Space Colonization: Venus

[Serenity595]

Space Colonization: Venus

This topic is about the possible future space colonization of Venus. If you want to read about space colonization regarding Mercury, click on the link below:

https://www.team9000.net/threads/space-colonization.17074/

I hope you enjoy!

Venus

“Venus is the second planet from the Sun, orbiting it every 224.7 Earth days.” - Wikipedia (2013)

Where would we settle?

Without a doubt, the surface of Venus is far too hostile for any colony established on it to be economically feasible. Its lead-melting temperatures and extremely high atmospheric pressures would make a ground-based station nearly impossible to construct and maintain. Instead, “floating cities” orbiting high above in the carbon-rich atmosphere would be a far more likely endeavor.

What are the advantages of settling here?

• The gravity of Venus is very similar to that of Earth's, even more so than Mars'. This would allow for long-term human habitation without the complications of bone decalcifation and muscular atrophy.

• Since Venus is the closest planet to Earth, it would make trips to and from the planet cheaper in comparison to Mercury and Mars. Communication would also be more practical because of Venus's close proximity to our planet. These two intertwining benefits portray Venus as a central “docking station” for planetary relations and trade between Mercury and Earth.

• Venus has a mass roughly 81.5% of it's sister planet, Earth, allowing for a large aerial area to be colonized. Such an abundance of space could give way for trading companies to establish their interplanetary-focused warehouses here.

• The carbon-saturated atmosphere of Venus enables the proposed idea of “floating cities” to be a reality. “Balloons” full of human-breathable air could both sustain the weight and respiratory requirements of a human colony. The mobility of these colonies would negate the need to explore Venus first, making the initial establishment of a planetary base faster.

• Despite Venus being extremely hostile on the surface, its relatively biologically-friendly upper atmosphere is the closest thing to “paradise” in our Solar System outside of Earth. Humans would not require pressurized suits to move about 50km above the surface, nor would they need protection from extreme heat or cold.

What are the difficulties in settling here?

• Although the upper atmosphere of Venus isn't too hostile to life, the surface is extremely so. Its temperatures are the hottest in the entire Solar System at a mean 735 K (or 863 °F). Advanced shielding technologies would have to be in place to make any sort of construction on the ground possible.

• The atmospheric pressures on the surface are also extremely high. They would crush anything that is not properly protected.

• It is very improbable that any form of water is on Venus. Despite being farther from the Sun than Mercury, Venus's “runway greenhouse effect” traps far more heat. The only geographical features that would be present on Venus are volcanic plains, formed by extensive lava and ash flows.

• Oxygen is absent from Venus's primarily carbon atmosphere. Additionally, the clouds are composed of sulfuric acid which cause storms of corrosive acid rain.

What is the conclusion?

Venus would be a very beneficial “way-station” between Mercury and Earth. Though its surface has no promise for human habitation, its upper atmosphere may hold the key to sustain a long-term colony on this planet. Exploration and scientific research could also be incentives for us to brave Venus's severity. Unlike Mercury, Venus would have little importance in exporting its own planetary goods. Instead, it would serve as a trading outpost between Mercury and Venus. The relative ease of constructing the “floating cities” would allow colonists to import and export large quantities of goods from the other planets, making it an ideal destination for cargo ships as well as interstellar ships in need of supplies.

 

[Kris]

No matter how efficiently we could get this done, this would be much more risky/trippy/ than Mercury and Mars settlements.
More prone to malfunctions, and the smallest malfunctions could screw things up.

 

[Tai_K_Yagami]

No matter how efficiently we could get this done, this would be much more risky/trippy/ than Mercury and Mars settlements.
More prone to malfunctions, and the smallest malfunctions could screw things up.

I agree with this as the most common problem is the atmospheric pressure and temperature hotter than that of Mercury. We would essentially incinerate upon contact and would be very difficult to even study close up. However, perhaps with time and better tools, humans can possibly probe into the planet and fathom it's potential value as an energy source once again.

Space Colonization: Venus

This topic is about the possible future space colonization of Venus. If you want to read about space colonization regarding Mercury, click on the link below:

https://www.team9000.net/threads/space-colonization.17074/

I hope you enjoy!

Venus

“Venus is the second planet from the Sun, orbiting it every 224.7 Earth days.” - Wikipedia (2013)

Where would we settle?

Without a doubt, the surface of Venus is far too hostile for any colony established on it to be economically feasible. Its lead-melting temperatures and extremely high atmospheric pressures would make a ground-based station nearly impossible to construct and maintain. Instead, “floating cities” orbiting high above in the carbon-rich atmosphere would be a far more likely endeavor.

What are the advantages of settling here?

• The gravity of Venus is very similar to that of Earth's, even more so than Mars'. This would allow for long-term human habitation without the complications of bone decalcifation and muscular atrophy.

• Since Venus is the closest planet to Earth, it would make trips to and from the planet cheaper in comparison to Mercury and Mars. Communication would also be more practical because of Venus's close proximity to our planet. These two intertwining benefits portray Venus as a central “docking station” for planetary relations and trade between Mercury and Earth.

• Venus has a mass roughly 81.5% of it's sister planet, Earth, allowing for a large aerial area to be colonized. Such an abundance of space could give way for trading companies to establish their interplanetary-focused warehouses here.

• The carbon-saturated atmosphere of Venus enables the proposed idea of “floating cities” to be a reality. “Balloons” full of human-breathable air could both sustain the weight and respiratory requirements of a human colony. The mobility of these colonies would negate the need to explore Venus first, making the initial establishment of a planetary base faster.

• Despite Venus being extremely hostile on the surface, its relatively biologically-friendly upper atmosphere is the closest thing to “paradise” in our Solar System outside of Earth. Humans would not require pressurized suits to move about 50km above the surface, nor would they need protection from extreme heat or cold.

What are the difficulties in settling here?

• Although the upper atmosphere of Venus isn't too hostile to life, the surface is extremely so. Its temperatures are the hottest in the entire Solar System at a mean 735 K (or 863 °F). Advanced shielding technologies would have to be in place to make any sort of construction on the ground possible.

• The atmospheric pressures on the surface are also extremely high. They would crush anything that is not properly protected.

• It is very improbable that any form of water is on Venus. Despite being farther from the Sun than Mercury, Venus's “runway greenhouse effect” traps far more heat. The only geographical features that would be present on Venus are volcanic plains, formed by extensive lava and ash flows.

• Oxygen is absent from Venus's primarily carbon atmosphere. Additionally, the clouds are composed of sulfuric acid which cause storms of corrosive acid rain.

What is the conclusion?

Venus would be a very beneficial “way-station” between Mercury and Earth. Though its surface has no promise for human habitation, its upper atmosphere may hold the key to sustain a long-term colony on this planet. Exploration and scientific research could also be incentives for us to brave Venus's severity. Unlike Mercury, Venus would have little importance in exporting its own planetary goods. Instead, it would serve as a trading outpost between Mercury and Venus. The relative ease of constructing the “floating cities” would allow colonists to import and export large quantities of goods from the other planets, making it an ideal destination for cargo ships as well as interstellar ships in need of supplies.

Not the best place for paradise I would say. Even so, trade and interplanetary warehousing I agree that it may certainly be possible to our human advantage in the future. But that's it for now. The sun isn't getting any dimmer. If we focus too long on colonizing the planet, the sun could have possibly expanded too far for us to even investigate anymore. We should work with what we have now I think.

 

[TheGurw]

A floating city is actually much more stable than one built on the ground. Surprising, right? If you're a structural engineer, your work is almost entirely focused on making a building withstand the ground it's built on. You deal with frost heave, tectonic plate shifting, water corrosion, water table tides, ground density, and even the difference between the lower ground temperature and surface temperature. Most importantly, however, you have to deal with the difference between the relatively firm ground...and the air above it. This is the most complicated part of designing a building: how does it stay in one place but not be so rigid the harmonics of the wind will make it collapse? If the structure is floating in the atmosphere, this becomes a non-issue. So yes, it might be harder to build, but it will actually be safer.

 

[ChrisWsrn]

A floating city is actually much more stable than one built on the ground. Surprising, right? If you're a structural engineer, your work is almost entirely focused on making a building withstand the ground it's built on. You deal with frost heave, tectonic plate shifting, water corrosion, water table tides, ground density, and even the difference between the lower ground temperature and surface temperature. Most importantly, however, you have to deal with the difference between the relatively firm ground...and the air above it. This is the most complicated part of designing a building: how does it stay in one place but not be so rigid the harmonics of the wind will make it collapse? If the structure is floating in the atmosphere, this becomes a non-issue. So yes, it might be harder to build, but it will actually be safer.

The problem with floating cities is that they need to be-able to stay in a altitude range for long periods of time. This means that you could not use balloons to support the city unless you had lifting gas production in the city and can't use fans unless you have a large power source. This is one of the reasons why we don't have such cities on earth.

We have sent floating probes to venus that used balloons to stay at a safe altitude but they only had enough gas for a few hours and no gas production systems or the power required to run them.

As far as space colonization is concerned the colonies that are most likely to be built are the ones that private companies build to make money. Because of that the moon is probably going to be our first colony. Followed by earth orbit and then mars orbit.

Another problem for space colonization is that the Outer Space Treaty prevents any member nation from recognizing sovereignty of anything in space. What this means is that there are no laws in space but if you break a "space law" that was put in place by earth governments then you can not return to earth unless you want to be prosecuted. This means that in-order to do space operations away from earth you need to be-able to set up a government with defense capabilities to be safe up there and because you put a weapon in space you violated one of those "space laws" and therefor can't have operations on earth. This means that there will never be a generational colony in space as long as that treaty is in place.

 

[Serenity595]

Not the best place for paradise I would say. Even so, trade and interplanetary warehousing I agree that it may certainly be possible to our human advantage in the future. But that's it for now. The sun isn't getting any dimmer. If we focus too long on colonizing the planet, the sun could have possibly expanded too far for us to even investigate anymore. We should work with what we have now I think.

It'll be a looooooong time till the Sun starts expanding. If humans last that long, we would of colonized far more than just our solar system.

The problem with floating cities is that they need to be-able to stay in a altitude range for long periods of time. This means that you could not use balloons to support the city unless you had lifting gas production in the city and can't use fans unless you have a large power source. This is one of the reasons why we don't have such cities on earth.

We have sent floating probes to venus that used balloons to stay at a safe altitude but they only had enough gas for a few hours and no gas production systems or the power required to run them.

As far as space colonization is concerned the colonies that are most likely to be built are the ones that private companies build to make money. Because of that the moon is probably going to be our first colony. Followed by earth orbit and then mars orbit.

Another problem for space colonization is that the Outer Space Treaty prevents any member nation from recognizing sovereignty of anything in space. What this means is that there are no laws in space but if you break a "space law" that was put in place by earth governments then you can not return to earth unless you want to be prosecuted. This means that in-order to do space operations away from earth you need to be-able to set up a government with defense capabilities to be safe up there and because you put a weapon in space you violated one of those "space laws" and therefor can't have operations on earth. This means that there will never be a generational colony in space as long as that treaty is in place.

What about the concept that breathable air would be a lifting gas in a dense carbon dioxide atmosphere (with 60% of the lifting power that helium has on Earth)? Unless I'm missing your points entirely...

I agree that the moon and Mars will most likely be our first space colonies. This topic was more on what life may be like hundreds of years from now where a colony on Venus would no longer be impractical due to the advancements of technology.

The Outer Space Treaty was another good point but I highly doubt it will still be in effect or followed once space colonies begin to develop.

 

[TheGurw]

The problem with floating cities is that they need to be-able to stay in a altitude range for long periods of time. This means that you could not use balloons to support the city unless you had lifting gas production in the city and can't use fans unless you have a large power source. This is one of the reasons why we don't have such cities on earth.

We have sent floating probes to venus that used balloons to stay at a safe altitude but they only had enough gas for a few hours and no gas production systems or the power required to run them.

As far as space colonization is concerned the colonies that are most likely to be built are the ones that private companies build to make money. Because of that the moon is probably going to be our first colony. Followed by earth orbit and then mars orbit.

Another problem for space colonization is that the Outer Space Treaty prevents any member nation from recognizing sovereignty of anything in space. What this means is that there are no laws in space but if you break a "space law" that was put in place by earth governments then you can not return to earth unless you want to be prosecuted. This means that in-order to do space operations away from earth you need to be-able to set up a government with defense capabilities to be safe up there and because you put a weapon in space you violated one of those "space laws" and therefor can't have operations on earth. This means that there will never be a generational colony in space as long as that treaty is in place.

In the higher atmosphere of Venus, this issue can be resolved in a combination of both breathable air being a lifting gas as well as an orbital velocity. Because the atmosphere is so dense, the air we breathe is light enough to support almost the entire colony, which conveniently also allows for a much lower required velocity to remain in orbit, preventing issues with heat associated with air friction (which is another reason we don't have these on earth....yet).

 

[StTheo]

I bet the Venusian sunset (at whatever height where you can see the sun) is beautiful.

 

[TheGurw]

I bet the Venusian sunset (at whatever height where you can see the sun) is beautiful.

Just imagine. Some of my favorite sunsets were up where I work - they're more amazing because of the high levels of carbon-based pollution here. In an atmosphere that is several times thicker and mostly carbon-based, just imagine how pretty they would be.

 

[Tai_K_Yagami]

Just imagine. Some of my favorite sunsets were up where I work - they're more amazing because of the high levels of carbon-based pollution here. In an atmosphere that is several times thicker and mostly carbon-based, just imagine how pretty they would be.

Just had to do it.

 

[TheGurw]

Just had to do it.

As much as I hate to say it, this is actually extremely accurate. You should see the northern lights here. They're beautiful.

 

[ChrisWsrn]

What about the concept that breathable air would be a lifting gas in a dense carbon dioxide atmosphere (with 60% of the lifting power that helium has on Earth)? Unless I'm missing your points entirely...

First, You are correct that you could use Nitrogen as a lifting gas on Venus.

The problem is that to maintain a fixed altitude in a dynamic atmosphere you need to adjust the lifting power of the station. The easiest way to do this is to dump gas/regenerate ballast and then regenerate gas/drop ballast. To do this for long periods of time you need to generate lifting gas or/and generate ballast. Our technology to do this is VERY heavy and requires LOADS of power. I am not saying it is impossible, I am just saying it is VERY technologically unfeasible.

The Outer Space Treaty was another good point but I highly doubt it will still be in effect or followed once space colonies begin to develop.

No government is allowed to recognize sovereignty of any permanent structure outside of Near-Earth orbit. Because of this no government is allowed to build any permanent structure outside of Near-Earth orbit nor can they recognize sovereignty of any permanent structure outside of Near-Earth orbit built by any other government or cooperation. This also means that member governments are not allowed to recognize sovereignty of any government or cooperation that recognize sovereignty of any permanent structure built outside of Near-Earth orbit.

What this means is that space colonies outside of Near-Earth orbit are effectively not allowed to exist so they will not be-able to interact with earth. Any governments on earth that the colony can interact with can not interact with any other governments on earth.

Because of this the Outer Space Treaty will need to be disbanded by ALL economically powerful spacefaring nations BEFORE any permanent colony outside of Near-Earth orbit could be built.

 

[TheGurw]

First, You are correct that you could use Nitrogen as a lifting gas on Venus.

The problem is that to maintain a fixed altitude in a dynamic atmosphere you need to adjust the lifting power of the station. The easiest way to do this is to dump gas/regenerate ballast and then regenerate gas/drop ballast. To do this for long periods of time you need to generate lifting gas or/and generate ballast. Our technology to do this is VERY heavy and requires LOADS of power. I am not saying it is impossible, I am just saying it is VERY technologically unfeasible.



No government is allowed to recognize sovereignty of any permanent structure outside of Near-Earth orbit. Because of this no government is allowed to build any permanent structure outside of Near-Earth orbit nor can they recognize sovereignty of any permanent structure outside of Near-Earth orbit built by any other government or cooperation. This also means that member governments are not allowed to recognize sovereignty of any government or cooperation that recognize sovereignty of any permanent structure built outside of Near-Earth orbit.

What this means is that space colonies outside of Near-Earth orbit are effectively not allowed to exist so they will not be-able to interact with earth. Any governments on earth that the colony can interact with can not interact with any other governments on earth.

Because of this the Outer Space Treaty will need to be disbanded by ALL economically powerful spacefaring nations BEFORE any permanent colony outside of Near-Earth orbit could be built.

Don't forget that the weight will be less on Venus as well. Now, as for the sovereignty issue: All we need is a non-nation entity to do it. No sovereignty required, as a business or person is not a nation. This makes it merely illegal to claim ownership of real estate...but not property we put into place.

 

[ChrisWsrn]

Don't forget that the weight will be less on Venus as well. Now, as for the sovereignty issue: All we need is a non-nation entity to do it. No sovereignty required, as a business or person is not a nation. This makes it merely illegal to claim ownership of real estate...but not property we put into place.

It is illegal to recognize sovereignty of any permanent structure outside of Near-Earth orbit. Governments are not allowed to recognize sovereignty of any business that recognizes sovereignty of any permanent structure outside of Near-Earth orbit. Sovereignty is required when building a permanent structure because there is no guarantee that a entity will maintain control over that structure.

 

[MagicForDummies]

If we ended up on a hospitable spot on Venus, I'd rather stay in the spaceship. I'm sure there are ways to retrofit the spaceship for long-term survival... the only thing I trust on Venus that counts on survival is its gravity and sunlight.