There has been quite alot of talk about settling Mars. In the future, we'll probably send researchers and maybe eventually settlers to Mars to carve out a living on the unforgiving world.
But has anyone considered settling Venus?
Venus's size is similar to earth's, and the result would be that the change in terrestrial gravity wouldn't have an adverse effect on human growth or development for future generations.
I know, the atmosphere and proximity to the sun make Venus inhospitable to human and other oxygen dependent life. But what if we changed that?
What if through chemical processes we were able to harvest the oxygen from the primarily carbon dioxide atmosphere? We could take quite a bit of the oxygen out and use it for humans to breathe.
There is still the matter of the extreme heat. To combat this, I presume we could build under the surface and create a sort of cooled bio dome. Covering Venus in solar panels or something that efficiently harvests the energy of the Sun would give us the energy to cool the underground units and the excess energy would be used in the oxygen harvesting plants.
Research would be done to find hydrogen to create water. Bringing water from the Earth would not only be economically unfeasible but would also be a disaster--since all the water we have on earth has been here since it formed, we'd eventually run out of water on earth and would disrupt the vital biological cycles important to life here.
Keep in mind that with current technology we are nowhere near this sort of plan. However, I think that with a concentrated effort, we could be on Venus within a thousand years.
What are your thoughts on something like this? What are some challenges we would face with this project?
>Keep in mind that with current technology we are nowhere near this sort of plan.
One of the more interesting ideas to combat pressure and heat issues is to create floating aeorstat cities. Which is completely feasible with current tech.
No, we will not be colonizing any planet.
Humans were designed specifically for Earth. Once our planet dies, so do we.
Hell, we may will perish before our planet dies.
Get used to the harsh reality.
Considering the likelihood of terraforming being extremely expensive I'd think it'd be wise to do a planet like Mars or a moon like Europa, considering the conditions of those two would be easier to work with than Venus, logically would be cheaper and more plausible. But I suppose eventually down the line we could terraform Venus once it gets real cheap and the technology is at god-like levels.
The problem again in my opinion is the gravity problem.
Humans born on Mars will never be able to travel back to Earth. They'll be underdeveloped muscularly and teenagers will be as weak as old men.
The moons of Jupiter would work better, but there's an energy problem. They're farther out, and thus solar energy is not as feasible.
This is really cool stuff.
No, we will not be colonizing any planet.
Humans were designed specifically for their mothers womb. Once our mother dies, so do we.
Hell, we may will perish before our mother dies.
Get used to the harsh reality.
>is to create floating aeorstat cities. Which is completely feasible with current tech.
So how would explorers combat the hellish heat and daily winds faster than the earths fastest category 5 hurricane? I don't see anyone inhabiting that atmosphere with today's tech.
If someone can maneuver a balloon through a cat 5 tornado, I may consider the possibility.
Ppff! This guy! The savanna argument has to be my favorite because it sets up the best counter to this kind of insane babble.
Humans were designed for savanna and grassland? Yet they are not limited to those grasslands. In fact, if the grasslands died in a cataclysmic event, humans would survive as a species BECAUSE they do not limit themselves to their design. It is in our nature to expand beyond our current limits to find new ones, further away.
If we can get our act together, then humans WILL expand to every body in our solar system that is solid enough to hold a flag. We have always done it and we always will. THAT is the cold, hard truth. If you really can't accept it, then you are free to chase death off a cliff. No one living needs your pessimism.
Soviets had plans for floating habitats in the Venus atmosphere. At the altitude where the pressure is about 1 earth atmosphere, the temperature is pretty comfortable and there's only a little bit of acid rain. The air there is pretty much carbon dioxide, which means that a breathable N2-O2 mix is a lifting gas. You just have a big enclosed chamber floating around 50 miles above the surface of Venus, containing a stable ecosystem.
We don't even need to go that far to counter his stupidy. Our hands are designed, among other things, to punch stuff. Some crazy bastard realized rocks are harder and started hitting stuff with rocks.
Water, temperature, and atmospheric pressure problems solved.
Bigger problem is the lack of plate tectonics. Because the crust of Venus doesn't move the mantle just boils up through the crust every so often and resurfaces the planet. That lack of movement in the mantle and the crust is also the reason for the near total lack of a magnetic field. Creating magma currents and the magnetic field through the MHD dynamo effect is the biggest hurdle to making Venus a habitable world and it's currently way beyond anything we can do. Without that the oceans we make will boil during the next resurfacing and without a magnetic field the water will be ionized and the hydrogen will be stripped away. Again.
>The Bosch reaction is a chemical reaction between carbon dioxide and hydrogen
Here's your real problem right here. How do you produce a chemical reaction with something that's not even there in the first place? Venus was stripped of its hydrogen by solar radiation billions of years ago and there's probably not enough on the entire planet to fill a space shuttle. Do you really want to carry enough of that shit from earth to Venus to fill an atmosphere?
Admit it, Venus is fucked. Colonizing Mercury would actually be easier
What is solar wind? What is Jupiter made of? Remember that in space the only thing that matters is ?v. Distance will only affect the time it takes to get from point A to point B and if you're using probes time is not an important factor to the overall mission.
Stop seeing everything as an insurmountable problem and start seeing the possibilities. Radioactive waste? Fertile material. CO2? The start of an acid for batteries or limestone for sheetrock or a lasing medium. Science and engineering are all about learning what is possible and making it happen. So stop being such a curmudgeonly naysayer. If cavemen were as conservative as you we'd still be flinging shit from trees.
Now then, any thoughts on how to get magma to start moving horizontally? Could it be as simple as cooling the surface to get some convection going?
93 times the mass of the Earth's atmosphere. At the surface it's equal to being 1km under our oceans. Plus it rains acid and is a nice 460C. Can't cool anything because that's the temp day or night, and we can't build a cooling unit that will dump heat into a 460C environment and leave the cool side at something humans could live at.
So we are just going to build massive floating cities or some shit. Why not just build space stations? What possible reason would we have for going down to the surface? Minerals? Cheaper and easier to get from the asteroid belt. Gasses? Again asteroids would provide any amount of gas that we could want.
Also OP your an idiot without making a dent in the water supply we have on Earth we could set up a closed loop system for water on Venus and support any population we could want. Although you are correct it would be uneconomical to boost water from the Earth. But hey, guess what you can find on asteroids... yeah.
Bottom line, if we wanted more space, for a far lower economic cost we could populate our own oceans, our moon, our orbitals, Mars, any number of large asteroids, or fuck even Mercury.
>Is Jupiter itself not hot or bright enough?
No and it would be a terrible place to colonize. While moons like Io are frequently depicted in SF as being prime locations for a space colony the fact is that those large moons are bathed in radiation from the king of the gods. Jupiter's gravity and radiation present a huge navigational hazard to passing ships and would make colonizing its moons difficult at best. Additionally those moons will not be there forever. When moons get too close they break up and Io is already nearly there. Tidal flexing is believed to be the primary cause of the volcanism on Io. Also, the moon Phobos is expected to reach the Roche Limit and break up in about 8 million years.
But the Bosch reaction makes water. If you have to break down the water to get hydrogen to make water then what the hell are you doing. There are other, better sources of hydrogen available in space.
>But the Bosch reaction makes water. If you have to break down the water to get hydrogen to make water then what the hell are you doing. There are other, better sources of hydrogen available in space.
I have no idea why anyone would go to Venus to try and build floating cities anyway, unless we are just going to send them niggers to do the jobs robots should be doing anyway out of spite.
Gravity and distance. Venus has 90% of Earth's gravity and is twice as close to us compared to Mars. People that settle Venus could still visit Earth after a few generations. Mars is a one-way trip.
>without making a dent
Any water that leaves earth is dangerous. We can NEVER get that water back.
I agree that we could set up a closed loop system, but I think that utilizing chemical reactions (hydrogen is much easier to find than liquid water or water ice) is a better long term plan than hauling all that liquid water out to the planet.
It would be pointless with the tech we have to travel to the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter just to harvest them, so we'd be reliant on near earth asteroids. This is my only problem with the asteroid harvesting idea.
>Humans born on Mars will never be able to travel back to Earth.
If we turn the Marsian core from a solid to an active, molten one wouldn't gravity and the magnetic field strengthen?
In what way is gravity affected by magnetism at the macro scale?
/SCI/ducks: What do you think would be the best way to increase the rotation of Venus? My money is on bringing in asteroids to serve as a small moon. Set just outside the Roche limit and constantly accelerated along its orbital vector and angled down so it doesn't gain altitude it might be able to impart some spin. I'm just worried that would take millions of years or only pull the mantle. I've read other suggestions like mass drivers and crashing asteroids at an angle. Your thoughts?