an updraft will cause pressure to drop rapidly and risk bursting the city skin. Airships have to deal with these problems on Earth, but with a much more gentle pressure gradient and non-corrosive environment.
Solar energy probably wouldn't be viable since above the CO2 clouds lie another layer clouds consisting of sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid which reflect ~90% of incoming sunlight back into space. As for 1 trillion people living in these cities, what would be the point? Far easier and safer to create vast underground arcologies on Earth.
Mars by comparison is actually quite pleasant. A bit cold, but heat is easy to generate and the atmosphere is near vacuum which makes it an excellent insulator, so you only lose significant heat to the ground. Water is plentiful at the poles and possibly elsewhere underground, and unlimited near-pure CO2 is delivered fresh to your doorstep year round at roughly Earth-normal partial pressure, you just have to compress it and feed it into your greenhouses, no toxic gasses to be removed first. Admittedly going for an unprotected walk outdoors could be painful, but a glorified wetsuit could apply sufficient skin pressure to prevent injury, and a breathing mask would protect your face. Most people on Earth can fairly easily adapt to high altitude air pressures around 1/2 ATM - operate the base on a pure oxygen atmosphere at the same partial pressure and you're only dealing with 1/10 ATM, or about 1.5psi, easy to contain, or add nitrogen to reach a more pleasant pressure - the martian atmosphere is about 2% N2 so it will be easy to replenish. Living quarters can be radiation shielded by the simple expedient of burying them in a few meters of sand - another plentiful and versatile Martian resource. Bring along some sort of binding agent for it and you wouldn't even need much in the way of habitat - just encase some some big inflatable domes in "concrete" and install airlocks.
All in all Mars could readily be colonized using a mostly low-tech approach, ideal for establishing a colony that could rapidly become mostly self-sufficient. If the Soviets had ever made it there their rough-and-ready space program would have been right at home establishing a colony. Venus on the other hand - lets terraform that sucker, it's the only way it'll be anything but a hellhole to us. First we need to unleash some sort of atmospheric organism that will bind all that excess carbon into a stable form... Then we can examine step two in a century or two after the planet has cooled off a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I overlooked some Russian balloon-suspended aerobots in '85 that remained up near the 54km "sweet spot". I'll admit they did last a lot longer, a good 46 hours. Still not impressive, though admittedly it sounds like the batteries faded out rather than anyhting caytstrophic. Then again the batteries were supposed to last 60 hours, so who knows.
I still see several problems:
- Sulfuriic acid is strong, nasty stuff, and the atmosphere is rich in it, especially the upper cloud layers. Also hydrochlo
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry troll, I'm just about out of kibble, better savor this last morsel.
Big structures subjected to big forces move *exactly* like small structures subjected to small forces, minus some details of fluid dynamics, it all comes down to f=ma. Considering a nice mild day in the Venusian atmosphere involves hurricane-speed winds and violent vertical mixing I'd put good money that an actual storm could toss even a floating city around quite violently.
Oh, and If you're not the AC heckler that's been repeatedly f
Re: (Score:2)
Awww, you must be really hungry. Alright, one more little bit of troll-kibble.
What? Where are you getting these ridiculous claims about Venus from? We have a grand total of 46 hours of first-hand data about it's internal atmospheric behavior, and that data all says high winds and even more violent convection than we expected.
Big ships = much bigger mass with only moderately larger forces, of course they oscillate less. A small ship rides only one wave at a time so gets tossed up and down regularly, as w
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your point, but I still don't think we'll ever "colonize" Venus, at least not with floating cities. The only scenario for Venus that makes sense to me is more along the lines of the arctic regions of Earth. I could see, for example, a floating science research facility, analogous to McMurdo Station in Antarctica. Perhaps there could also be some resource-mining facilities, analogous to the drilling rigs in the North Sea, extracting raw materials for rocket fuel, etc., and "pipelining" them to m
Re: (Score:2)
I think you may be overly pessimistic with your dismissal of terraforming Venus. It's true that it has a massive atmosphere, but there's no reason that what is air today has to still be air tomorrow. Considering that its atmosphere is almost entirely CO2 if we came up with some organism (found or designed) that could survive there and fix the carbon into something stable then you would immediately reduce the mass of atmosphere by almost 1/3 and virtually eliminate the greenhouse effect causing the planet
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that "fixing" or "precipitating" the atmosphere is the most promising avenue, but from what I've read, nobody has yet come up with a plausible scheme to make this happen. Doesn't mean it's impossible of course, but at the moment it makes Mars look much more promising.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly. Mars is practically homey already. (Possibly) blue skies, vast sandy beaches, days almost the same length as our own, what's not to love? Without a magnetosphere it'll probably never again have a stable dense atmosphere, but we might even be able to fudge that as long as we don't mind having to do regular maintenance. Venus on the other hand has is a major fixer-upper. Even if we precipitate the atmosphere we'll still have those 6,000(?) hour days to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true - It's only *almost* tidally locked. Important distinction. Even if you somehow froze out the entire atmosphere within a single hour, 112.35 days later the midnight point is now at high noon, and the gasses have all boiled off again. It would be a violent cycle, but that much at least is normal for Venus. Not to mention the surface temperature currently melts lead, and you're not going to cool that off in a hurry - even if the upper atmosphere froze out it would evaporate again long before reach
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, a fair point, I hadn't considered that. I suppose it is just possible that by precipitating out most of the atmosphere we might accelerate it's rotation just enough to tidally lock the surface. That might even be a good thing - half a planet with constant sunlight might be preferable to year-plus long days. I suppose it would come down to whether the remaining atmospheric convection could conduct enough heat to the far side to keep it from freezing out. It's certainly possible, phase transitions wou
Re: (Score:1)
Venus is 200 degrees worse than an oven on self-clean.
Mars you don't even need a pressure suit -- just an air bottle and a good winter coat.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Mars you don't even need a pressure suit -- just an air bottle and a good winter coat.
Are you sure about that? I've been trying to find a credible source for info on the minimum safe pressure for skin exposure, it seems like 0.006Atm might be just a *teensy* bit below the safety margin, though if I remember correctly water will still be liquid at body temperature at that pressure. Barely. Which could be a good sign.
And point in fact even the winter coat might be unnecessary - you'd essentially be walking around in a giant vacuum thermos, temperature doesn't have a whole lot of practical me
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, except in the upper atmosphere where it's a major component in the clouds reflecting 90% of incoming sunlight. The clouds that are immediately above the narrow layer of possibly habitable upper atmosphere, on a planet whose atmosphere is now know to experience violent vertical mixing.
Re: (Score:2)
Only *mostly* tidally locked, a drastic difference. The local day is 224.7 Earth-days long, nothing could possibly *stay* frozen out. And the atmosphere will have a hard time freezing out in the first place so long as the surface temperature will melt lead. Moreover the high-altitude sulfuric acid clouds would probably be one of the first parts to freeze out, which would increase solar influx tenfold.
Rigid structure for the city, sure. Rigid structure for the massive balloon holding you up, without incr
Re: (Score:2)
Air = ambient environmental gasses. It's one of those terms with no firm meaning. It usually used to mean nitrogen + a bit of oxygen simply because that's usually the environment being discussed. We still call the gas mixture in a spaceship or deep-sea submarine air, despite the fact that it's often a wildly different mix of gasses than what we normally breathe. If you think I'm wrong try attacking the points I made rather than getting pedantic about words with vaguely defined meaning. I'll happily argue
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, nanotubes are flexible - ever tried pushing something with a string? Hint, it doesn't work very well. Sure, you won't hurt the string, but you also won't accomplish anything. To prevent something from collapsing under a net external pressure you need a rigid structure.
I'm assuming the balloon is filled with hydrogen, in fact technically my math is assuming it's actually filled with some magical gas since I didn't factor in the reduction of buoyancy due to the mass of the hydrogen. But it's not the
Re: (Score:2)
Tension doesn't help, there's nothing outside the balloon to tie it to. You need compression-bearing beams.
Re: (Score:2)
No argument that tension-based construction has some wonderful advantages (have you seen the tensegrity-based towers? Pretty wild.) , but tension always requires a corresponding compressive element in order to exist at all (or something like the steady-state acceleration of rotation, but that isn't relevant to the discussion at hand). For a bridge the Earth itself provides that compressive component - you're not going to pull the sides of the canyon or whatever together, the earth below simply experiences
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but how do you get the heat from the surface up to your floating city where the air is at Earthlike temperatures? You can't even scatter generators around the surface and beam power up to the city because there's no cold reservoir on the surface to complete the Carnot cycle. Moreover generators != thermoelectric.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa, cool, hadn't heard of those before.
It probably doesn't really change anything though - thermoelectric generation depends on thermal gradient - which on Venus would be roughly 800*F/50km, or 0.016*F/m. You'd need some very nearly superconducting material (electric and/or thermal) to concentrate that into something useful.
Certainly it's *possible* to extract energy from the heat of Venus. Just as it's possible to extract energy from the minute mechanical vibrations of the Earth itself. The question i
Re: (Score:1)
Does anybody who's optimistic about this remember Biosphere 1 and 2? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2) Hell, we can't even keep Biosphere 0 healthy...
Biosphere 1 is Earth. Biosphere 2 was a pretty cool concept and a neat experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
Check their creds... (Score:2)
Of course it's PR. If you check the experience of the team, you'll see that they are mostly trained in PR, not in making rockets. There is one person in the team who knows a bit about space vehicles. The rest is design and social media. They're going to tweet their way to Mars.
what we need is a good old cold war to generate... (Score:2)