/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10083991
historically the US was better at Mars and the USSR was better at venus

in terms of colonizing, both would be hard, but mars would be easier i think since venus is so hot and hostile to life. but in the long term, venus is bigger (approximately the same size as earth) so it probably has more usable resources and wouldn't be tough for humans to adapt to in terms of the force of gravity on the surface

You can't colonize Venus, the surface is like 500°C in addition of an ambient pressure of nearly 100 bars. You'd need to fall for the floating city meme.

>>10084020
How do you deal with the 400°C temperature on ground, acid atmosphere with 100 times the pressure of the Earth's one?

>>10084055
air conditioning

>>10084055
you could live in balloon cities in the upper atmosphere, in bunkers (although that would be incredibly difficult to make), you could try and terraform it over centuries.

>>10083991
There's no good reason why we should have to choose. There's several times the resources and people required for parallel permanent human presence projects. Start with the moon, Venus, and Mars for the first few decades to get the required tech reasonably well developed and then venture on to Ceres and then the various moons of the gas giants.

But instead all that cash and manpower is spent jacking off with the military and building the next big mass digital datamining/advertising projects.

>>10083991
Colonize the moon.
But I think that's hard considering nobody ever landed on it

Mars. Venus is way too hot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=386P2zl-wYY

>>10084026
>floating city meme
still more realistic than mars colonization

>>10084278
Did you make that vid anon? I don't know how else you would have found it

>>10083991
Both. Mars for a place for old folks to retire to(low gravity), Venus for floating casinos and strip clubs. Also Venus for hell diving. Theoretically you can drop a dude in an insulated hard diving suit with some big deployable buzzlight year wings, a pack of water for coolant, for a multiple hour long descent to almost the ground before catching them with a airplane to bring them back up to the casinos and strip clubs.

>>10084423
halp frens I ranned with scissors and accidentally the whole colony

>>10083991
>colonize mars

>>10083991
Large volumes of orbital habitats are better for expanding living area. Habs orbiting Earth, habs orbiting Mars, habs orbiting Venus. Almost all of the other meteor, comet, and radiation blasted rocks in this system are only useful for the ice for propellant, water, and atmosphere they can yield, and whatever rare metals are inside of them.

>>10084583
It's not that much of an issue, the colony would be at the same pressure, a guy in a robust coat and respirator could fix it with tape. On Mars if you do the same, or fuck up cycling the airlock, all the air leaves pretty FAST.

>>10083991
Hollow out asteroids and pressurize the interior, spin for simulated G.

>>10084666
in the end, the argument of which to do is pointless, cause we're going to wind up doing them all
Private entities will wind up being the spearhead, and there will be hundreds of them all with different visions and mission statements

>>10083991
>Venus or Mars
Inner scum.

>>10084411
>floating city meme
>still more realistic than mars colonization
Yeah no, they're both technically feasible but venus requires you to import literally everything. If you're talking colonisation, Venus is shit.
>inb4 blind jelly baby bullshit
Fuck off, old meme is old and was wrong when it started.

>>10084721
>>10084583
Pressure difference is slightly less than 1 atmosphere. Even if you were a complete retard and built it out of something easy to puncture, got drunk and proceeded to disable all failsafes, and then got lobotomised and proceeded to puncture the wall, you'd still have a long fucking time before anyone was at risk.

>>10083991
Both. Nitrogen mining settlements on Venus, for the export trade to Mars where there's a big market due to the terraforming program. Most mines will be automated float platforms, coordinated from central cloud cities. There will be an element of settlement and other services on this floating cities, but the main business will always be mining. It'll be like Australia.

>>10086885
This page has a pretty nice rundown.
https://unfinishedwisdom.wordpress.com/
You could get a catastrophic failure if the ballast column gets damaged and skews sideways, followed by holes on opposite ends of the some. Venusian air would leak in and interior air would leak out, unless it's stopped by emergency bulkheads. The whole thing would end up listing badly and would sink some way until the density is enough to support its depleted gasbag. You'd have salvage teams going down to try to refloat it higher into the atmosphere. Though in reality you'd have effective compartmentalisation and emergency H2 bags that can be inflated to right the station, or ballast that can be dropped.

>>10086904
I was replying to the section about a Mars colony hence the pressure difference on ~1 atm. It takes a while to depressurize craft and habitats outside of movies.

>>10083991
Moon.

>>10083991
Oceans

>>10086974
>>10087029
Deserts

>>10086974
>>10087029
>>10087192
Tubes

>>10087203
>tubes
Domes

>>10087203
>>10087208
Vertical underground tunnels

>>10087238
>>10087203
Diagonal fully automated domes

>>10084055
blow on it with a big fan

>>10087246
I want to fuck a nigger

>>10084055
You harden the fuck up. Conditions on the surface are 100% no-nonsense.

Colonize Antarctica.

>>10083991

you should probably colonize the Moon first

even aliens dont want to colonize Mars so why should we

>>10083991
colonize venus and make the entire surface of the planet a series of raised embankment wet cell batteries run in series and parallel and just hang out in orbit around venus on a massive space station and collect government gibs for terra forming it even though nobody is or will ever live on its surface probably. making the raised embankments and the couple metal rods laid down in the embankments connecting walls are done with drones

whats the power for? nothing really but the fat cats in washington need some excuse for us being there. the rods will be corroded in time anyways

>>10084411
>floating city more realistic than a land based city that doesn't have to swim in an atmoshpere of acid

>>10087313
This makes me imagine a version of Venus that essentially has an artificial crust made up of tens of thousands of interlinked floating platforms built around it. Not practical at all but it'd be a cool scene for a TV series or movie.

is there any point to colonizing planets without magnetic fields? I suppose for mars you could dig underground but wouldnt it be better to use robots to establish a foothold and then send people there afterwards?

Mars is obviously the easier option.

>>10087762
Atmosphere is that protects against radiation, not magnetic field. And yes, any space colony needs to be located under several tons of mass, either atmosphere or soil. No exceptions.

As for Venus, it is shit, building flying cities is harder than building on the surface and there are almost no resources in Venusian atmosphere. The proper space colonization sequence is Moon base -> Mars colony -> cozy rotating space stations mining resources from asteroids. That last step is what will enable trillions of humans to live in solar system, as Bezos said.

>>10087781
my IQ dropped several points after reading that

>>10084020
How exactly would it not be tough to adapt to 90 atm of pressure? Literally just sending probes into that kind of pressure is problematic.

>>10087781
>air stops radiation
just lol no comment.

Without magnetic field radiation will not only render surface life impossible it will also blow away the atmosphere in space. Mars and Venus are useless dead planets.

>>10087987
magnetic field station at L1
done

Neither, let's not go to a dead world inside a giant gravity well and add either cataclysmic dust storms or deadly and high-pressure poison gas to the already next-to-impossible problem of long-term space habitation

Build O'Neil cylinders and wait till we can terraform a world. You eliminate the delta V costs associated with living in a gravity well far from earth, its probably safer than living on an unpredictable alien world, you probably get more benefits in terms of locating people off-world for surviving an asteroid impact or end-times nuclear war. Eventually Gundams should be developed, which is the real benefit to this arrangement.

>>10087987
Last time Mars lost its atmosphere it took hundreds of millions of years. If somehow we gave it a full atmosphere, we wouldn't even have to do upkeep, humanity would be long dead by the time it was stripped away again.

>>10087987
He's right that the atmosphere does absorb a lot radiation. GCRs don't care much about the magnetic field and they make up about half the exposure in space. He's an idiot to say that the field doesn't do anything though, just as you are for saying that the atmosphere doesn't.
>>10088155
>O'Neil cylinders
>You eliminate the delta V costs associated with living in a gravity well far from earth
I see this so often and god its dumb. What do you think costs more? Shipping literally everything you need or want from Earth and maybe later getting only some of it from the Asteroid belt, or mining it on the planet you're using it on? O'Neil cylinders and space habitats do not save dV.

>>10088680
>colony in space vs colony in a gravity well
One takes a lot more fuel to reach than the other

>>10090501
Can you read? You need resources to survive. O'Neil cylinders don't have those resources and need to get them from somewhere.
Getting it from Earth to Space costs more dV than getting from Mars to Mars.

>>10091798
>not using the hyper abundant asteroid supply
come on now

>>10092075
Real life asteroid belt doesn't look like Star Wars episode 5

>>10092204
real life asteroid belt takes fuck all energy to travel between despite the lack of density
you also forget that asteroids really are abundant

>>10092220
>>10092075
>real life asteroid belt takes fuck all energy to travel between despite the lack of density
You are trolling right now right? Or is your plan so retarded as to have your habitat out in the belt?
Because if its not, you still need to match orbit with them. It takes significantly more dV to get to the asteroid belt than it does to get to Mars. And unlike on planets with ore generation, you will still need to import things from Earth because it'll be cheaper than refining asteroids for trace elements.
>not using the hyper abundant asteroid supply
>come on now
Can you actually not read? I covered that in the first post. Its still more expensive to ship from belt to cylinder than it is from Mars to Mars.

Lets sum up in nice big letters:
PLANETS HAVE GREATER AMOUNT AND VARIETY OF RESOURCES AVAILABLE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHIP THEM AROUND THE SOLAR SYSTEM AFTER YOU EXTRACT THEM.

>>10087192
your mom

>>10083991
>Colonize
Colonize Uranus.

(Colon = Anal Tract)

>>10083991
Africa

>>10088680
>He's right that the atmosphere does absorb a lot radiation. GCRs don't care much about the magnetic field and they make up about half the exposure in space.

If your colony is at least somewhat shielded (and it better be, <1 ton per square meter of mass), then vast majority of solar radiation (both solar wind and flares) is reduced to negligible amounts. However, GCRs are much harder to shield and need multiple tons. Thus for any realistic space colony design, no matter whether on the surface of Mars, Earth orbit, or in space, GCR exposure absolutely dominates the dose, and magnetic field does little to stop them. You need mass.

The only exception is low equatorial Earth orbit, where magnetic field acts in such a way that even GCR flux is greatly decreased. This makes it a prime piece of real estate in the solar system and a great place to put a space station.

>mars has too little gravity and not enough atmosphere to keep put radiation
>the only plausible place to live on Venus is above the clouds, everything below is a shit storm
>moon has no atmosphere and baby gravity
If you’re talking about places just to live and not mine for shit, nigga just build a rotating space station.

>>10086904
The leaking of CO2 in would be quite slow, easily noticed and patched
Outside temperature and pressure are Earth normal, makes it easier to do work

>>10092476
>mars has too much radiation
>lets instead live where there is 2x as much!

>moon has no atmosphere
>lets live in space where theres no atmosphere

>mars has too little gravity
>Source: my ass

>celestial bodies are too hard
>lets just ship everything in from Earth thats much easier!
>>10084729
Most asteroids are not that structurally sound. You'd essentially have to refine the entire thing and build a frame. At that point don't bother with trying to use an asteroid as a base, just build your habitat and and use any spoil as shielding in gabions.

>>10092439
this

>>10092394
You Mong! It goes like this:

1. Build your rotating habitat next to a nice fat asteroid. Consume all asteroid material to grow the habitat, extract useful resources, ditch the rest. You dont actually need much to run the habitat because almost everything is closed loop and recycled, most resources go towards habitat expansion (including radiation shielding) and propellant supply.

2. When you use the roid up, fly to the next assteroid relatively nearby in terms of delta-v, meaning a handful of km/s. Use highly efficient engines, does not matter if the trip takes several years.

3. Repeat step 1.

That is how a true spacefaring civilization is born. Anything else and you are merely a base, not a colony, forever dependent on Earth for survival.

>>10092726
Even a large asteroid will lack necessary materiels vs a proper world

>>10092851
Idiot, and asteriod may not have as many resources as a planet, but extractiong from an asteriod (assuming you have interplanetary technology shit) is way easy an efficient, planets willl be for old folks to retire or for vacation, rotating habitats are the future.

>>10083991
>colonising planets

>>10092894
Typical O’Neil cylinder retards understanding of materiel handling
Hint gravity is helpful

>>10084026
>believing in jewish education

>>10092726
>>10092894
What the fuck anon. You were talking about wasting dV and cost now you want to move the entire colony around? How are you powering it? How are you getting rarer elements in sufficient quantity? Wait I've got an idea, why don't we push all the asteroids together and then you can mine them all at once and you can save costs by not moving around at all! Now if only there were large collections of resources pre-made so we don't have to spend time and money pushing asteroids together...

But serious, literally nothing you said makes it more efficient than a Mars colony.
>more expensive to set up, because the asteroid belt requires more dV to get to to
>more expensive still as it requires more stuff imported from Earth early on
>requires more stuff imported from Earth later on
>way harder to power even with future-tech
>way harder to shield from radiation
You haven't even provided a consistent argument for any advantages. The only one you did (its dV heavy to go back into a gravity well) was blown out of the water by your stupid idea for solving the resource issue.

>>10083991

We should colonize Venus first. We have the resources and means to establish an easy platform for habitation. For the rest, making use of venus's ample carbon atmosphere, and contaminating it, and making up for elements that Venus might not have, that involves stealing gaseous resources from another planet. we could probably do that better than colonizing mars.

>>10093896
Hope you never break any metal parts or need to expand your colony after you build the first one. Theres no economical way to reach the surface, so everything you can't extract from the atmosphere has to be sent from off planet.

>>10093901
Again, we don't need to be on the surface.

Stop it with the Venus Surface Meme.

>>10093896
>>10093839
I can see rotating space colonies and Venusian terraforming being a thing after we get fusion; just make a bunch of orbiting stations are the gas giants.

Of course that requires getting
>fusion

>>10093913
Dude, where are you getting metals? Colonies require room to grow and the materials to self-sustain their own systems.
You need other resources than Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen and Sulfur.

>>10093919
From home. where else are we getting metals?

>>10084026
The temperature and the pressure are result of the atmosphere right? Increased green house affect and heavier gasses? How difficult would it be to alter the atmosphere to earth-like conditions.

>>10093940
>From home.
Which is stupidly expensive to the point of in-feasibility. Do you know how much steel goes into a building? And how expensive space travel is? Even the BFR won't bring costs down enough.
>where else are we getting metals?
From the celestial body you're on.
>>10092726
>Anything else and you are merely a base, not a colony, forever dependent on Earth for survival.
What are you on about? Planets have all of the resources that Asteroids do and more. By that logic if an exact copy of Earth existed, called Threa say, any colony on Threa would be forever dependent on Earth no matter what we put on it. Which makes no sense at all.
>>10093951
Very. You need to get rid of a lot of CO2 and organic sequestering doesn't work at those sort of temperatures. And the sheer volume would of organic materials required is staggering.
You could use asteroid impacts to eject the atmosphere but thats also freaking expensive and you'd need a lot of them. Like several thousand to tens of thousands depending on the size.
Last is chemical sequestering. Theres a few options here but they all involving importing large amounts of mass - either in Hydrogen to precipitate graphite or in calcium and similar to create carbonates. And when i mean a lot of mass, I mean like 1/4 of the total mass of the asteroid belt in refined Calcium - before you suggest using the asteroid belt I'd point out that the asteroid belt isn't made of refined calcium. Hydrogen is easier, you only need 5% of the mass that you'd need for the calcium plan but transporting it is a bitch and it really is still a phenomenal amount of mass.
Its something we could theoretically do, take hydrogen from the gas giants and iron from Mercury but its not really feasible until we're a type 2 civilization. And we shouldn't wait that long to colonize other planets.

>>10086885
Assuming you don't have that big a leak and lots of air. A little less than 1 atm is quite a big pressure drop. Not to mention on mars one must wear a pressure suit, this is not the case at the layer of atmosphere on Venus the colony would be floating. One needs a SCBA and a coat to go outside that's quite a lot less than a pressure suit.
>>10087762
The atmosphere is thick enough on Venus for radiation not to be a problem
>>10087781
And why would building flying cities be harder than building on the surface?
>>almost no resources available in the Venusian atmosphere
https://selenianboondocks.com/2013/12/venus-isru-condenseables/
https://selenianboondocks.com/2013/12/venus-isru-gas-phase-processes/
Everything you need to make a big balloon and a vast amount of organic compounds is available from the Venusian atmosphere. In addition, doing this is easier than building colonies on the ground. Machines that move and process dirt aren't very reliable, machines that process gases and chemical are very reliable. Air distillation plants can operate in a lights out fashion, mining equipment and ore refineries cannot. Now you say we can't make everything out of plastics, carbon fiber, graphene, and organic semiconductors. Well guess what? If you really have too, ferric chloride exists in Venus' clouds, meaning you can make steel without landing on the ground.

>>10094213
>Assuming you don't have that big a leak and lots of air.
Its a colony, it has lots of air. And the leak in question is his theoretical scissor hole.
>A little less than 1 atm is quite a big pressure drop
It really isn't. 1atm is only 14.7psi. Car tires have more than twice the relative pressure and even car tyres don't leak that fast when you stab them.
Lets say you put a 1cm*1cm square hole (which is very generous for a puncture with scissors) in the ISS (which is tiny, holds only 6 people and is full pressure) with your scissors it'd take 18 hours to vent it to anoxia. When they found that hole drilled in Soyuz that was leaking atmosphere to space, they let the astronauts sleep for the night before patching it.
An actual colony would have a long time to fix your mistake.
> this is not the case at the layer of atmosphere on Venus the colony would be floating. One needs a SCBA and a coat to go outside that's quite a lot less than a pressure suit.
What does this have to do with anything I said? Why do people keep arguing about Venus when I said nothing related to Venus?

>>10092439
The wildlife of that continent has learned to shoot guns. It's more dangerous than any of the other options posted in this thread.

>>10086868
While I don't believe we will colonize either of them, Venus has something our bodies desperately needs and Mars hasn't.
The right amount of gravity.

>>10092401
Myanus?

>>10094183
>What are you on about? Planets have all of the resources that Asteroids do and more.

Except for Earthlike gravity. If it turns our Mars gravity is insufficient to raise children in, then rotating space stations will be the only way to colonize space.

>>10094858
Yes, Uranus

>>10092851
Which are?
Without having a clear idea on which tech you are using this is not set.
We can assume an artificial world would need a lot of metals like iron or aluminum for the shell, water, and few other things, maybe silicates for solar panels.
Lack of water in the asteroid belt could be a problem but there is a lot on ceres.
Small quantities of rare materials can be imported, what counts is the big quantities.

>>10092726
>Almost everything is closed loop and recycled
This is the most important part, and also the hardest part. Bootstrapping up into an industrial base where you can make your own specialized parts in space is going to require many throwaway lives.

>>10094273
because that's a pretty big advantage venus has over mars

>>10094885
>Said an anon who knows nothing about indsutrial processes
>Duh you just need METALS!

>>10084020
>the USSR was better at venus
Maybe, but the longest lasting venera probe was just a smidge over an hour.
It's a pretty shitty piece of real estate and the only thing it really has going for it is earthlike gravity and water vapor in the atmosphere.

Mercury.

>>10094885
>>10092851
An appropriate carbonaceous asteroid has pretty much everything you need. You got metals and organic material. The organic material makes it easier to process the metals and the metals make it easier to process the organics.

>>10094930
Then tell the 'ranned with scissors' guy. I was correcting the two guys that said a Mars colony would leak quickly and risk a colony. I know that on Venus has different circumstances, but its not relevant to the fact a Mars colony won't get popped by some retard with scissors.

>>10093919
Surface mining, 400 c is the temperature your oven gets to, only issue is electronics overheating

>>10094854
Fuck off with this meme. We have no idea if Mars has enough gravity to support healthy colonists. We have exactly 2 data points micro-g and 1 g and no idea what relationship connects the two. Is it linear? Exponential? Is 90% still too little? Is 40% enough? Who knows.
Every thread some idiot spouts this, every thread people correct them.
>>10094885
>>10094943
>>10095296
The problem isn't that they don't contain what you need, the problem is that they contain them in tiny trace amounts because there is no ore generation to concentrate them in one place.
For example, if you want to do anything before achieving fusion, you need nuclear power to operate in the belt. But you won't find Uranium and Thorium ore there - they require magmatic processes to concentrate into felsics which are then then affected by hydrothermal processes to leach into an actual minable ore. Without these processes your looking at mining, and more importantly REFINING, 1.3 million kg for every 1kg of Uranium ore you extract. And asteroids have neither.
That's just an example, it applies to other resources as well of course. I just had numbers handy for that.

>>10095946
You forgot pressure

>>10095977
venus is such fun
we can easily make things that can survive the pressure
we can easily take the heat
but both at the same time is damn near fucking impossible to do while remaining useful and long lasting

>>10096048
Wrong the temperature and pressure are nothing, the issue is that electronics don’t operate over 100 degrees, high temp electronics are just in their infancy

>>10095946
No, 400 Fahrenheit is a temperature your oven gets to, Venus is 860F. In Celsius, most ovens only go to 240C. And its not just hot, its also 92atm which would crush most military submarines requiring something closer to deep dive submersibles like pic related. Not to mention the acid.
Also how are you powering these craft? RTGs and nuclear require temperature differentials. You're not using solar under that atmosphere. And remember these aren't tiny probes we're talking about, this is mining equipment weighing hundreds of tonnes and carrying hundreds more.
Suppose the above goes for >>10096066 as well.

>>10095976
>>you need nuclear power to operate in the belt
You clearly haven't heard of solar panels and solar furnaces. On an asteroid you can make it so there isn't any night or cloudy days. You can also make FUCKING ENORMOUS solar arrays and mirrors because the gravity is really low.
>>10096227
>>crush most military submarines
then don't have any parts that contain low pressure.
>>acid
does not exist at the Venusian surface. Although corrosion is still a problem because the atmosphere is supercritical CO2, which is itself corrosive. Corrosion can be dealt with by applying appropriate surface coatings.
>>RTGs and nuclear
still create temperature differentials at venusian temperatures
>>power
sodium sulfur batteries work at venusian ambient. Another option is to burn magnesium to run a heat engine. Wind power is also an option, especially if you can find a way to transmit power down from a tethered balloon high in the atmosphere. Another option is using a long cable and dredging.
>>mining equipment weighing hundreds of tons
for what purpose do we need to process hundreds of tons of material? How do you get hundreds of tons of mining equipment to any planet in the solar system near term?

>>10096227
Every self cleaning oven on the market goes above 800 f
There are large plateaus you can work with to reduce temperatures and pressure, no reason to be sending people down to the surface, hence no issue in resisting the pressure.

>>10097930
>>large plateaus
at the tallest mountain the temperature is reduced to about 385 C instead of 462 C and the pressure is about 47 atm. That's still pretty goddamn hot. At the very least the metal snow from mountain tops might be worth harvesting. Also, some space agencies are contemplating long duration venus surface probes right now. We're talking months here. High temp electronics might be good enough now for us to build surface probes that don't need cooling

>>10083991
Mars is too cold and has nothing for us but rust.

Venus has tons of water vapor that would easily condense if we put some AC up there. Also the upper atmosphere's temperatures are pretty moderate and almost earth like. Due to the density in the lower atmosphere it would be very easy to just build some balloons and watch them float up.

We need to colonize Venus for sure. Seems way easier than transforming mars, which would take 10s of thousands of years.

>>10096227
Obligatory "not the anon you responded to but"
>don't have any parts that contain low pressure
>acid does not exist at the Venusian surface
You do need to deal with these - you need to bring goods back and forth. Sodium Sulfur batteries for example require temperatures of >600K to operate but you also need power at cloud city level for example.
> the atmosphere is supercritical CO2, which is itself corrosive. Corrosion can be dealt with coatings.
Don't know much about this but remember that it needs to have this coating and still do its job. You can't coat a carbide bit. These coatings need to be able to use as jackhammers, borers bucket wheels, actual wheels etc. Abrasion, shock, heat, pressure (mechanical not atmospheric) etc.
>RTGs and nuclear
An RTG is never going to power mining equipment. They provide fuckall power and the other anon should never have even brought them up. That said on Venus they produce 30% to 40% less power for the same thermal input so they're even worse there.
NPP have their own problems but post is already too long
>why do we need to process hundreds of tons?
Its a colony. The entire point is population growth. How much do you think one of those cloud cities weighs?
>How do you get hundreds of tons of mining equipment to any planet in the solar system near term?
Ideally bootstrap from smaller scale

The main problem is that your material choices are ridiculously limited. At those temperatures creep and strength are real problems. Aluminum is basically out, even Titanium is going to have problems. Basically anything that moves or is under load has to be made of moly steel at least if not some of the fancy super alloys for high load parts or anything touching your power generation. And you might notice that a lot of stuff isn't made from steel for good reasons.

>>10093292
back to /pol/

>>10097770
Fuck deleted the wrong number, >>10098408
is intended for you.

>>10097770
>You clearly haven't heard of FUCKING ENORMOUS solar arrays because the gravity is low
Low gravity doesn't mean mass is negligible. You need to power moving systems, in addition to your mining op, refinery and propellant plant. And you need >10x as many panels as at Earth for the same output. The ISS uses outdated panels but its still 1/13th solar structure by mass and it doesn't do anything but keep 6 people alive. Doesn't move by itself. Doesn't mine or provide food or propellant.
And none of this touches on the main point.

>>10093292
>Says the Christian

>>10083991
>wanting to live on an irradiated rock with gravity that will mutilate you and your offspring forever
How about no.

>>10098844
You do realize theres a lot more radiation in space right?
also
>falling for the Jelly Baby meme

>>10098412
>being so naive that you think pol isn't 100% correct

>>10083991
Both

>>10084026
What is a tunnel?

>>10098881
Venus underground is almost as hot and high pressure as its surface.

>>10098854
This thing has several meters of radiation shielding. It also has normnal gravity and livable atmosphere, unlike the hellish shitholes of the inner solar system.

>>10083991
i wish there was a way to take half of Venus's atmosphere and dump it on Mars

>>10098937
And that radiation shielding and livable atmosphere are even easier to provide on planets where all the resources are far more readily available.
Not to mention celestial body colonies are completely feasible to construct in the next half century unlike a 5 mile wide, multimile long rotating cylinder that we need to use chemical rockets to provide material for. Even O'Neil himself suggested a Moon base first to build a mass driver to provide the huge amounts of resources.

>>10098963
If you could haul so much shit to Mars for a meme colony, you can mine asteroids and the Moon. Space habitats can/will also be way closer at the lagrange points and not months away, like Mars, which makes practically real-time communication with Earth feasible.
We're also talking about quality of life- Mercury is complete trash, Venus is unlandable and has the same "drawbacks" as a space habitat since you have to float in the atmosphere and Mars is jellobaby mutant factory with its 0.38G, complete lack of magnetic field and almost non-existent atmosphere. A space habitat would have actual safe human-compatable environment.

>>10099217
>If you could haul so much shit to Mars for a meme colony
Are you retarded? You haul less shit than you'd need for asteroid mining, and you don't need to drag it back from the belt, AND the belt is further away than Mars and has no aerocapture.
A fucking space habitat has no atmosphere besides what you put in it, and no magnetic field besides what you generate. Just like a Mars colony. Except the place to get resources to do that is at the bottom of a gravity well or a couple of AU away, instead of just outside the airlock.
> Mars is jellobaby mutant factory with its 0.38G
Yeah you're just trolling, any single point and I was ready to believe but no all together. Nobody is this fucking dumb.

>>10098857
It isn't

Mars or the moon. Venus is cool but too hard

>>10083991
colonize the middle east first

>>10100200
/pol/ isn't wrong, but it's not relevant to /sci/.

>I know precisely about the human health at 0.38g despite a complete absence of research

>>10100675
/pol/ is neither right nor wrong. They simply don't know because education is so pozzed. Only those who have studied it know, and I doubt they shitpost on /pol/

>>10099217
>Mars is jellobaby mutant factory with its 0.38G, complete lack of magnetic field and almost non-existent atmosphere

Space habitats also lack native magnetic field and atmosphere, even more so than Mars.

The only real downside of Mars is 0.38g.

If this turns out not to be a big issue, then Mars is obviously the best place for a colony, full stop. But if the jello baby meme is real (and it very well may be), then rotating space stations are the best. These will be located first in cislunar space, then Mars orbit, Phobos, Deimos, and then later on other more distant asteroids.

Which path of space colonization will humanity take depends on our resilience to low gravity, and that is a big unknown.

There is also a possibility that low gravity will be deleterious, but the colonists will simply choose to tough it out and adapt to the new environment through evolutionary selection. It wont be pretty, tough.

>>10101392
There is a rather thin strip of space in low equatorial Earth orbit (the easiest orbit to launch to), below 700km and less than a few degrees of inclination, where radiation environment (especially GCRs) is such that you can get away with much less shielding than anywhere else. A very good place for constructing a rotating space colony. Kalpana One (pic related) is a realistic design of such a colony.

>>10096227
>its also 92atm which would crush most military submarines requiring something closer to deep dive submersibles like pic related.
Call me a retard, but how does that work?

I thought atmospheres was a measure of density, in which case I know water's about 800 times denser than standard Earth atmosphere. So, it wouldn't crush shit.

But I also know any lander on Venus has been crushed in minutes or hours. So, what am I missing about pressure here? If submersibles could survive the disparity of inside/outside force under water, what's different about Venus?

Venus air even at the high altitude is highly toxic to humans, so puncture would be deadly anyway.
Also people are ignoring psychological aspect, nobody would feel safe on Venus floating city, and people would have constant depression and anxiety.

>>10101392
And no atmosphere and low temperature....
Look at how much of an issue it is doing shit at northern/southern latitudes
Issues Venus doesn’t have

>>10101775
Mildly acidic CO2 is not exactly highly toxic, obviously you can’t breath it, but exposing your skin to it is no issue

Just need a proper face mask

>>10101783
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
>Any such bacteria living in the cloud tops, however, would have to be hyper-acidiphilic, due to the concentrated sulfuric acid environment.

I don’t know anon, sulfuric acid does sound to me as creating some issues when exposed to lung or eye tissue.

>>10102038
which is why you wear a coat, respirator, and face mask. On Mars you are just as dead if you go outside.

>>10102615

not really, aside from cold (which sometimes isn't that extreme) Mars atmosphere is not acidic, it hasn't crushing pressure and 400°c temperatures, also since the atmospheric density on Mars is pretty low even the most intense wind would be a nice breeze.

>>10102615
and you walk on clouds?

>>10101742
Atmosphere is a measure of pressure, not density, and is equal to about 101.33 kPa or 14.7 psi

Why aren't you designing a camera for a Venusian surface rover /sci/?
https://challenge.gov/a/buzz/challenge/67/ideas/top

>>10102683
He means a balloon suit

>>10102038
Ok? Bacteria is also killed by soap which is absolutely fine to be against your skin.

>>10102624
you colonize the upper atmosphere, idiot.
>>10102683
No, like hanging off the side doing maintenance or whatever godforsaken reason you decide to go outside for

>>10088639
It'd be nice if we knew of a way to shoot out a stream of atmosphere from Venus that would result in it hitting Mars, eventually evening things out between the two planets. It'd be a long process but that's the nature of any project to remake these planets into something worth living on.

>>10102837
>maintenance or whatever godforsaken reason you decide to go outside for
not many people would sign up for this, the psychological pressure would be crushing as well.
I can see a research station like that, but not colonies.People would hate living there.

mars, being actually feasible

Sourcing local surface materials for venusian habitats is cost-prohibitive, it would be very difficult to create a self-sufficient colony.

>>10102885
Have lower level platform in denser air capable of heavy lifting, lower scooper, bring scoop back up, until they find proper mines that they can anchor over

>>10102885
Which is why you source them from the air.

>>10102898
Surving the temperatures, pressures, and chemical activity with a useful lifespan is the difficult part, not the lifting
>>10102964
I don't think there is much silicon, steel, aluminum, etc. In the venusian atmosphere

>>10102898
You don't know much about mining, do you fella?

>>10103023
The Venusian atmosphere contains ferric chloride, meaning you could make steel. You don't necessarily need much of those elements anyway.

>>10083991
>gen 3 glock
Worst glock period.

>>10103046
>You don't necessarily need much of those elements anyway.
Steel and titanium are the only common fatigue limited materials available, so all durable structure will require them. Otherwise, your pressure vessel habitats will frequently fail implosively from small cyclical stress caused by slightly changing atmospheric temperature and pressures, killing everyone inside. You will need a great deal of steel.

>>10104620
>>only common fatigue limited materials
no
>>pressure vessel habitats
I don't think you understand. Venusian habitats would be giant balloons at or a tad than ambient pressure. After all, 1 atm standard mix of air 1 km in diameter can lift 700,000 tons on the Venusian atmosphere. You can make everything you need for this big balloon from the atmosphere, plastics, resins, epoxies, carbon fiber, teflon, kevlar, organic solar cells, graphene, etc.

>>10104620
We build using these materiels because they are cheap, in a different environment you build differently

>>10104637
>only common fatigue limited materials
>no
Not him but name others.

>>10083991
>colonise high pressure volcano planet or planet with not enough oxygen
Gee I don't know anon.

>>10083991
Venus, but build a floating city

>>10094183
Dumb question but why couldn't we nuke it? The rads would eventually calm down and it'd probably be cheaper than asteroid wrangling.

>>10107745
It really wouldn't. I don't think you really realize just how many you'd need. Like millions of billions of the biggest nuclear weapons we've ever built and that's assuming perfect efficiency.

Venus means more research on chemicals in their heated states and more research that could further developing more efficient power. Mars would mean making plants and animals that are smaller, slightly weaker, but can sustain colder temperatures.

Send probes to Venus, send hyperbolic time chambers to Mars.