NASA Has Explored Manned Missions To Venus (newsweek.com) 122
NASA recently developed a program for manned missions to explore Venus -- even though the planet's surface is 860 degrees, which NASA explains is "hot enough to melt lead." Long-time Slashdot reader Zorro shares this week's article from Newsweek:
As surprising as it may seem, the upper atmosphere of Venus is the most Earth-like location in the solar system. Between altitudes of 30 miles and 40 miles, the pressure and temperature can be compared to regions of the Earth's lower atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure in the Venusian atmosphere at 34 miles is about half that of the pressure at sea level on Earth. In fact you would be fine without a pressure suit, as this is roughly equivalent to the air pressure you would encounter at the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro.
Nor would you need to insulate yourself as the temperature here ranges between 68 degrees Fahrenheit and 86 degrees Fahrenheit. The atmosphere above this altitude is also dense enough to protect astronauts from ionising radiation from space. The closer proximity of the sun provides an even greater abundance of available solar radiation than on Earth, which can be used to generate power (approximately 1.4 times greater).... [C]onceivably you could go for a walk on a platform outside the airship, carrying only your air supply and wearing a chemical hazard suit.
Venus is 8 million miles closer to Earth than Mars (though it's 100 times further away than the moon). But the atmosphere around Venus contains traces of sulphuric acid (responsible for its dense clouds), so the vessel would need to be corrosion-resistant material like teflon. (One NASA paper explored the possibility of airbone microbes living in Venus's atmosphere.) There's a slick video from NASA's Langley Research Center titled "A way to explore Venus" showcasing HAVOC -- "High Altitude Venus Operational Concept."
"A recent internal NASA study...led to the development of an evolutionary program for the exploration of Venus," explains the project's page at NASA.gov, "with focus on the mission architecture and vehicle concept for a 30 day crewed mission into Venus's atmosphere." NASA describes the project as "no longer active," though adding that manned missions to the atmosphere of Venus are possible "with advances in technology and further refinement of the concept."
Nor would you need to insulate yourself as the temperature here ranges between 68 degrees Fahrenheit and 86 degrees Fahrenheit. The atmosphere above this altitude is also dense enough to protect astronauts from ionising radiation from space. The closer proximity of the sun provides an even greater abundance of available solar radiation than on Earth, which can be used to generate power (approximately 1.4 times greater).... [C]onceivably you could go for a walk on a platform outside the airship, carrying only your air supply and wearing a chemical hazard suit.
Venus is 8 million miles closer to Earth than Mars (though it's 100 times further away than the moon). But the atmosphere around Venus contains traces of sulphuric acid (responsible for its dense clouds), so the vessel would need to be corrosion-resistant material like teflon. (One NASA paper explored the possibility of airbone microbes living in Venus's atmosphere.) There's a slick video from NASA's Langley Research Center titled "A way to explore Venus" showcasing HAVOC -- "High Altitude Venus Operational Concept."
"A recent internal NASA study...led to the development of an evolutionary program for the exploration of Venus," explains the project's page at NASA.gov, "with focus on the mission architecture and vehicle concept for a 30 day crewed mission into Venus's atmosphere." NASA describes the project as "no longer active," though adding that manned missions to the atmosphere of Venus are possible "with advances in technology and further refinement of the concept."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is *exactly* how they started the ball rolling in the good old days, with spitballing mission concepts. The thing that made the good old days good, however, was that would be followed up with a hundred billion dollars in funding.
Waste of resources... (Score:3, Informative)
We are better off sending drones and satellites with science labs already onboard. This does sound better then a manned mission to Mars though. Being able to build a space craft or space station in the atmosphere of Venus sounds incredible and a whole lot more practical then going to Mars.
Both seem like overly expensive, resource intensive activities that we would be better off sending more drones.
Re: Waste of resources... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The drones could build a cloud city like Lando Calrissian administered above Bespin.
Once the city is completed, humans could colonize it and begin terraforming Venus from the cloud tops downward.
This makes way more sense than a Mars colony. Those Mars nutters need to get a grip on reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An attempt to terraform Venus would certainly make more sense than trying to terraform Mars, because you wouldn't need to find and transport millions of volatile rich bodies from the outer solar system. Which bodies might simply not exist, or might be spread at multi-million km spacings through the outer 10^30-odd km^3 of the Solar system. Enjoy the hunt - it'll take the rest of your life.
For Venus, the volatiles are there
Re: (Score:2)
Once the city is completed, humans could colonize it and begin terraforming Venus from the cloud tops downward.
There is millennia of red heat latent in carbonate formation.
Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
As surprising as it may seem, the upper atmosphere of Venus is the most Earth-like location in the solar system.
Earth is even more Earth-like. I say Venus may be the second most Earth-like location in the solar system.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that there is no way it will ever get hot enough to melt lead, it could only get hot enough to melt tin! I feel so much better!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Are you a cattle rancher?
Yes, seriously (Score:5, Interesting)
" I say Venus may be the second most Earth-like location in the solar system." Well, that's bullshit.
No, at the right altitude-- about 56 km above the surface-- Venus is remarkably Earthlike.
No oxygen, of course, but in temperature and pressure, very close.
I wrote a paper about this: "Colonization of Venus" [nasa.gov], back in 2003. Glad to see my work is being taken seriously!
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is some really serious sidestepping in your piece you link to Geoffrey:
These materials, such as silicon, iron, aluminum, magnesium, calcium, potassium, sodium etc. can be mined from the surface material, which is apparently primarily a basaltic silicate. Access to the surface is relatively simple from an aerostat, since the thick atmosphere allows flight by airplanes or balloons... In an alternative scenario, an cable in the form of a high-temperature fullerene tether could be used to directly lift ore from the surface to the habitat. Since the habitat will be stationary with respect to the middle-atmosphere wind, the lifting will be done with the habitat in motion with respect to the surface.
Relatively simple? Relative to what? You did mention at the start of the piece the conditions on the surface (from 735K to in excess of 975 K, and a pressure of 96 atmospheres), but not addressing those very significant issues when suggesting that mining on the surface might be feasible seems more than a bit of an oversight. There are probably no ore forming processes on Venus (no water, thick atmosphere prevents asteroid i
Re:Yes, seriously (Score:4, Interesting)
There's much more detail about surface access and resources in much more detail in Chapter 8 here [venuslabs.org]. Contrary to your assertion, Venus has all of the signs for heavy differentiation, both theoretical and observed: abnormally large melts, abnormally low viscosities, abnormally long cooling times, repeated remelting, structures associated with secondary differentiation on Earth (such as rhyolite domes, which are the most likely explanation for Venus's pancake domes), etc. Venera 8 and 13 measured U, Th and K levels that were so enriched over what's normally found in basalt that Venera 8 was initially thought to have sampled granite instead. Venus also shows signs of potential widespread carbonatite volcanism, which on Earth form some of the most valuable ores for a number of elements. Venus also has its own unique ore-forming processes, to the point that the planet literally vaporizes and plates out metals and/or semiconductors in the form of high-altitude frosts. Venus has no liquid water to assist in forming ores, but its dense, acidic atmosphere provides it with unique ore-forming properties not found anywhere else in the solar system.
In some ways, Venus is a natural refinery, separating out different compounds into layers - there are three separate cloud decks (with a virga underlying the lowest). For example the dominant species in the upper two cloud layers is sulfuric acid, the most likely dominant species in the lower cloud layer (or at least a major species) is phosphoric. Even metals appear to be found in Venus's upper atmosphere - for example, iron has been detected, most likely in the form of iron chloride. There are some metals that we don't even know what's happened to them - for example, our models show that mercury should be common in Venus's atmosphere, yet it hasn't been detected at all; we have no clue what's happened to it.
And as for "how to harvest" materials from the surface, the simplest method is one that we can't do effectively on Earth or Mars: dredging. Venus's atmosphere is dense enough that one could dredge fines using the same fan that the lander uses for propulsion. And as for the ability to land on Venus's surface, come on - that was achieved with 1960s/1970s Soviet technology. Yes, we're talking more complex systems, but nothing remotely beyond our reach.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like this would be a one way trip. Since Venus has a gravity close to 1g, wouldn't the planet's escape velocity mean that this would be a one way trip?
After all, it took something as powerful as a Saturn V to reach Terran escape velocity and get us to the moon. How would we manage to get a spacecraft that massive out there in order to bring our explorers back?
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity is simultaneously one of Venus's big advantages and curses. Advantages because it makes Venus so similar to Earth, and pretty much guarantees that people won't experience muscle and bone atrophy. But curse because, like Earth, it's hard to get off.
You can escape with chemical rockets, although they have to be recovered with balloons (there was one rocket design in the 1960s on Earth being considered for doing the exact same thing), you have to re-mate the stages while they're hanging from the under
Re: (Score:3)
Nice to see you back, Geoffrey :) Keep up the great work!
I am curious what you think of the early-phase HAVOC approach, of having the crew slung underneath a lift envelope rather than living inside it. I have to admit, I'm not a fan (I also found some of their mass budget numbers in the initial proposal rather questionable). But it's still nice to see some work being done towards any Venus habitation concepts. :)
I guess on the upside they can be freed from the need for a transparent envelope, and thus use
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah, I'm curious as to what your thoughts on sustainable ascent stages are. The early stages of HAVOC call for what's basically a gigantic Pegasus rocket... anything but sustainable, of course.
Sustainable chemical ascent vehicles look possible, but are... annoying. It basically requires two stages, which you have to recover with balloons, and re-mate while they're hanging under your habitat, and the propellant to re-fill them requires the vast majority of your habitat's lift capacity. You're also limi
Re:Yes, seriously (The Sultan of the Clouds) (Score:2)
Spoiler question below
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The only question I have concerning the story is what would this diamond structure the villain wants to build look like?
Re: (Score:2)
No, at the right altitude-- about 56 km above the surface-- Venus is remarkably Earthlike.
No oxygen, of course, but in temperature and pressure, very close.
I wrote a paper about this: "Colonization of Venus" [nasa.gov], back in 2003. Glad to see my work is being taken seriously!
Wouldn't the lack of hydrogen be a larger problem than the lack of oxygen? Oxygen is at least available bound with carbon dioxide but water vapor is just a trace.
Venus colonies (Score:5, Interesting)
based on this 2003 paper: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030022668.pdf [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, I believe that in the canon it was supposed to be full of that sort of thing ;)
Fahrenheit on Venus? (Score:5, Funny)
Nor would you need to insulate yourself as the temperature here ranges between 68 degrees Fahrenheit and 86 degrees Fahrenheit (...)
I highly doubt that; temperatures in the Fahrenheit-range are found only in a handful of territories on Venus' planetary neighbor.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, please may Earth leave that system behind... ;)
Note that comfortable temperatures require either lower atmospheric pressures or high latitudes, ideally a combination of both. This is amplified by the fact that, at least in a Landis habitat, you're living inside a greenhouse, with its own greenhouse effect. Higher latitudes also equate to shorter day lengths. The main limitation on high latitudes appears to be the polar vortices (although we don't yet know just how turbulent they are). High latitudes
Re: (Score:2)
Landis habitat
That's not the same Landis who's posting up thread is it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing about a Landis habitat on Venus ( = transparent envelope, oxygen / nitrogen lifting gas, people live inside the lift envelope) is that even for a relatively small crew, it's large enough that you could skydive indoors. Perfect place for extreme sports.
Of course, the real "extreme sport" would be going to the surface. Which actually is perfectly achievable with modern technology. It requires hard suits, not soft suits (more akin to the NASA AX-series [google.com], or more accurately, akin to atmospheri [google.com]
Not TV friendly (Score:3)
Basement: Can't see anything outside; able to study radar images and scientific data transmitted from Venus probe; can go outside if necessary; cheap.
Manned Venus mission: Can't see anything outside; able to study radar images; able to go outside to stand in corrosive acid cloud (assuming you wear the right suit); super-expensive.
Re:Not TV friendly (Score:5, Interesting)
So, what you can see depends on the design approach. I'm not a big fan of the HAVOC approach, where people live in a little capsule under the lift envelope; the Landis approach, where people live and farm in the (huge) lift envelope itself makes far more sense. Therein you have a vast, bright open space full of life and where you can live basically wherever you want; the lowest-mass option for crew quarters is just large tents hanging from catenaries (non-rigid) or the frame (rigid). Don't get along with someone? Move half a kilometer away from them, to the opposite side of the habitat.
What you see outside: With the possible exception of the polar vortices, you never see either the ground or the sun. You have a brightness gradient, where above you is somewhat brighter than below you. You do pass through convective weather systems however that are surprisingly similar to those in Earth's troposphere. We don't know at this point whether there's any precipitation or frosts in these (that's how pathetically little we know about Venus : The data from the Vega balloons has alternately been argued to confirm or deny precipitation and/or frosts), but as far as what you'd see, these clouds would be visible, albeit in relatively low contrast.
As for stepping outside: barring precipitation (which, as mentioned, we don't know whether it actually exists), the outside environment isn't like a sulfuric acid bath. It's several to several dozen mg/m^3 of sulfuric acid mists. By contrast, OSHA allows people to breathe up to 1 mg/m^3 for an entire 8-hour shift. Now, the acid concentration on Venus is higher than it would be on Earth (H2SO4 is highly hygroscopic and absorbs moisture from the air to self-dilute), but the key takeaway is, the environment is more like a very bad smog (or more accurately, vog). The H2SO4 is far more of a resource than a hazard, and it would actually be convenient if it were more common (heating first drives off free H2O; further heating decomposes H2SO4 to SO3 + H2O; and further heating of SO3 over a vanadium oxide catalyst decomposes it to SO2 and O2; contrarily, SO3 can be reused in the gas scrubber as a nucleating agent to help capture free H2O after doing an initial electrostatic and/or ionic liquid scrubbing of the H2SO4 mists).
Re: (Score:2)
Therein you have a vast, bright open space full of life and where you can live basically wherever you want; the lowest-mass option for crew quarters is just large tents hanging from catenaries (non-rigid) or the frame (rigid). Don't get along with someone? Move half a kilometer away from them, to the opposite side of the habitat.
You can't do this on Earth - live where ever you want. Why would this be possible in the far, far more space constrained Venus colony structure?
On any off-world colony, where all available space is part of a man-made structure (and in this case all space not just habitable living space) it will be at a premium and will be strictly allocated by a management/legal system (like land, or apartments, or offices, here on Earth).
The lifting capacity of Venus's atmosphere does not lead to living on an almost empty
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean you can't move anywhere you want on Earth? Of course you can. I could move half a kilometer away from where I'm at tomorrow if I wanted to.
It doesn't work that way, at least until you get to extremely large habitats. The amount of volume you need for lift means that the overwhelming amount of your habitat is empty space. I
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The bulk mass certainly needs to be at the bottom, for stability reasons. But the mass isn't humans, or even agriculture; it's the ascent vehicle. More specifically, the propellant in the ascent vehicle. Particularly if you're using chemical rockets (as opposed to nuclear thermal), you're looking at something like 90% of your mass in the ascent stage on the underside. Where you put everything else is pretty much irrelevant in comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Studies don't matter (Score:3)
NASA has probably "explored" interstellar flight too, it doesn't mean it's anywhere near ready to go. Right now the US can't even send people to the ISS. Of course hand-waving is sometimes useful like "if we ignore all the problems of getting to Mars, what's the problems we have on Mars" but you got to take that into account. Sure at the right altitude Venus orbit is relatively human friendly. It doesn't mean we have the means to get people from Earth to there or back again. And we'd probably have to build the ship much more protected for the crew to survive the trip, so it would just be to go outside in order to go outside. Unlike Mars, where we could actually do something outside the ship.
Do a robotic mission. (Score:3)
Or send Venus Williams (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Been done already. The Soviet Vega probes deployed balloons into the Venus atmosphere. They were tracked from earth until they went behind the far side of the planet.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that's sort of the point - so long as people see Venus as "uninhabitable", it'll keep being robbed of funding for robotic missions, as it has been for the past several decades. Having a manned program for Venus - even if manned missions are, for all practical purposes, decades off - has the potential to help get more funding for exploring the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not much of an advocate for self-driving cars. If plan to stalk me, please do a better job at it in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Waiting for AC to call you creimer.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, but yu cnt spel gud.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the same. This isn't real scientific research, if it doesn't use international, metric standards.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to be very careful about this:
[CNN: September 30, 1999] [cnn.com] NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because a Lockheed Martin engineering team used English units of measurement while the agency's team used the more conventional metric system for a key spacecraft operation, according to a review finding released Thursday.
But what do you *do*, floating over Venus? (Score:2)
What are the resources in the clouds above Venus? How do you get the raw materials to maintain the balloons? What's the economy there? What's the draw? How come we're not living in blimps floating above Earth?
The one thing I see is more solar gain for energy, but that's better gotten in space. Terraforming? Even if you screened the planet from the sun entirely, it would take vast amounts of time for the heat trapped in the atmosphere to dissipate.
Venus seems like the hot version of Antarctica; a place for l
Re: (Score:2)
Chapter 5 [venuslabs.org]
Chapter 8.
Chapter 8.
People live in the easiest location where it is to live, near where there's economic activity to sustain their presence. See Chapter 8 re: economic activity, and if you think you have an easier location to base operations for accessing Venus's resources than an aerostat ha
Melt lead. (Score:2)
The melting point of lead is 327,5 C.
Re: (Score:1)
Many countries and regions use comma for the decimal point.
By comparison, only three (US.of.A, Liberia and Burma) use non-metric. Retard.
Re: (Score:3)
Many countries and regions use comma for the decimal point.
Wikipedia has a nice overview [wikipedia.org]. But this is an English writing site and English uses a dot as decimal separator.
Re: (Score:2)
That escalated quickly.
Terraform Venus! (Score:3)
Use several large asteroids, then some smaller ones...
Step 1: Blow of 90% of the atmosphere with a large heavy asteroid.
You could also tip the planet a bit, and add some spin.
Step 2: Hit it with another asteroid heavy enough to penetrate the planet, spinning the core to create a magnetic field to protect Immigrants from Earth.
Step 3: Hit it with slower moving asteroids built up of various frozen gasses and water, until there are global oceans.
Step 4: Wait for it to cool off a bit, after the Re-engineering step.
Profit!
This is what we should be planning; deorbiting things to the inner solar system is easy if you don't need to slow down at the end. :)
I wonder if I can get funding...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, don't get me wrong - I don't have any intrinsic objection to using Mars to terraform Venus. But some of the people left on Earth might be a little concerned about you manoeuvring such a lump of rock past their windows. Maybe move them out somewhere else while you're doing the "heavy lifting".
Step 2Hmm, you're going to have to move around 80% of the ma
Hmmm (Score:3)
Shiiiit!
What?
I dropped the keys!
Venus Labs (Score:2)
Sure (Score:3)
Some mystery as to why Venus has a thick atmospher (Score:1)
Venus has a weak magnetic field compared to earth. Current scientific opinion seems to be that earth's magnetic field is what kept earth from losing its atmosphere the way Mars did.
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/10189/why-did-venus-not-lose-its-atmosphere-without-magnetic-field [stackexchange.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Metric system (Score:2)
Let's not got to Venus. Do we really need to add a fourth country to the list of those who can't switch to bloody medieval measurement units?
I hope it's a Night Flight to Venus (Score:4, Funny)