>1 atm >temperatures from 0 to 50° >protection from cosmic radiation because of thicc atmosphere >no pressure suits needed remind me again why marsfags should have their way?

File: 94 KB, 890x501, MW-EM488_venus__20160511100658_ZH.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Dec 23 20:35:26 2018 No.10238128 [Reply] [Original]

>1 atm
>temperatures from 0 to 50°
>protection from cosmic radiation because of thicc atmosphere
>no pressure suits needed

remind me again why marsfags should have their way?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 20:37:01 2018 No.10238136 >>10238128 Everything about this is just right. We should also be trying to harness the power of the sun, let's get closer to our solar benefactor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 20:46:17 2018 No.10238158 >>10238136 exactly also the transfer to and from earth is way shorter than to mars

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 20:50:30 2018 No.10238168 >>10238128 >Violent wind >No surface >Dim sunlight >Sulphuric acid clouds I don't understand how people keep deciding this is a good idea.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 20:54:37 2018 No.10238183 >>10238168 >violent wind not really a problem except day/night cycle, see https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_20030003716 >dim sunlight not at that altitude you retard >sulphuric acid biggest problem, but thankfully we have PTFE coating

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 20:55:15 2018 No.10238184 >>10238168 >it's not Earth 2.0 This is the problem with everywhere we could potentially colonize.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 20:57:04 2018 No.10238190 >>10238184 obviously, but it is a better pick than mars in almost all aspects

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 23 20:58:04 2018 No.10238194 >>10238128 We could seed the planet with atmospheric microbes so it will terraform naturally, much easier than greening a red desert world.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 02:10:43 2018 No.10238693 >>10238194 yep, long term it's a better terrafor Ming candidate as well

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 04:02:02 2018 No.10238871 >>10238128 You forgot about the gravity, which is just high enough to prevent any reasonable mission ever returning from within the gravity well without building a new launch vehicle on site.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 04:03:15 2018 No.10238872 >>10238128 Kek

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 04:09:16 2018 No.10238884 >>10238871 >what are planes >what are sstos >>10238183 just read this article faggot >>10238872 what's so funny?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 04:11:13 2018 No.10238890 >>10238884 >what are sstos Not something that does interplanetary travel, generally.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 04:14:23 2018 No.10238894 >>10238890 holy shit imagine being this brainlet >what are rendezvous' >what are orbiting modules >what are Apollo missions

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 08:32:41 2018 No.10239292

>>10238194
>>10238693
There is literally no way to reasonably sequester all the carbon dioxide. Terraforming Mars is a pipedream but its easy in comparison to Venus.
>inb4 durrr just import 550 quintillion kg of magnesium
See "reasonably"
>>10238183
>biggest problem, but thankfully we have PTFE coating
Nah of the problems he listed, the lack of economical access to the surface is the biggest problem. If you want it to be more than a little science outpost, you need access to resources. You do a surprising amount using just what's in the atmosphere, but eventually you're going to need metals, minerals etc.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 08:51:10 2018 No.10239309 >>10239292 >There is literally no way to reasonably sequester all the carbon dioxide. In our lifetimes. Small changes over time add up, the bigger problem is the lack of water.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 08:51:58 2018 No.10239312 >>10239292 >Terraforming Mars ist easier than Venus what the fuck do you understand when someone says Terraforming

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 08:52:43 2018 No.10239313 can all you colonization-fanatics fuck off to the planet of your fetish and stop shitting up spaceflight with your elon musk sci-fi tier garbage?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 08:58:55 2018 No.10239323 >>10239313 even if you aren't talking about colonization, traveling to Venus is also easier in terms of manned spaceflight

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:03:21 2018 No.10239329 >>10239323 if you want to land and return safely, on the other hand...

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:11:23 2018 No.10239349 >>10239329 it's also easier just safely descend with your balloon powered SSTO to 50km, cruise as long as your resources allow it, launch back into low Venus orbit to your orbital module and go back to earth

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:12:00 2018 No.10239351

>>10239309
No, there just isn't. I don't think you're understanding the scale. To sequester it all you'd need a chunk of pure calcium 1/3 the mass of the asteroid belt to just appear or you'd have to deconstruct and refine Mercury. Or you'd have to use HPI sequestration on the entire planetary surface, kilometers deep.
By the time we had the technology and infrastructure and economic capacity to even make a dent in it, we'd have better options. Rather than build a dyson swarm to power the terraforming, just use it to power space habitats.

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:16:00 2018 No.10239357

>>10239351
>To sequester it all you'd need a chunk of pure calcium 1/3 the mass of the asteroid belt
>need
Life on Earth has already produced a pretty decent CO2 sequestration method that works well in tandem with self-replication technologies. It's incredible success is why we breathe so much oxygen.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:16:05 2018 No.10239359 >>10239351 >mars can't even keep its atmosphere if it would be on par of earth's level lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:19:25 2018 No.10239371 >>10239349 >land >cruise at 50 km

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:20:52 2018 No.10239375 >>10239371 why do you have this specific need to land somewhere retardo fact is, Venus atmosphere at that height is miles better than mars for long term habitation

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:22:38 2018 No.10239380 >>10239323 Shorter trip but more energy if you want to slow down and stay a while.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:24:08 2018 No.10239382 >>10239380 >what is more important, a few more cubic meters of fuel or prolonged exposure to space radiation of humans and communication delays

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:24:42 2018 No.10239385 >>10239359 Not the anon you're replying too but if you gave Mars an earthlike atmo right now, the rate of loss would mean that it would basically never matter to humanity. Geological timescales here dude. Or Areological timescales I guess.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:25:36 2018 No.10239387 >>10239380 >more energy if you want to slow down are you retarded >what is aerobraking

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:26:32 2018 No.10239389 >CO2 Build shit out of graphene. We also need to breathe. >H2SO4 There’s the water. Also pure sulfur is pretty.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:26:53 2018 No.10239390 >>10239375 and so we come right back around to the sci-fi colonization dream. stop. space belongs to the robots for the time being.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:27:37 2018 No.10239392 >>10239387 There’s a reason we use Venus for trips to the outer planets you tard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:29:37 2018 No.10239395 >>10239392 >gravitational slingshots are the same as interplanetary transfers look at this brainlet >>10239390 agree, just wanted to propose an alternative to muskfags to consider something else

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:41:34 2018 No.10239417 >>10238136 >let's get deeper into the gravity well Yeah, I definitely see nothing wrong with your logic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 09:44:03 2018 No.10239422 >>10239417 Putting something in the well is how your wishes come true friend.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 10:08:22 2018 No.10239486 >>10238871 NASA published a Havoc concept involving rocket gondolas underneath airships. I assume they've done the math and it's reasonable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 10:10:35 2018 No.10239498 >>10239486 shush, NASA scientists don't know shit. I'd rather trust Elon musk, after all he has a BS in physics

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 12:22:45 2018 No.10239818 >>10239498 Shut the fuck up, NASA science is great It's their ability to accomplish anything I doubt

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 12:46:09 2018 No.10239887 >>10239357 And it only takes billions of years!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 12:47:48 2018 No.10239889 >>10239382 >what is more important, a few less microseiverts of radiation exposure or the actual feasibility of the mission from an engineering and delta V standpoint

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 12:56:53 2018 No.10239907

>>10239351

Venus, Mars, Titan, and even the Moon will eventually be tarraformed.

But it's a 100+ years off. I wouldnt even get into a debate about how or why it would get done. It would be like people in the Old West discussing how to build Quantum Computers, it's silly.

When the time comes it will be practical.

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 12:58:01 2018 No.10239911

>>10239887
It's not fast, still not quite that slow and it's much faster than it used to be as of a few million years ago. Colonization is always going to have a number of temporary steps, Venus' might be a bit weird where you go over, start some processes that should have ongoing benefits (build stuff out of the sequestered carbon, install something to collect solar energy, that sort of thing). When it's mature, you can fuck off until it's Earth 2.0

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 20:22:33 2018 No.10240819

>>10239907
>titan
>ever habitable
The shitty atmosphere is whats going to keep the drones in the hydrochemical processing factories motivated. Or do you think the Human Systems Alliance is going to defeat the Democratic Republic of Humanity without Space-Petrol?
Once you get past the practical limitations required to house people in space indefinitely and somewhat comfortably, no one is going to want to go back down to the planets. There's nothing down there you need that you can't get elsewhere easier and cheaper. Living in orbital habitats is damn near infinitely scalable.
Maybe after humanity on earth has eaten itself alive their ancestors can repopulate the earth and try not to be such fags about it this time around, repairing the damage.
Also, I think on the timescales of terraforming it might just be a shorter time scale to wait until you could modify yourself to the environment. Like sure, colonize venus, but wait until you can do it as giant acid tolerant skyfish, or something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 20:54:34 2018 No.10240865 >>10239351 Just bury it underground or push it away from where you want to live.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 21:00:07 2018 No.10240874 It's fucking stupid because you have to ship every single piece of material for your habitats from somewhere else at ridiculous expense since you cannot extract resources locally or use the natural features to simply dig habitats into.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 21:15:47 2018 No.10240900 >>10240874 We are going to git good at moving stuff in the future. Mass drivers and space infrastructure and fusion energy and such.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 21:30:04 2018 No.10240919 Solar energy is also 4x as strong as mars too

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 22:06:30 2018 No.10240968

>>10240900
I'll grant you that is nearly on the table, but still not for some time yet. Even SPARC, the most promising fusion design by a mile is 15 years away from its basic prototype and likely at least double that for any kind of mass adoption with space based applications being even further than that again due to complicated turbines, superconductor coils, molten salt pumps and containment as well as huge mass requirements. Until then we have to make do with what we can do with our current technology being solar, maybe compact fission if the greenfags don't throw a shit fit and ISRU for habitation and production. Without the ISRU option, Venus is totally nonviable in the near future. Not ruling it out in the long term, colonise every planet is my philosophy, but if you advocate it over Mars for a first target you are a fucking brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 22:15:53 2018 No.10240983 >>10238128 >be Islam >see giant capitalist structure in air >get mad and do a jihad >bring a literally tiny bomb and place it in reactor/generator/ whatever powers that dumb shit >literally millions destroyed by 1 sandman

Anonymous Mon Dec 24 22:51:35 2018 No.10241025

>>10238128
Until people can build floating, sustainable habitats on Earth, I don't see the point. I know Venus has a thicker atmosphere which probably leads to greater buoyancy, but this advantage is overshadowed by all the disadvantages of space travel.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 24 22:59:53 2018 No.10241029 >>10240983 >star wars episode 4 a new hope

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 02:33:22 2018 No.10241277 >>10240983 how's he gettin there? i dont religion will be as popular as it is now, which isnt all that much, in 100+ years. I'd imagine most men will be like your average modern Japanese guy, who could care less about anything

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 03:05:06 2018 No.10241310 >>10241025 fucking air floats on that attitude it's literally like building a ship but it's floating in the air at 50km

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 03:07:22 2018 No.10241312 I heard tehres girls on venus and their yucky

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:26:47 2018 No.10241426

>>10240865
>Just bury it underground
That's essentially what HPI is and you'd need to do tens of km deep over the entire surface area of the planet.
> or push it away from where you want to live.
>just push the atmosphere away from you
That is not how this works, anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:34:52 2018 No.10241434 >gets shredded by 1000km/h winds nothing personnel, future co2

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 04:35:25 2018 No.10241436 >>10241025 >Venus has a thicker atmosphere which probably leads to greater buoyancy Just "probably"? Wow /sci/ has become brainlet boulevard.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 06:00:07 2018 No.10241542

All the retards who think terraforming the atmosphere on Venus isn't retarded are forgetting about the planet not having a proper magnetic field. It's holding on to gases via induced magnetic field in the ionosphere which you will fuck up by draining the thicc atmosphere of Venus. I'm not even talking about how naive you have to be to think you can even remove so much gas from the planet on a sensible timescale.

Basically it's on the same level of retarded as thinking that giving Mars an atmosphere is feasible.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 07:21:40 2018 No.10241651

>>10240968
>Even SPARC, the most promising fusion design by a mile is 15 years away from its basic prototype
You may want to look into ITER then. That's final quarter of 2025 on the current roadmap. Tokamaks are a less risky design that SPARCs, but they're also massive.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 07:23:44 2018 No.10241654 >>10241436 It's a probably a quantum world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 07:25:24 2018 No.10241659 >>10241542 THIS. Without magnetic field the planet is not only cooked by radiation it's losing atmosphere and fast.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 07:30:31 2018 No.10241667 >>10241542 >>10241659 It takes 10s if not 100s of millions of years for an atmosphere to be destroyed by solar wind.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 08:20:28 2018 No.10241734

>>10241667
Not sure about the numbers so I won't argue there. But it's gonna be 10s if not 100s of millions of years of your planet not being protected from charged particles, that's a lot of cancer for free. Think what a single CME would do to any life on the surface.

>>10241651
ITER isn't a model of a commercial fusion reactor though. It's kind of like the last step before they make DEMO which is at least 50 years away. ITER will be finally trying to get reasonable energy outputs, it's also gonna be the first ever test of tritium breeding systems and new heat resistant materials. If anything you should follow stellarator research as it's far more promising (if you disregard the insane cost of producing the coils)

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 08:28:34 2018 No.10241747

>>10241734
>ITER isn't a model of a commercial fusion reactor though. It's kind of like the last step before they make DEMO which is at least 50 years away. ITER will be finally trying to get reasonable energy outputs, it's also gonna be the first ever test of tritium breeding systems and new heat resistant materials. If anything you should follow stellarator research as it's far more promising (if you disregard the insane cost of producing the coils)
Blah blah blah I do follow it and the actual rl stellerator researchers are less zealous than you. ITER will still produce a net output of energy, yes there are already improved designs in the pipeline as they use what they've learnt from ITER. That's how you develop new technologies.

There is no guarantee that stellerators are a viable design, they're the most viable looking out of a lot of unproven designs though. Because the US neither has the will or ability to do something like ITER they're backing the much riskier horse that they can work with.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 08:35:29 2018 No.10241758

>>10241747
Stellarators aren't being explored all that much because building prototypes for them is even more expensive than traditional tokamak research which already costs a small fortune. Not sure how you concluded that I'm zealous by the way, I just like stellarators more as a concept because they eliminate a huge problem of other tokamak designs, namely the need for generating a poloidal magnetic field. It's still not going to get us commercially available fusion any time soon which is quite sad.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 08:55:13 2018 No.10241779 >>10239309 Sulfuric acid clouds are H2SO4. You can reasonably synthesize water from this.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 09:15:22 2018 No.10241804

>>10241734
A common misconception is that magnetic field is what protects the surface from radiation. Its effect is in fact minor and can actually make things worse for electronics during bad solar weather.

The atmosphere is the primary radiation shield despite being considered "empty air" by some.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 09:22:08 2018 No.10241807 >>10241804 he was talking about the atmosphere retard, learn to read

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 09:22:41 2018 No.10241808

>>10241804
I'm pretty sure Earth's magnetic field redirects most of the solar wind towards the poles preventing it from even touching the atmosphere. Besides the atmosphere isn't that big of a shield for fast particles from what I remember. And even if the atmosphere really does do most of the job, there would be a noticeable effect. Add the increased effect of solar wind due to proximity to the Sun and bam, cancer and sterility.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 09:24:13 2018 No.10241809 >>10241807 I don't think you follow the conversation.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 09:24:28 2018 No.10241810 >>10241804 >what is solar wind life on mars surely will be fucked long term lmao

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 11:20:59 2018 No.10241941

>>10241808
>I'm pretty sure Earth's magnetic field redirects most of the solar wind towards the poles preventing it from even touching the atmosphere. Besides the atmosphere isn't that big of a shield for fast particles from what I remember. And even if the atmosphere really does do most of the job, there would be a noticeable effect. Add the increased effect of solar wind due to proximity to the Sun and bam, cancer and sterility.

Wait wait wait wait wait.

I live pretty far up north in canada.

What the fuck does redirecting solar wind means?

I was recently confirmed sterile are you fucking telling me it happened because i'm being irradiated?

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 12:09:26 2018 No.10242012

>>10241436
Ok, necessarily leads to greater buoyancy. I didn't express myself well. What I meant to say was that the increase in buoyancy "probably" would not be enough to make building a floating habitat on Venus easier than building a floating habitat on Earth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 12:27:41 2018 No.10242038 File: 100 KB, 1200x794, 22gaou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10242012 >anon doesn't understand how buoyancy works

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 12:32:51 2018 No.10242051 >>10241810 we can live like native martians: underground

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 12:53:19 2018 No.10242089 >>10242038 What am I missing?

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 16:45:42 2018 No.10242597

>>10242089
(1) Breathable air is a strong lifting gas in a CO2 atmosphere. Make the habitat pretty big and it will simply float because of the internal atmosphere. This just isn't possible on Earth.
(2) Hydrogen is WAY more effective in a CO2 atmosphere, so if you want to support your habitat with hydrogen gasbags, it's much easier than on earth. Takes a lot less hydrogen, much smaller gasbags, and can't burn so it's very safe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 16:50:21 2018 No.10242605 >>10241734 >Think what a single CME would do to any life on the surface Absolutely nothing, because the atmosphere will absorb it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:00:28 2018 No.10242625 >>10242597 Hydrogen is somewhat scarce on Venus so you likely would want a larger molecule that doesn’t constantly leak

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:03:45 2018 No.10242631

>>10242625
Yes like your own breathing gas ie N2 and O2 as addressed in (1). Anyway you're gonna have a way of extracting H2 from the sulphuric acid clouds otherwise you're not doing shit. Hydrogen would be useful for supporting small maintenance or transport craft, and as part of a personal safety system. Everyone working outside would wear emergency inflatable hydrogen packs, like we wear lifejackets today. Fall over the side, and your personal flotation balloon inflates immediately and you hang around for a while like a moron until your friends decide to stop laughing at you and pick you up.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:04:49 2018 No.10242634 >>10242631 comfy as fuck

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:05:19 2018 No.10242635 >>10240874 You can send adjustable-buoyancy mining drones down to the surface to pick up whatever rocks you want.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:09:52 2018 No.10242643

>>10238190
Not really.
What would we be able to do on Venus? We can't investigate the surface. We can't mine it or tap mineral or gas reserves. It may be more comfortable to live on but I don't see that happening until we are exploiting asteroids for materials.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:10:21 2018 No.10242645 >>10242635 Or dredging from lower atmosphere mining platforms

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:11:35 2018 No.10242648 >>10238884 >what are sstos Something not practicle on Earth, or Venus. Sonething practicle on Mars though.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:17:02 2018 No.10242658 >>10241436 Yeah, it's 50/50.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:17:30 2018 No.10242659 >>10242648 >anon, you could use fucking jet engines on Venus sstos are easier to do there than on mars

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:36:57 2018 No.10242704

>>10242643
Pretty much it, all you can do on Venus is stuff with supplies from somewhere else. It can't really support any industry and even just people chilling there would require importing a lot of material. Meanwhile, Mars and Luna have resources you could theoretically use to build stuff without a huge leap in technology just to get to the surface.

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 17:44:12 2018 No.10242729

>>10241779
If only there was a chemical reaction that would take in CO2 and H2SO4 and give us H2O, something we can easily get O2 from in desired quantities, and something useful and not toxic, flammable, or ready to turn back into CO2 the moment O2 is around. Based on the numbers I saw, there's already plenty of nitrogen there, we just need to get rid of all the CO2 first.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 18:49:15 2018 No.10242875 >>10239818 Anon i think he was joking

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 19:31:11 2018 No.10242951

>>10242704
If only we had precedent for resource poor settlements...

Lack of resources for industrial applications is not necessarily a problem. One thing Venus really has going for it is more strategic placement for solar research. The problems with settling on it are also very suited for our first steps into terraforming. If we expand beyond this star, it would be incredibly useful to be able to go "we've done something like this before" should we only find Venus like planets that we'd need to make Earth like. It might happen either by how things are generally or bad luck.

Further to that, once terraformed, many many space techs that are developed on Earth would be usable on Venus too. Like if we can build a space elevator on Earth, we can also do it on livable Venus. It also doesn't hurt that Venus is an extreme example of something we must stop at all costs on any planet we live on including Earth. If we can sort Venus out, global warming is a finished problem, and sorting out global warming may produce tech that can be applied to sorting Venus out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 25 19:32:10 2018 No.10242953 >>10242875 No u

Anonymous Tue Dec 25 21:57:04 2018 No.10243135

>>10242951
The argument against Venus isn't not doing it at all, just that it is a dumb fuck place as an early target because there is no practical way in the near to mid term future to extract raw solid materials from the planet and literally fucking everything has to be shipped there at tremendous expense.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 01:15:43 2018 No.10243438
File: 6 KB, 200x300, helium_9.1m_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10242635
Go ahead, provide schematics for a system that can survive, economically send material back and work over the entire range of pressures you require. It sounds easy when you put it like that but the actual engineering required is not.
>>10242631
>balloon life jackets
No, its dense but it's not that dense. We're talking about significantly different scales here and cities are mostly empty space. Even if your balloon was somehow a vacuum (optimum lifting), you'd need to get it to expand to ~50 m3 and quick enough to matter. A helium tank large enough to do that would be huge - even if helium was magically weightless and you discarded the tanks as you emptied them, you'd need more than 5.5 of pic related (1.5m tall, 0.23m dia and each weighing 60kg). Not exactly something you could carry around.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:22:43 2018 No.10243541 >>10241310 It's more like building a Hindenburg style airship because even though breathable air is a lifting gas on Venus it's still a SHITTY lifting gas, which means your structures need to be huge and have a massive volume for their weight.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:25:50 2018 No.10243547

>>10241659
>the planet is not only cooked by radiation
The top of the atmosphere is, just like on Earth. Why do you think airline pilots experience huge cosmic ray dosing over their lifetimes? It's because the magnetic field doesn't do shit for us, only for deflecting charged particles off of the equatorial regions and funnels them down onto the poles (makes Aurora borealis/australis). The atmosphere is why someone standing at the north pole doesn't get cooked by solar wind despite it being ACTIVELY CONCENTRATED down onto their head.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:28:10 2018 No.10243552

>>10241747
SPARC is not a stellarator, it's a tokamak that uses newer and better superconductors for its magnets, allowing for much stronger field strengths even at liquid nitrogen temperatures unlike the magnets of ITER with need liquid helium temperatures to function and much greater size to achieve the same field strength.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:30:10 2018 No.10243556

>>10241808
Standing at the poles during a particularly active solar storm will give you zero increased dosage compared to a person at the equator, and also no increase in dosage at all, because it's the 100 km of air above your head that actually blocks radiation including high energy cosmic rays.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:31:13 2018 No.10243557 >>10241810 Not any worse than Earth >planet will be literally inhospitable to all life in 1 billion years, will be consumed by the Sun in 4 billion

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:32:20 2018 No.10243558 >>10241941 You aren't being irradiated by anything from space.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:39:28 2018 No.10243568

>>10242659
HA
HAHA
Getting to orbit around Venus requires ~8 km/s of delta V, it's almost the same as Earth because Venus has almost the same gravity as Earth does. Meanwhile doing SSTO on Mars requires a measly 4 km/s dV, trivial to attain in a single stage even with significant payload. Can you use some bullshit meme technology like hybrid rocket-jet engines to do SSTO on Earth or Venus? Sure, if you're living in a magical realm where material properties don't matter and practicality of engineering isn't an issue. Unfortunately in the real world the dV requirements are too big for an SSTO to make any sense on an Earth or Venus sized planet.

>muh skylon
Doesn't exist and also is not even being championed by its respective space agency, which is probably most notable for fucking up pretty much every lander they've made.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:41:08 2018 No.10243574 >>10242729 Calcium metal, and you'd need a ball of it the size of a small moon. Nothing like that exists on Venus, obviously, and we can't move that much shit aroudn in space, let alone mine and refine it all.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:43:26 2018 No.10243578

>>10242951
>One thing Venus really has going for it is more strategic placement for solar research.
Fucking stupid idea, want to study the Sun go into solar orbit lol
>If we expand beyond this star, it would be incredibly useful to be able to go "we've done something like this before"
So you're saying fuck Venus and lets all build as many space habitats from asteroids as we can, because there's no universe i which venus-like planets are more common than asteroid-like objects. We can do the same thing in any star system as we do in this one, which is to say fuck Venus analogs and not bother with them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:52:53 2018 No.10243588 >>10243438 >Not exactly something you could carry around. Maybe you couldn't, pencildick. Venus is for men.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 02:53:55 2018 No.10243590 >>10243541 >which means your structures need to be huge and have a massive volume for their weight. Right. What's the problem? That's what you want for a habitat anyway. Lots of empty air to stabilize the internal ecosystem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 03:35:24 2018 No.10243652 >>10243588 Kek, yeah right you can carry 300kg-force of weight all day and still do meaningful work. Shouldn't you be shitposting on /fit/?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 03:42:50 2018 No.10243663 hits a low density patch of atmospheric gases and plummets faster than flight can be recovered from

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 03:46:53 2018 No.10243673 >>10243652 why are some people so retarded if you use 5kg hydrogen packets you would maybe fall down to 30-40km and keep floating, it's like a life jacket on water

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 03:52:36 2018 No.10243679 >>10243673 >30-40km Where it's already like 100 degrees. Maybe just use two secure ropes and good safety discipline?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:00:26 2018 No.10243687 >>10243679 probably easier, and you have to wear suits outside anyway so I doubt the temperature of measly 100 degrees would be impossible short term

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:25:00 2018 No.10243706

>>10241808
>Besides the atmosphere isn't that big of a shield for fast particles from what I remember.

You remember wrong. Atmosphere is what protects us, period. Our planetary magnetic field could disappear overnight and there would be no radiation increase on the surface. Magnetic field merely protects the atmosphere from solar wind on geological timescales. It is far less important than most people think.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:28:27 2018 No.10243710

>>10243706
>Our planetary magnetic field could disappear overnight and there would be no radiation increase on the surface.

In fact magnetic field strength greatly decreases during geomagnetic reversals, and yet no effect of this on life is apparent from fossil record. Magnetic field is a meme.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 04:34:22 2018 No.10243715 >>10238128 spacefags are the worst pseuds on this board, prove me wrong

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 05:06:50 2018 No.10243753

>>10243673
No fuckwit. You'd be dead several times over by that point - from oxygen toxicity, from the temperature, and trying to balloon in hurricane-tier windspeeds with 1.5 the momentum of equivalent windspeeds here on Earth. And you'd still need a couple of those 60kg tanks - the lifting gas might only weigh 5kg but you need to contain it before use.
>>10243679
This. Just use PFAS. We have this technology already, they're mature and reliable. Leave the personal ballooning to those that want to go sky-yachting.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 05:47:36 2018 No.10243807 >>10243679 >good safety discipline We left your rules behind on Earth, statist lackey.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 06:53:18 2018 No.10243866

>>10243706
>>10243710

Atmosphere is just gas you brainlets.

It does jack shit against radiation and thats why thick lead is the common shielding when dealing with radioactive crap.

Without magnetic field the atmosphere will be blown away but at least everyone would be dead from cancer before that happens so there's that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 06:56:37 2018 No.10243870 >>10243866 Lead sucks as radiation shielding by several measures It does succeed in only one: shielding as a function of volume

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 07:16:22 2018 No.10243884 >>10243866 >a few meters of air won't protect you from a very radioactive thing so miles of air won't protect you from significantly less radiation The atmosphere is equivalent to 12 feet of solid aluminum against gamma radiation.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 11:49:35 2018 No.10244349
File: 74 KB, 1024x595, 1524820489204.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>DUDE JUST LIKE BUILD HABITATS IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF AN INHOSPITABLE PLANET
I bet half of this thread is just retards with no knowledge in the matter and the other half are mathematicians or physicists who don't even know what "practical" means and are often found whining that management cut funding for their research on building underwater cities.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 11:57:33 2018 No.10244373 >>10244349 same goes for mars. in conclusion: spacefags should die

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 11:59:49 2018 No.10244383 >>10243866 >It does jack shit against radiation That's why I stocked up on CFCs before the ban so we can get rid of that stupid ozone layer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 12:00:57 2018 No.10244388 >>10243574 What's the reaction for it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 12:35:11 2018 No.10244478 >>10244388 You're making calcium carbonate, anon. You should know this.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 12:52:09 2018 No.10244498

>>10244478
>a chemical reaction that would take in CO2 and H2SO4 and give us H2O, something we can easily get O2 from in desired quantities, and something useful and not toxic, flammable, or ready to turn back into CO2 the moment O2 is around
>calcium carbonate
That's not really a good answer to it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 12:54:58 2018 No.10244504 >>10238128 Terraforming. Escaping the brainlets infesting our beloved flat home.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 13:00:11 2018 No.10244511 >>10244504 terraforming not posibel you stay here no run uuhuhuh yep me vote ban rocket make smel bad

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 13:03:41 2018 No.10244522

>>10243578
>Fucking stupid idea, want to study the Sun go into solar orbit lol
...we already are in Solar orbit anon.

>So you're saying fuck Venus and lets all build as many space habitats from asteroids as we can, because there's no universe i which venus-like planets are more common than asteroid-like objects. We can do the same thing in any star system as we do in this one, which is to say fuck Venus analogs and not bother with them.
That probably is the best first step, after arguably building a small base on the moon. It's good to have a spectrum of strategies though, we don't know what we're going to find out there and being able to as fully as possible terraform other planets will provide different benefits to living in a ring habitat and mining. There's also a big payoff at the end.

>>10244498
To answer the original question, there are possible biological processes that can do it. There are definite biological processses that could work super well if you get sulphuric acid into sulphur dioxide first.

On the toxic front, for humans it might be but there's no reason to have the processing habitat for microorganisms the same as the human habitation one.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 13:33:08 2018 No.10244572
File: 1.13 MB, 1300x900, landis_balloon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10238128
we need to understand the wind shear environment better. Flying blimps or HUGE floating cities in a thunderstorm is a bad idea.
>>10243438
High temperature polymer balloons:
https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/adv_tech/ballutes/Blut_ppr/vnusmatl.pdf
High temperature polymers cannot withstand high temperatures for more than 8 hours, but this is sufficient for a lifting application. The balloons can be kept sufficiently cool on the long descent by a phase change material such as the boiling away of water. An unresolved issue is how to make the balloons survive passage through the sulfuric acid cloud layer. Staged balloons are an option. So is retrieval of the balloons below the sulfuric acid cloud layer by aircraft. It is also worth noting that PTFE, PIBO(a high temperature balloon material), mylar, and other polymers can be made from materials available from Venus' atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 13:48:47 2018 No.10244607 >>10243568 Just means you need a booster, not a show stopping issue

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 13:50:38 2018 No.10244611 >>10244607 It is, we are never leaving this planet because SSTOs won't work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 13:51:58 2018 No.10244616 >>10244611 Nuclear pulse propulsion is single stage to fucking pluto

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 13:53:30 2018 No.10244619 >>10244616 Also we all get superpowers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 13:55:19 2018 No.10244624 >>10244619 Nuclear air bursts are clean

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 14:07:37 2018 No.10244659 A floating Venus colony has all the downsides of being in a gravity well with all the lack of solid ground and resources of being on a planet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 14:22:33 2018 No.10244678 >>10244659 there are resources you can extract from the atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 14:46:26 2018 No.10244715 >>10244659 The planet is right there

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 14:55:20 2018 No.10244728 >>10244715 All the way down in a deep gravity well in horrible pressure and temperature.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 15:08:26 2018 No.10244743 >>10238128 > Sulphuric acid gas > Rains sulphuric acid > Dropped your spanner? Never gonna get that back. > Puncture? Hope you like dissolving!

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 15:12:31 2018 No.10244749

Fuel is easy at least.
Co+LOX

Density and isp around kerosene. The danger of toxic co clouds in case of poof doesn't exist since its fucking Venus anyway. Two staged rocket naturally and probably something bfr derived since you'll be needing that anyway.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 15:12:53 2018 No.10244750

>>10239351
> Put in sunshade to freeze the CO2
> Scoop it up into a big pile
> Fire it off the planet through the new lack of atmosphere at an angle to get rotation
> Aim it at Mars; that needs some more atmosphere.
> Keep what you need, build a big wall out of rocks
> Smack nitrogen from Titan into it for backfill
> Add comets to taste for oxygen
> Level the surface back over the holes you made
> Open sunshade, cut a few vents in the crust to prevent volcanic resurfacing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 15:18:29 2018 No.10244757 >>10244750 It's so crazy it just might work...

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 15:22:40 2018 No.10244765 >>10244750 Don't even consider falling for the Titan Nitrogen Export Corporation memes those bastards are literally cold kikes trying to swindle you. Venus' got plenty of good old N. ~3x Earth's.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 15:28:16 2018 No.10244776

>>10244757
If you're already throwing around lumps of rock and ore, what's a few billion tons of CO2?

Anything Mars doesn't want can be fed through a bamboo farm to extract oxygen to send back. Bamboo is useful stuff in space, grows like crazy, turns potentially harmful shit into building materials and green bits you can shred for composting into usable soil.
Or feed to the pigs you're using in a giant dirt farm.
Because, really, all you need to make decent soil is a load of shit, a starter of soil bacteria and worms, further biomass to rot down, and rock dust to pad it out.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 15:34:51 2018 No.10244790 Shure are a few problems but at least you won't be living with n*****s

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 15:43:27 2018 No.10244809 Total science noob here, can someone tell me why we can't just take the greenhouse gases from earth and venus and bring them to mars?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 16:50:09 2018 No.10244912 File: 13 KB, 480x360, a j rimmer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10243438 >someone crosses some pipes when they're working on the ventilation >entire colony exit bags

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 17:44:05 2018 No.10244970 File: 101 KB, 1280x720, death in space.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >try to land craft on pad >slightly off course because sanic winds >lmao fuck were imploding

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 18:12:29 2018 No.10245024 >>10244809 Cost per kg. You'd burn more energy getting it there then you would get rid of. Also, the problem on mars isn't that it doesn't have green house gasses (its atmosphere is all CO2, with dry-ice ice caps).

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 19:48:15 2018 No.10245231

>>10244572
Are you talking about for resource extraction or for life jacket survival?
>>10244750
>>10244757
>>10244776
>just like ship it off world dude
This is 460 quintillion kilograms of material. If we dedicated the entire worlds gross product to it, and the cost of rockets was the same on Earth, it would take us 350 BILLION YEARS to just pay for the flights.
Read his post again - there is no way to reasonable do that before we're a type 2 civilisation with power so cheap its free even at ridiculous industrial scales.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 19:53:41 2018 No.10245242

>>10245231
resource extraction.
>>10244970
Most rockets are buoyant at altitudes above 5 km on venus. With proper venting, your rocket doesn't have to implode. Most crew capsules well you can't vent away the gas as it gets warmer...
https://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venusian-rocket-floaties/

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:12:31 2018 No.10245276

>>10244498
No reaction exists like what you're talking about.

Calcium carbonate forms a mineral we call limestone, which is both non toxic and actually important to many species of animals that use it to build shells and other bodily structures. It also acts as a very good pH neutralizer, because any acids or bases that contact wit will react with it until they are used up. Calcium carbonate also has a pretty high albedo for a mineral and would help reflect excess heat and light away from Venus in the large deposits that would form globally if we started dusting the atmosphere with flakes of calcium.

Calcium plus CO2 produces a mineral that is stable for geologic time periods, and you really cannot do any better than that. If you are even considering sending enough of a chemical to react all the CO2 away then adding enough water to cover Venus more than halfway with oceans is not a big deal; water is very very common in the solar system. Adding oxygen is literally the easiest part, because all you'd really have to do is add come photosynthetic bacteria to the oceans and with no competition they are going to multiply like crazy and start producing billions of tons of oxygen per year, quickly raising concentrations to the point that humans could breathe outdoors.

None of this is really feasible of course, even if we had thrusters that converted mass directly to kinetic energy we would not be able to move that much material around the solar system on time scales less than thousands of years long.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:15:46 2018 No.10245284

>>10244522
Orbit around a planet is not a solar orbit, by definition. Anyway, my point was that there's literally no advantage to going to Venus to study the Sun; if you're already going interplanetary, then just stay in interplanetary space and look at the Sun from there, because at no point will your view be blocked by a planet. If you want to study high solar latitudes you need a high inclination solar orbit, which means you definitely can't be in orbit around a planet. If you want to get close to the Sun do what the PSP is doing, using gravity assists to slow down and drop towards the Sun more and more, but staying in solar orbit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:16:51 2018 No.10245287 >>10244624 >Nuclear air bursts are clean t. 1950's air force general

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:18:11 2018 No.10245292 >>10240819 based retard

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:19:48 2018 No.10245294

>>10244616
And nobody's going to build them. I'm as disappointed as you are anon.

By the way, NPP spacecraft are more like single-stage-grand-tour, since they have the delta V to go to Pluto on a three week cruise, get into orbit, stay for months until supplies run low, then come back on another three week cruise. That requires multiple hundreds of km/s of delta V, which basically means you can successively go to and orbit around all the planets and their major moons before needing to go to Earth for more charges.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:31:16 2018 No.10245326

>>10244659
Absolutely this.

If you think about it like a big civ game, where the end game is getting into space, the last thing you want to do is hamper your progress by trying to accomplish things in space by working from the bottom of a deep gravity well. Your win state is 'everything colonize-able, colonized, plus space habitats and interstellar generation ships'. Your best option once you have the ability to even visit other worlds is to build industrially capable colonies on the most convenient low gravity worlds, and use their easy space access to your advantage. Mars and the Moon are our two best options, Moon because it's much closer and Mars because it's surface resources and thin atmosphere are by far the most convenient conditions to leverage. Venus is just a way harder version of Earth, with a deep gravity well and zero access to the surface in any meaningful capacity.

Since Mars has a thin atmosphere, you only need to expend delta V to launch into orbit and for the final landing burn, since you can use the air to slow down. However, the air is also SO thin that it doesn't do anything to hamper rocket performance on ascent. The effect is that even though it takes significantly more dV to reach orbit around than the Moon, it is far easier for a reusable launch vehicle to operate on Mars, because a Moon shuttle needs to do its entire deorbit and landing propulsively, instead of using outside air to scrub off 99% of the velocity.

Surface temperature, physical attributes, and topography are also much more forgiving than on the Moon, and three important volatiles (water, nitrogen, and CO2) are VASTLY more common there than on the Moon. While it's certainly true that we shouldn't ignore the Moon, what we should do is a campaign of manned exploration on both worlds with the intent of setting up self sustaining capabilities. The Moon will benefit from having much more support form Earth and Mars will benefit from being far more rich in vital resources.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:34:06 2018 No.10245333 >>10245326 >If you think about it like a big civ game stopped reading right there

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:36:07 2018 No.10245336 >>10245326 Can you phrase it as a hairy potter analogy for me, thanks

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:46:54 2018 No.10245352

>>10244749
CO as a fuel offers a maximum theoretical Isp of about 30 seconds less than that of kerosene, so it's a definite downgrade. If you're using a two stage vehicle then it's not a huge issue anyway, however it still definitely rules out SSTO which is what you really want for a reusable rocket on a planet where you can't land.

A CO rocket would actually be really good for all kinds of machines on Mars including rocket powered hoppers, since CO is much less energetically expensive to make than methane and doesn't require any mining or processing of water from the surface, just a pump to capture CO2 and fractional distillation to separate the products of electrolysis. Methane will probably be reserved specifically for vehicles launching back to Earth that need the Isp it provides, but for launches to Mars orbit, vehicles doing rocket point-to-point transport, trucks, excavators, forklifts, etc. the less efficient but much cheaper liquid CO would be totally workable and highly useful.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:57:13 2018 No.10245372

>>10244750
>> Put in sunshade to freeze the CO2
Ten thousand years of waiting to allow Venus to radiate away all the heat stored in its atmosphere and upper ten kilometers of crust until the surface temp drops low enough that CO2 can solidify at those pressures.
>> Scoop it up into a big pile
No reason to do this, also most of Venus would be covered in a layer of CO2 'snow' multiple kilometers thick. Not feasible whatsoever.
>> Fire it off the planet through the new lack of atmosphere at an angle to get rotation
Hold up, you can't ignore the ~ 2 Earth-atmospheres worth of nitrogen gas that would be causing your CO2 projectiles to slam to a halt the moment they left the barrel of your gun. Now you are talking about waiting hundreds of thousands of years until the nitrogen also freezes out so you're firing through near vacuum, OR building a massive actively stabilized electromagnetic cannon that sticks up over 100 km high. Not feasible.
>> Aim it at Mars; that needs some more atmosphere.
Nitrogen, maybe. Mars already has so much CO2 that if we added nothing but nitrogen and brought it to 1 bar pressure 80% nitrogen 20% oxygen right now, we wouldn't be able to breathe because the CO2 concentration would be deadly to us.
>> Keep what you need, build a big wall out of rocks
>>Smack nitrogen from Titan into it for backfill
The ground is a rock wall. Done. Also as I previously explained Venus has much more nitrogen than Earth already.
>> Add comets to taste for oxygen
That would add water, plus some more nitrogen and carbon. Oxygen gas does not occur naturally anywhere in the solar system in significant amounts except on Earth. Just either add oxygen you made manually or wait for biological processes to do the work once you turn the lights back on.
>> Level the surface back over the holes you made
No, leave them as they will fill in with water to a depth of several kilometers lower than the lowest point on Venus currently, having deep oceans is important for life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:57:59 2018 No.10245374 >>10245284 >Orbit around a planet Are you orbiting around the planet anon? Are you the little Prince? If you want to harness the true power of the Sun, it pays to be closer to the Sun. It also pays to have two different vantage points.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:58:44 2018 No.10245377 >>10245372 That ain’t true, you can breath 1% CO2 no problem.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 20:59:05 2018 No.10245378 >>10244776 >a billion tons of CO2 try literally a billion times that amount, and you'd be 0.25% of the way there.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:03:05 2018 No.10245388 >>10245377 Plants love it.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:05:04 2018 No.10245393

>>10244776
>bamboo grows like crazy
Sort of a meme, in reality it's only adult bamboo plants that send up stems very quickly, from seed they actually grow much more slowly than other grasses.

Bamboo is a plant that consists of multiple stems growing from a single root system. The more stems a plant has, the more food it produces, and the fast a new stem will grow once it starts off. A single bamboo plant may put up dozens of adult-sized stems per year and live for over a decade, but they also have a life span and when they get old enough the entire plant dies.

Bamboo may be useful for many things but there are other plants including deciduous trees and even just fibrous non-woody plants that would be more useful and productive. Synthetic wood products can be made of essentially any plant fiber material, which means extremely fast-growing annuals can be combined with resin and baked under pressure to create a strong, useful building material.

Source, I am into horticulture and I work in a medium density fiberboard plant

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:07:04 2018 No.10245395 >>10245336 imagine if all magic broke and wizards had to learn how to wipe their own asses

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:11:03 2018 No.10245401 >>10245374 Yeah, and you don't want to be orbiting Venus to get as close to the Sun as practical. Which is my point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:13:06 2018 No.10245403 >>10245377 Makes your blood pH go high and makes you feel short of breath/fatigue/'sense of impending doom'.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:14:51 2018 No.10245408

>>10245393
>Bamboo is a plant that consists of multiple stems growing from a single root system.
This is true for some species of bamboo. Not all.

Bamboo can grow extremely fast with a high yield. The reason it grows fast so suddenly is due to influx of water into the cells and intercellular space. It's similar to grass (in fact it is a grass) in that regard, you mow the lawn and the stuff sprouts up again in no time for the same reasons.

The problem with longevity is the breeding of the plants. Bamboos only go to seed once in a blue moon (many economically important species it's over a century before breeding), but you can farm structural bamboo after only a few years. You can also cultivate clones without too much hassle, though it's not as straightforward as wood.

It's vastly superior to wood in yield and mechanical properties, but it's way more difficult to work with, including being shit to machine (silicon is great for strength but will fuck up all tools). Probably shit for space tbf.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:15:53 2018 No.10245411 >>10245401 Who's suggesting orbiting Venus?

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:18:49 2018 No.10245413

>>10245408
Bamboo is pretty good if you're essentially using it AS bamboo, like you're barely processing it and are just turning it into chairs and shit. If you are planning on doing anything else it's not great. I mean in space we're likely to only use it for simple and non vital shit like chairs anyway, it's not like we're going to make pressurized bamboo habitat modules.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:20:45 2018 No.10245418

>>10245411
The original guy I first responded to mentioned 'studying the Sun' as a reason to colonize Venus and that's obviously retarded. If you're gonna study the Sun, being on Venus does not help whatsoever, with all things being equal your best option is just to go into solar orbit and watch the Sun with no nearby planets to fuck up your line of sight.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:23:29 2018 No.10245424

>>10245413
>If you are planning on doing anything else it's not great.
It's an extremely good structural material, one of the best for its strength to weight (as well as cost). There are quite a few buildings made using it, fantastic building material. You don't really see it in the West because of the lack of indigenous bamboo species in most of the West.

Chairs.... Jesus anon do a bit of research.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:30:40 2018 No.10245435

>>10245418
You shouldn't stare at the sun anon.

You're thinking about this in a weird way I think, as if it's like taking a trip in a car. I can definitely see an argument for colonizing Venus rather than being in a solar habitat, primarily you'd be exposed to much less radiation on Venus. Having a permanent sheltered outpost that could have permanent inhabitants would benefit extraplanetary habitats because you need people to go back and forth to those kinds of places. You'd both on average be closer, and have better coverage by having two locations around the sun for any solar research habitats.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:49:03 2018 No.10245464

>>10245424
>making building sized structures
>in space habitats
Anon, we're not even CLOSE to open-air O'Neill cylinder type habitats yet, people are going to be (generously) living inside somewhat cramped rooms and corridors built inside ~10 meter wide cylinders constructed out of steel and other metals for a seriously long time, even up to the point there are multiple millions of people on both the Moon and Mars and in the asteroid belt. Living space will be at an absolute premium right up to the point that we develop good enough automation that we aren't really limited by how fast we can construct habitats anymore.

The fact that we can refine and smelt iron ores into steel sheet metal at a rate FAR surpassing that of any plant's ability to grow, even when comparing a very large farm to a quite small smelting operation, means that we simply won't be looking at plant based materials as structural products. This is especially true if you're considering actually growing these plants anywhere except on Earth, where dedicating millions of square feet of habitable area to growing plants won't exactly be an attractive prospect unless those plants are food.

On Earth there are many niches where plant products make good building materials, such as wood framed houses and bamboo scaffolding etc. However in space where you are so limited in area to grow things, you want to dedicate all your greenhouse capacity to food production and just use non-biological materials to build everything. A foundry and steel mill can be built 'outside' on Mars or the Moon and function just fine, a bamboo farm cannot. You can also do things like produce fiberglass and basalt-fibers (conveniently basalt is extremely common in the inner solar system), and use these inorganic fibers as you would organic ones to create composite materials of high strength and versatility using very cheap and available resources for less energy input per kilogram.

Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:55:37 2018 No.10245475

>>10245435
Listen, I'm NOT talking about ANYTHING to do with people.

My only gripe in the first place was that someone else listed studying the Sun as a reason to colonize Venus, and I told him why that's retarded. You don't need people in situ at all to study the Sun. All you need are unmanned probes, because unlike the surface of Mars or the Moon, space around the Sun is a very simple environment and the only thing you really do is watch instruments, which is something people on Earth can easily do via radio signal to a probe millions of km away.

This is the argument boiled down. If you want better data on Solar activity than you get from the Earth's surface, then your best possible option is to launch an unmanned probe carrying instruments designed to monitor the Sun, out of Earth orbit and into solar orbit. If you want to get data from the Sun, then get away from any planets and monitor the Sun.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 21:56:44 2018 No.10245478 Colonise the sun fucking morons.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 26 22:00:37 2018 No.10245484 >>10245478 >isaac arthur actually believes that is possible

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 02:01:33 2018 No.10245807

>>10245231
>and the cost of rockets
What part of 'mass driver' don't you get?
There will be no atmosphere other than what's frozen to the ground. No drag!

>>10244616
>Nuclear pulse propulsion is single stage to fucking pluto
If you're willing to kill people to get there.
Instantly, just by the radiation of your takeoff. Then there's the fallout.

NPP won't work cleanly until we can get pure fusion devices, but there's no such thing yet. Fission explosions are the only way to compress hydrogen enough to fuse.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 02:04:09 2018 No.10245816

>>10245372
>Hold up, you can't ignore the ~ 2 Earth-atmospheres worth of nitrogen gas that would be causing your CO2 projectiles to slam to a halt the moment they left the barrel of your gun
But you can, because there's no sunlight hitting it. Nitrogen will freeze to the ground, like it does on pluto.

>That would add water, plus some more nitrogen and carbon.
Yes, but with a shitton of solar power available you can crack that water to hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen for rocket propellant, oxygen for the planet.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 03:37:43 2018 No.10245978

>>10245807
>What part of 'mass driver' don't you get?
The part where nothing I replied to mentioned one? Or how about the part where its fucking irrelevant how its sent off? If we dedicated 100% of the entire Earth's energy consumption to shipping it off, and your mass driver was 100% efficient and it all the CO2 was magically transported to the driver with no energy consumption, it'd still take 46 MILLION YEARS of production just to get the power required.
You have no concept of just how large 460 quintillion is.
460000000000000000000. If you sent a tonne per second the Sun would burn out before you were finished. If you transported Venus back in time to the start of the universe and started then, you STILL wouldn't have finished by today.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 03:56:16 2018 No.10246011

>>10245807
>Nuclear pulse propulsion is single stage to fucking pluto
>If you're willing to kill people to get there.
>Instantly, just by the radiation of your takeoff. Then there's the fallout.
Literally none of that is a real concern with proper design. It's like saying "we can't fly in chemical rockets, if we put the people inside the engine bell they'll die".

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 08:16:01 2018 No.10246352 >>10246011 Radiation stays for billions of years so yeah you aren't putting a person in the engine you are putting everyone there.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 08:31:26 2018 No.10246376 >>10245807 >fusion is also clean kek

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 09:22:35 2018 No.10246470

>>10246352
Have you made a single post in this thread that isn't ridiculous and wrong in some way or another?
Radiation isn't a sci fi death ray. Its not going to kill the crew. You do need some shielding to lower the cancer risk but you have thousands to hundreds of thousands of tons to play with and a huge pusher plate between you and the source. Even without dedicated, theres not nearly enough to cause the level acute radiation poisoning you're suggesting. Its just nonsense.
Its also not going to meaningfully affect the world for billions of years. In fact, its going to have jack shit effect on the rest of the world - With proper pad design, theres going to be 0 local fallout and global fallout does jack all. We've detonated thousands of far larger far dirtier bombs in far worse conditions and it increased the radiation dose you get daily by 7%... well it would have if you lived in the 60's when it was at its highest. By now it only increased your daily dosage by less than 0.20%. Even at its highest, you should have been far more concerned about flying to Australia and back once than the effect of nuclear testing on you in a given year.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 09:50:20 2018 No.10246531 >>10246470 If it was that harmless it wouldn't have been feared so much, mkay?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 10:14:17 2018 No.10246573 >>10245978 You build enough mass drivers to fire it off-planet at a decent rate. Are you always this abrasive to people you have conversations with? No wonder nobody likes you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 10:22:30 2018 No.10246590 >>10246531 The fear was material irradiated by dirty nukes(aka three stage bombs detonated on land) and pointless hype too

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 10:57:04 2018 No.10246652

>>10246573
You've got to be trolling. Nobody is this dumb. Building more mass drivers doesn't reduce the energy expenditure. The idea is idiotic, stop trying to defend it.
>>10246531
People are scared of the flying and it's the safest form of travel. People are scared of vaccines. People are scared of the fucking dark.
>>10246470
I'm starting to think we shouldn't bother, anon. He's either completely braindead or he thinks pretending to be is funny.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 11:02:17 2018 No.10246663 >>10243866 >Atmosphere is just gas you brainlets. Over a hundred km of gas

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 12:36:42 2018 No.10246839 >>10246531 >the fears of the ignorant masses as played up by the media are rational

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 12:46:33 2018 No.10246857 >>10238128 Maybe because It's even more inhospitable to human life than Mars is...? And correct me if im wrong, but isn't the surface of venus so hot it can melt metal?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 12:54:20 2018 No.10246870 >>10246857 Some metal is molten at room temperature You can melt a few others with your hand

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 13:00:24 2018 No.10246876 >>10246857 Nobody gives a shit about the surface of Benis, it's all about the upper atmosphere

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 13:01:10 2018 No.10246879

>>10245475
>someone else listed studying the Sun
If I read it right, I think it's specifically about energy capture.

Also it's not a simple environment, if it doesn't interest you I guess it can seem that way. Like if you're focused on mining asteroids or leaving the sun behind then you don't think about it. And anything that involves unmanned probes or the ilk benefits from not having as much lag between human operators and the probes, at least at any initial stages. In the best individual case you get a 1/3 improvement in time, at later stages if you have a number of probes or panels about you also benefit from having one set of permanent operators at Venus and another at Earth, which much of the time have good coverage of a lot of the area around the sun.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 13:05:05 2018 No.10246887

>>10246470
>Radiation isn't a sci fi death ray.
It isn't far off. For some reason there's a bit of a dick measuring thing around how blasee you can be about radiation and some scienticians, if you work regularly with stuff like xrays if really pays to be careful. It can lead to some extremely unpleasant ways to day, some of which are not cancer and still incredibly nasty, not to mention it can fuck your gonads.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 14:11:05 2018 No.10247039 File: 17 KB, 443x405, dysonstatites.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10245478 Ok

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 14:26:01 2018 No.10247076

Reminder that as of 2018, research on the ISS has shown that astronauts in zero-g do not suffer bone loss with proper regime, eliminating the biggest potential showstopper for a Mars colony.

>Subsequent evidence showed that astronauts who ate well, had enough vitamin D, and exercised hard didn't suffer any bone loss during a six-month space mission.

>This was the first time in 50 years of human space flight that crew members had been able to maintain their bone density with nothing but diet and exercise.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45735361

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 14:29:41 2018 No.10247081 >>10242631 id wanna skydive every day

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 14:40:11 2018 No.10247098 >>10245816 >Nitrogen will freeze to the ground After 100,000 years of waiting for the surface to cool off. You think quintillions of tons of rock is just gonna radiate away all that thermal energy quickly after you turn out the lights?

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 14:42:47 2018 No.10247107

>>10246352
>Radiation stays for billions of years
Anything that is radioactive for billions of years is not dangerous because it is decaying so slowly.
It's shit that has a half life of a few days or hours that kills. A single radioactive atom can only decay once, so a substance with a very long half life necessarily is having very few decay events occur per second, and vice versa for short half lives.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 14:45:05 2018 No.10247113 >>10246870 irrelevant the surface temperature of Venus is hot enough to prevent the formation of complex molecules and break down any that are transported there.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 14:46:08 2018 No.10247117 >>10246876 >where there are no resources and nothing to do

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 14:47:16 2018 No.10247120 >>10247076 needs more (you)s desu

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 15:08:56 2018 No.10247152 how would you gather any resources if everyone lives in blimps surrounded by acid

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 15:19:11 2018 No.10247166 >>10247152 Robots on blimps

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 15:21:45 2018 No.10247169 >>10247076 ..but muh JELLO BABIES!!!

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 15:24:13 2018 No.10247177 >>10247117 On Earth you don't do any mining, it's not even a thought that crosses your mind. However in space it's suddenly all you can fatasize about.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 15:28:41 2018 No.10247193

~10 meters below Martian surface, the conditions are such that you do not really need a strong pressure vessel. Pressure of soil above you will roughly equal the pressure of air inside our habitat, both at 10 tons per square meter or so. This layer also has plentiful water ice that is protected from sublimation and extends almost to the equator. This mass above you is also roughly enough to completely shield cosmic radiation.

In a way, Mars underground has a goldilocks zone similar to that in Venusian atmosphere.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 15:29:43 2018 No.10247196 >>10247177 Because mining resources is essential to establishing an actual civilization, a colony and not a mere outpost. On Earth it is a solved problem long ago.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 15:39:05 2018 No.10247212 >>10246352 Maximum brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 15:59:18 2018 No.10247258 >>10247196 >Because mining resources is essential to establishing an actual civilization It is not my man.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 19:24:44 2018 No.10247753
File: 251 KB, 1050x627, Maximum_payload.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10238894
>What are rendezvous?
The admission that your system is not as efficient as MSTOs.
>What are orbiting modules?
A payload that an MSTO could get up cheaper, safer, and more efficiently.
>What are Apollo missions.
Missions launched from an MSTO platform that could carry nearly five times as much payload as it's SSTO counterpart with a favorable dollar-per-kilogram ratio compared to the shuttle.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 20:02:37 2018 No.10247837

>>10247177
I do, and many many other people do so that you don't have to. That's how division of labor works. And division of labor is how civilization works.
>>10247258
It is. Whether that mining happens on Earth and the product is imported at huge and unsustainable expense or on the planet you are colonizing you need mined products to establish and to maintain a colony.
But a colony cannot survive while importing everything. That have basically nothing to export and it's stupidly expensive. They have of way of paying for it.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 20:12:23 2018 No.10247853

>>10247837
>That have basically nothing to export and it's stupidly expensive.
Again, this is not how economics works. Yes, you'd need to establish infrastructure first. Once infrastructure is there, no you don't need to be a mining colony. Do you live in a mining colony? Do you mine resources? You're in a MineCraft or Age of Empires style of thinking.

I think the idea of going for improving solar power usage an interesting one though. Let's say there are people in you camp up in space (Virgin Martians?) and people in mine (Sunchads). You're out there mining and mining, but to what end? If you're successful, you're suddenly extracting more raw materials than humanity has ever had in its history, and to the degree that markets and pricing mechanisms can't keep up. What do you do? Well while you've been digging in the dirt, us Sunchads have been improving the harnessing of the sun's energy. Those two things could combine, as much material as we could ever need, and the energy to do stuff with it.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 20:44:49 2018 No.10247919

>>10247853
You need to grow your colony, you need to replace parts, you need to update equipment, you need to build transport and infrastructure and buildings. The mining isn't for export, you mong, it's for ISRU. Resource acquisition is not optional.
And if you don't get it from where you are, you have to bring it from home. And a colony isn't going to survive doing that. Nobody on Earth is going to pay for that and the colony has nothing of worth to give to Earth in trade, nothing worth exporting.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 21:03:21 2018 No.10247954

>>10247919
>You need to grow your colony
You do not, this is not a video game and you do not get extra points for growing a colony.
>you need to replace parts, you need to update equipment, you need to build transport and infrastructure and buildings.
This is more true, but not beyond the ability
>The mining isn't for export, you mong, it's for ISRU. Resource acquisition is not optional.
ISRU is not a socio-economic argument, it is paradigm to reduce cost of space exploration.
>And if you don't get it from where you are, you have to bring it from home. And a colony isn't going to survive doing that. Nobody on Earth is going to pay for that and the colony has nothing of worth to give to Earth in trade, nothing worth exporting.
>and the colony has nothing of worth to give to Earth in trade
This is your main defect in reasoning and it's a big one. All sorts of things are traded that are not material resources. What's weird is that on the one hand you think the mining is not for trade, but here you clearly think it's important as a tradeable asset.

The better questions to ask are what differentiates Venus? What sort of niche could it carve out in an interplanetary economy? One of the biggest things going for it is that it's the only remotely similar option to Earth, and that the problems that must be solved to get it more Earth like are more extreme versions of problems we're already dealing with.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 21:04:15 2018 No.10247960

>>10238168
Wind isn't a problem if you're floating, it could be 3000km/h wind and you wouldn't feel a thing.
Wind is only a problem if it's rapidly accelerating, because that's what you feel while floating. As far as I know, that isn't an issue on Venus.

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 21:17:08 2018 No.10247985

Reasons to colonise Luna:
>incredibly conveniently located for import/export
>low gravity allows anything mined/constructed to easily be sent elsewhere
>no obstacles to massive-scale mining

Reasons to colonise Mars:
>???

Reasons to colonise Venus:
>lowest survival equipment requirements in the solar system (except Earth)
>we know barely anything about it, lots of research has yet to be done
>incredibly rich in deuterium, as acquiring hydrogen is easy and 1% of that hydrogen is deuterium as opposed to Earth's 0.01% (important for fusion reactors)

The order of colonisation suitability is:
>Luna
>Venus
>Mars

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 22:37:33 2018 No.10248158

>>10247954
>You do not, this is not a video game and you do not get extra points for growing a colony.
Yes you do by definition of colony. And otherwise you need to ship in an entire city and an entire city's populace at the start, which is idiotic.
>This is more true, but not beyond the ability
The ability of what? You can't extract everything you need from the atmosphere.
>ISRU reduces cost of space exploration.
And space travel is ridiculously expensive. The only way to get the cost low enough is to send as little as possible. Even with reusable rockets or space elevators or mass drivers or orbital rings dropping the price of space travel by huge amounts, shits still expensive. Even with a space elevator (which we don't have), the price of steel in GEO is 50x what it costs on the ground. And that's before the costs for sending it to another planet.
>All sorts of things are traded that are not material resources.
And what is worth establishing a colony for? What justifies your initial investment of shipping in an entire city and population? That's your problem, you're only considering the colony in a steady state. Sure once a colony is established you can have engineers, programmers, scientists, artists, whatever export information and create some sort of economy, but its infinitely cheaper to pay them here on Earth than to build a colony and ship them to another planet.
Not to mention even with an entire colony of top tier scientists and engineers all earning 99th percentile wages in their fields, they still wouldn't be earning enough to sustain an import only colony.
>What's weird is that on the one hand you think the mining is not for trade, but here you clearly think it's important as a tradeable asset.
No I don't, you fucking retard. Learn to read. Nothing is worth shipping out of the gravity well. The problem is nothing Venus has to offer that can't be found easier and cheaper elsewhere. And if it's not selling anything, it can't pay to import things.
tbc

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 22:39:06 2018 No.10248161

>>10247954
Cont from >>10248158
>that the problems that must be solved to get it more Earth like are more extreme versions of problems we're already dealing with.
Wait are you the anon that Quintillanon and Orianon were arguing with? There is no way to terraform Venus short of Dyson swarm levels of energy production. Venus' rough similarity to Earth is not relevant because it won't matter until we've already colonized the solar system. The Wait Calculation favours not bothering with Venus until we have the power (literally) to terraform it. Colonisation prior to that won't aid terraforming (and might hinder it), won't be feasible long term without terraforming, and when we're ready to terraform it, colonisation will also be infinitely cheaper for the same reasons that terraforming is now possible.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 22:43:29 2018 No.10248169 >>10247985 shitpost

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 22:46:51 2018 No.10248179

>>10247076
Lack of gravity was never a problem, be it in microgravity, on Mars, or even on the Moon or Titan. A centripetal ring can provide adequate gravity in space provided the weight isn't too big an issue (which it shouldn't be provided you can construct spacecraft in orbit), and you can even avoid the issue of airtight bearings by having a non-rotating air-tight shell around the ring. On a body with some gravity, it's a simple matter to have a spinning colony on an angle, such that the centripetal force and the planet's gravity add up to ~1gee. And the size needed to avoid significant Coriolis force isn't that large either.

For example, the angle required on Mars is 20.7° to vertical, on Titan it's 7.8° to the vertical, on the Moon it would be 9.4°. There's a small drift of gravity from one end to the other, but on bodies with little gravity it's not much of an issue at all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 27 22:52:38 2018 No.10248186 >>10247960 We don't have enough information to know if it's a problem on Venus, we really need to send some weather orbiters and atmospheric weather stations

Anonymous Thu Dec 27 23:47:36 2018 No.10248270
File: 18 KB, 498x498, Curiosity rover and its parachute were spotted by NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter as Curiosity descended to the surface on Aug. 5 2012 (PDT) .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10247960
That assumes the wind is constant and consistent across the entire structure. Weather tends to be more complex than a simple homogenous wall of wind going around the planet in the same direction at the same speed forever.
>>10247985
For the record I'm not against Lunar or Venereal (or Cytherean if you're embarassed) colonisation but Mars is a contender too.
>conveniently located for import
Doesn't really matter. Moon requires a pure propulsive injection and landing and Mars can aerobrake. dV ends up comparable. It does take more time, but dead matter doesn't care. Nothing is going to be that urgent - anything vital to the population that could kill them in the time difference is going to be redundant for a habitat on any celestial body, anything that isn't can wait. People are more expensive, but they make up a tiny fraction of the total mass of cargo shipped.
>no obstacles to massive-scale mining
Applies to both Mars and the Moon doesn't it? And arguably the Moon Treaty and the PR issues are obstacles.
>incredibly rich in deuterium, as acquiring hydrogen is easy and 1% of that hydrogen is deuterium as opposed to Earth's 0.01% (important for fusion reactors)
You might notice we don't have fusion reactors.
And reasons to colonize Mars is basically because its a nice combination of them both. Relatively liveable with good access to materials.
>Doesn't have a fortnight long night
>no obstacles to massive-scale mining
>signficanty less radiation than the Moon
>more water
>more gravity than the Moon (if it matters)
>less extreme temperatures
>easy and more effective fuel production than the Moon
>hydrological and magmatic processes for ore unlike the Moon
>more types and amounts of resources than the Moon
>no Moondust
>Easier to terraform than both (but still basically impossible in the forseeable future)
If you had to pick only place to go in the Solar System, you'd pick Mars. If you don't, then pick all of them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 08:37:07 2018 No.10248831 >>10248270 Dead matter might not care about time but people do care about capital investment For one trip to mars you might send 100 trips to the moon, for the same capital in rockets.

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 09:13:17 2018 No.10248876

>>10248270
>Weather tends to be more complex than a simple homogenous wall of wind going around the planet in the same direction at the same speed forever.
It is a little like that on Venus of all things though. One of the ways proposed to get around the lack of reasonable days is just to allow the habitats to go around the planet on the wind, then you get iirc 1 day being 4 Earth days.

The technology is way out there for everything.

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 09:18:24 2018 No.10248886

>>10248158
>And otherwise you need to ship in an entire city and an entire city's populace at the start, which is idiotic.
You don't need an entire city.

>>10248161
No idea what that is. Looking at the problem, it doesn't seem to me you'd need a Dyson swarm, not by a long way. There are some technologies that could, and may need to be, developed that would also work to begin terraforming Venus. The main issues are the heat and to a lesser degree the lower atmosphere, but you could change the atmosphere and just leave it for the next sapient species.

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 09:29:54 2018 No.10248906

>>10248831
I'd argue that the ease of automated fuel manufacture is more important, especially early on when immediate return on investment is most important.
Fuel production on the Moon is significantly more involved - essentially all requiring some form of mining whether that be of water ice, volatile extraction from the regolith or the refining of aluminum. It requires infrastructure to be put in place and in the mean time you're either not getting your rockets back or like the plan for BFR you're either hugely sacrificing payload or you're launching many tankers to use elliptical orbit refueling per actual payload launch. Any of those options further increases the cost of setting up the infrastructure and eventual colony, perpetuating the problem.
On Mars, you need to bring hydrogen feedstock (but only a 1/18th the mass you'd otherwise need to bring in propellant) but otherwise you only require access to the atmosphere. Like the Moon it does benefit from mining though - if you get water ice in situ you can eliminate the need to bring the feedstock at all, but you can get by without it.
Getting what would otherwise be launch mass at the end of the trip is ultimate kind of staging. Being able to say "fuck you" to at least a part of the Tyranny of the Rocket equation in nice.
It might seem weird that this seems to be about the cost per kg to the surface when you'd think they'd just charge whatever covers the cost of their rockets - and you're right. But as the currently decreasing costs of space travel are demonstrating, you can price yourself out of the market. You can't sell flights to colonists if its too expensive to build a colony.
>10248876
I know that that has been proposed, but that doesn't mean it is the nice continuous wind, it might just mean they assume structures capable of withstanding it. If you have specific information about the weather patterns that says otherwise I'd be interested though!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 09:30:55 2018 No.10248908 >>10248876 Whoops dropped a ">" >>10248906 is for you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 09:59:32 2018 No.10248955 >>10248179 >it's a simple matter to have a spinning colony on an angle Imagine thinking that a whole fucking colony spinning on an angle is a simple matter, lol.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 10:02:20 2018 No.10248957 >>10247954 >You do not, this is not a video game and you do not get extra points for growing a colony. It is not a colony if it does not grow, period. It is just a base eternally dependent on Earth. There is no point then.

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 12:57:16 2018 No.10249244

>>10248886
>You don't need an entire city
Yeah you really do. You need farmers, you need mechanics, you need doctors, you need engineers, lab techs, nurses, janitors, plumbers, environmental technicians, cooks, water techs, police, electricians, dentists, elevator repairmen, sewer workers etc.
And that's all assuming no ISRU, no net population growth, not increasing the size of the colony iself. This is a colony. People live their entire lives there. They need all the services they rely on here.
Or maybe you've just misunderstood what a colony is and are talking about a scientific outpost?
Not to mention the point still stands if you replace city with colony
>No idea what that is
What what is? What the wait calculation is or...?
>Looking at the problem, it doesn't seem to me you'd need a Dyson swarm, not by a long way. There are some technologies that could, and may need to be, developed that would also work to begin terraforming Venus. The main issues are the heat and to a lesser degree the lower atmosphere, but you could change the atmosphere and just leave it for the next sapient species.
Then you need to look again. Read up in the thread. The sort of changes you need to make are literally astronomical. Even if you did want to leave it for some successor species, we couldn't build machines rugged enough to last long enough and even if we did, it probably wouldn't be done before the Sun expands and there was no Venus to terraform. And even with Fusion, the cost is staggering. Just to get all the deal with the atmosphere would take the entire world donating their entire GNP for 70,000 years. You need energy cheaper than fusion and you need a LOT of it.

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 14:19:16 2018 No.10249414

>>10249244
>we couldn't build machines rugged enough to last long enough and even if we did, it probably wouldn't be done before the Sun expands and there was no Venus to terraform.
That's nonsense. Look at the thread yourself, there are plenty of proposed solutions that would require less time than that and are rugged/redundant enough to last.

>Yeah you really do. You need farmers, you need mechanics, you need doctors, you need engineers, lab techs, nurses, janitors, plumbers, environmental technicians, cooks, water techs, police, electricians, dentists, elevator repairmen, sewer workers etc.
You want it to be a certain scale and that scale only, cool. There are other possibilities and smaller scale than what you're putting forward is how any colony will have to start.

Also the ISRU argument won't translate to the point where you have a growing civilization/city state, by that point you'd absolutely have to trade.

>>10248957
>It is not a colony if it does not grow
Look up what a colony is.

>There is no point then.
Maybe for you personally, but finding an argument for building any colony is part of how that happens. For all we know the first people to go up there will do so because they're in a cult, or there's some sudden rush to develop a technology where Venus becomes strategic.

Personally I think we need to have a moon base, then you'll start to see some small niche applications pop up. On Venus it may be that we can send something to take advantage of the increased solar radiation and produce fuels using the atmosphere, if that alone happened there'd be vastly increased reason to have a colony there or near there. The problem with every other idea atm is imagining really incredibly advanced technologies, such as mining asteroids with Von Neumann machines, that also do not align with pressures to develop technology on Earth. Obv none of this is reachable rn, but the technologies and applications of Venus are that much clearer and closer.

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 14:31:06 2018 No.10249450

>>10248906
>but that doesn't mean it is the nice continuous wind
I very much doubt it's a nice continuous wind, even it was it'd be turbulent. I'd also suggest that a better colony design would take a page from this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z72GPZ3MI2M
Where the lack of buoyancy is partly made up for with propulsion, that'd allow certain strategies to prevent some issues with weather patterns and such.

Also what the atmosphere is doing is called "super rotation".

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:21:09 2018 No.10250842

>>10249414
>That's nonsense. Look at the thread yourself, there are plenty of proposed solutions that would require less time than that and are rugged/redundant enough to last.
No there are not. But if you think there were give me specifics. What could do it in time and at a price humanity could afford, let alone would spend the money on, and isn't powered by a dyson swarm. You seem to have a tendency to focus on the things you think have an answer for and ignoring the rest, but answer this one.
>You want it to be a certain scale and that scale only, cool. There are other possibilities and smaller scale than what you're putting forward is how any colony will have to start.
A mission without a doctor, someone to fix parts when they break, someone to provide food and someone to watch over all the systems that keep you alive isn't a colony. Its a suicide mission. Even now you're relying on thousands of people to keep whatever town or city you're in functioning and you alive. Even Antarctica, which can and does ship in supplies and spare parts and specialists when needed, has relatively large crews. McMurdo holds almost 1300 people and they're hugely dependent on the outside - bringing in 30,000 tonnes of supplies every year and often bringing in entire new assemblies because they can't fix them and specialists to handle one job and then shipping them back out and shipping out people that need something that the station can't provide. And McMurdo 1) has significantly easier supply needs than a colony on another planet and 2) doesn't have people spending their entire life there and so don't need huge swaths of services they'd need on the mainland.
tbc

Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:22:11 2018 No.10250846

>>10249414
Cont from >>10250842

>Also the ISRU argument won't translate to the point where you have a growing civilization/city state, by that point you'd absolutely have to trade.
This makes no sense. I'm going to assume you mean ISRU can't function until you already have enough people that you'd have to have trade? If that's not what you meant, feel free to clarify.
But if that is, its wrong on many levels.
First, "have to trade" is a nice thing to say but that doesn't mean there IS trade. Because as I said, theres nothing physical worth shipping out of the gravity well and even a colony of the highest paid engineers telecommuting back to Earth don't earn enough to sustain the colony.
Second, you don't need a large population for ISRU - using DFI and an EAF minimill style setup, a steel mill on Mars with 10 people could produce as much as 42,000 tons of steel stock a year. This doesn't require any new technology or extreme automation - you could hire a steel worker off the street and drop him in that plant and he wouldn't know the difference until he tried to lift something or looked out a window.
Lastly growing a colony is exactly when you need ISRU. Its when your mass is growing the most both relatively and quantatatively. Transport costs dominate the total cost imports by a huge margin and the cost of colonisation needs to be low enough to be affordable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:33:11 2018 No.10250862 >>10241029 under-appreciated

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 28 23:37:37 2018 No.10250865 Could we get a colony there before 2050?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:46:33 2018 No.10251004 >>10248831 >For one trip to mars you might send 100 trips to the moon, for the same capital in rockets >I am fucking retarded and don't have a basic understanding of orbital mechanics

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 00:57:05 2018 No.10251025 >>10251004 ???????

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:04:54 2018 No.10251031
File: 347 KB, 916x1500, N1 rocket.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10251004
Not that guy but I am also an idiot with no understanding of orbital mechanics.
Can you explain whats wrong with his statement? On the face of it, it seems reasonable - estimates for a mars trip go as high as 300 days. For the moon, estimates are 3-4 days.
Pls no bully just want to learn.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 01:14:40 2018 No.10251046

>>10251025
>>10251031
The amount of fuel required to go to the moon is very close to the amount required to go to Mars due to the differences in velocity required to match orbits and rotations. The journey duration to Mars is longer yes but launch for launch the costs are more or less the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:03:15 2018 No.10251101 >>10251046 >The amount of fuel required to go to the moon is very close to the amount required to go to Mars due to the differences in velocity required to match orbits and rotations. I'll just wait for a source on that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:09:17 2018 No.10251115 File: 375 KB, 2239x2725, AAGJvD1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10251101

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:36:57 2018 No.10251147

>>10251115
You forget the 3210 at the bottom to the mars calculation.
Mars:
18910
Moon:
15070
It's about 3800m/s out. Arguably it's easier to land on the surface of Mars thanks to aerobraking, so I'll give you that. Either way getting a payload into LEO is the biggest step. Asparagus rockets never.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 02:38:27 2018 No.10251148 File: 31 KB, 429x253, Zeon-flag.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Mars is easy. >Magnetic field satellite at L1 >crash ice into planet >bring in ammonia from jovian moons >seed with extremophiles >sieg zeon!

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 03:47:01 2018 No.10251218

>>10250846
>>DFI
what in fucks name is DFI?
>>doesn't require new technology
your steel plant has to fit in a rocket, or be made from shitty local materials, use as little power as possible cause more power means more shit you gotta land, has to reject heat to not quite a vacuum, and extra concerns must be taken so that any waste gases produced by the process don't poison the workers/colonists (can't vent air in). Oh and that's after you have presumably seperated iron oxide from martian dirt, which you presumably have moved around. As of right now in all of human history, we have mined less than a ton of material on other bodies in the solar system. The most 'construction' work we have ever done on another body consist of putting out boxes with light assembly work. There's a lot of basic stuff we need to figure out before we can even consider building a steel plant on Mars.
As far as making steel on Mars, well there are better ways to do it than an electric arc furnace. Molten oxide electrolysis let's you reduce iron by directly electrolyzing molten regolith.
>>10251148
>>moving literally ocean scale quantities of ammonia and ice over astronomical distances is easy
>>10249414
>>Von Neumann machines don't align with pressures to develop on earth
why not? A group at MIT has the explicit goal of making self-replicating machines.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 06:43:10 2018 No.10251425

>>10251115
>Original calculations by /u/CuriousMetaphor
We are not even in grey literature at this point.

>>10251218
>why not? A group at MIT has the explicit goal of making self-replicating machines.
A university has a group for it you say? Well that changes everything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 07:04:25 2018 No.10251442 >>10251147 Making the payload is the biggest step. US has plenty of LEO launch capacity per year and more coming soon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 07:06:18 2018 No.10251444 >>10251148 >crash ice on a planet with shitloads of ice already >bringing ammonia instead of making it from nitrogen and hydrogen wat

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 07:26:38 2018 No.10251469
File: 1.22 MB, 1280x745, Haul Truck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10251218
>use as little power as possible cause more power means more shit you gotta land
Actually no, given the other option is shipping the entire colony with no ISRU, I can use almost all the power generation of a complete colony and still represent a huge net saving. After all you're shipping that amount of power generation in either model
>steel plant has to fit in a rocket
Again the alternative is shipping an entire colony. Compared to the amount of structural material otherwise needed, the mill is nothing
>extra concerns must be taken so that any waste gases produced by the process
We already do this to varying extents depending on your process
>Oh and that's after you have presumably seperated iron oxide from martian dirt, which you presumably have moved around.
With the mass savings I could send 115 haul trucks. And drivers. And food to feed those drivers for 5 years. Every year.
>we have mined less than a ton of material on other bodies
But we have mined a bit more here. Its not an arcane process. The planets are not that geologically dissimilar
>The most 'construction' work we have ever done on another body consist of putting out boxes with light assembly work.
Again this is in comparison to shipping an entire colony in. Both are going to require construction.
>better ways to do it than an electric arc furnace. Molten oxide electrolysis
EAFs were the example because they're already mature, they can be used with a variety of materials, they're scalable and most importantly I had stats on hand and experience with how they scale. MOE is definitely promising but the point is we don't have to wait for it. We have technology to do the job now.
MOE has its own problems - like being way more energy expensive than other methods, but advantages in its relative simplicity, mass efficiency and feedstock requirements. If MOE delivers on everything and we have enough power, great, it just proves my point that you don't need big populations for ISRU all the better

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 08:19:24 2018 No.10251537

>>10251469
>With the mass savings I could send 115 haul trucks. And drivers. And food to feed those drivers for 5 years. Every year.
Oh yeah, I totally firgot this is a current thing that gets done, no tech innovation. It'll be real straightforward to use ICEs too as, as we all know, combustion doesn't require tonnes of life giving and fuel giving oxygen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 08:38:08 2018 No.10251564 >>10251537 Your keen mind might also notice that you generally don't need 115 Haul trucks, let alone a new set of 115 every year for a single colony.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 08:40:02 2018 No.10251567 >>10251564 In other words you're pulling "I was only pretending to be retarded". Great dude.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 08:43:50 2018 No.10251573

>>10251567
In other words its an indicative example of the scale of the mass savings.
Do you also chuck a hissy fit when they use the Empire State Building as a comparative measure of the size of something?
>REEEE TO MEASURE SOMETHING WITH IT YOU'D NEED TO MOVE ONE TO THE OTHER ITS JUST NOT PRACTICAL!

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 08:50:43 2018 No.10251582

>>10251573
Let's summarize the back and forth around this thus far:
>you could make steel on Mars with no new technology!
What about air quality? How are you even going to move the materials?
>I could send 115 haul trucks and everything you'd need
That isn't going to work and is retarded.
>It was a metaphor!

Again, great dude.

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 09:23:43 2018 No.10251629

>>10251582
Its not a metaphor, you idiot. Its at most an analogy.
But sure, I guess you can't be trusted to extrapolate from something that was obviously an example, so I'll explain. If I COULD send 115 haul trucks every year with the mass savings, but I obviously don't NEED 115 that means I have a lot room for something ELSE instead. And quite a lot of something else. For example I have an entire city's worth of power generation at my disposal and sections of Mars' immediate surface are equivalent to low grade iron ore. Off the top of my head and some light googling a Bagger 293 weighs 14,200 tonnes and only consumes ~17MW. Or I could use the Methane generation I've already brought to produce rocket fuel in situ. Or I could use an ARGE electric haul truck. But rather than go into that, i trusted that I could leave it to your imagination because otherwise I'm going to have to plan out an entire Martian colony down to sourcing the bolts that hold the toilet seat on just to demonstrate the basic feasiblity of ISRU in space travel to some autist on a macedonian parquetry forum.
Now, heres a video for you to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZTSGyIsLzQ
Be sure to head over there and complain that the Saturn 5 didn't actually produce elephants as an exhaust product!

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 21:55:37 2018 No.10253327 >>10251629 You sure showed that troll how much you don't care by writing an essay about it

Anonymous Sat Dec 29 22:31:31 2018 No.10253400
File: 171 KB, 650x366, go-rocket-img_Image_18-32-20,08.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10253327
Keep trying anon, you can't prove him wrong or can't defend your stance so you resort to insults. Weak.
>>10251046
That doesn't really answer my question though - it might cost the same per launch but these are reusable space craft.
It might be the same number of launches per unit mass but not per unit time. That's 300 days of wear on your space craft compared to 3 days. Or the same as 100x3 days that brought you in 100x the money.
If they're launch limited and not operational time limited, the plan is still to have many many launches per rocket. Getting to that number earlier means its easier to extract max value from your rockets.
Earlier means more money, means more likely to achieve the max number before they're outdated or an age limited part fails or before the company fails. In the case of the BFR specifically (if it does happen) it means more launches amortizing your investment before you have competition in the same class.
Am I missing something anon?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 23:03:14 2018 No.10253480 >>10253400 I just thought it was funny and wanted to bump, that one retard got thoroughly btfo It's actually futile to btfo retards, because, like manlets, they never learn

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 23:03:36 2018 No.10253482 >>10251444 Mars needs more co2 and h20 ice than available on planet. Needs more nitrogen too. To serve as a buffer gas and facilitate nitrogen cycle.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 23:22:44 2018 No.10253519 >>10253482 Mars has more water than Venus and a smaller surface area. Wouldn't that apply to both then?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 29 23:45:24 2018 No.10253554 >>10238128 Wow anon, this is really cool! Now make it do the trick that gives it an economy that can support it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 01:13:14 2018 No.10253716

>>10253400
>That doesn't really answer my question though - it might cost the same per launch but these are reusable space craft.
I'm just going to point out that the same cost thing is bullshit, some redditor pulled some numbers they liked out of their anus. There hasn't been any citation that shows they "cost the same" at all, and if you understand anything about... not even orbital mechanics, just anything around this you'd know it's bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 01:14:19 2018 No.10253718 >>10253554 They don't need to be economically viable silly, just stick some ISRU in there and it's fine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 01:35:42 2018 No.10253756 >>10251425 If it said some random guy's name instead of some reddit name, would it really change things?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 01:37:12 2018 No.10253758 >>10253756 Google "gray literature", you clearly (or hopefully) haven't been to college/university.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 01:38:15 2018 No.10253763 >>10253758 Are you feeling okay?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 01:41:03 2018 No.10253766 >>10253763 ??? Are you trying to say you're trolling?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 01:44:26 2018 No.10253769 >>10253766 I'm trying to say you sound like you had a bad day and are trying to take it out on other people. Do you need a hug, anon?

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 02:12:17 2018 No.10253814

>>10253769
Oh, no. Don't take it personally, citing things can seem complicated to the uninitiated,and maybe it can seem like any source is equally valid, it just isn't. University education should drill that into you, but not always.

There's a citation request above, and the response was some guy from the internet's numbers in a pretty graph. It's not a source in any meaningful sense, like a comment above is right it doesn't even qualify as grey literature which you may have a reasonable expectation to be accurate/true, it's ... brown literature? Trash literature? Dunno. I don't know where those numbers are from, what points in orbits they apply to (if there's some accuracy, have they taken best case for Mars and worst case for everything else?), even is there a contextual part to it (is it arguing we should go to Mars in the next few years rather than anywhere else?) etc etc.

I argued something similar with some people on here a couple of years ago, they were arguing using numbers from the first moon missions and comparing it to numbers you'd hopefully eventually get from the Aldrin cycler. People really want their space fantasies to come true and bend the truth to feel like it's more of a possibility, that's cool. It does mean they also disseminate a lot of bullshit that other space fantasists also pass on. You can sort of compare apples to apples on this looking at unmanned missions to different places, and IIRC it's close to twice as expensive to fly a similar payload to Mars than the moon. It's expected, you're escaping the Earth and then the Sun on top of that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 02:34:22 2018 No.10253863 >>10253718 >runs out of xenon o fuk

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 02:42:25 2018 No.10253874 >>10238128 who the fuck is the retard saying it's anywhere below 200 degrees celcius

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 02:44:52 2018 No.10253877 >>10238128 what do automated teller machines have to do with mars

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 02:58:01 2018 No.10253892

>>10253716
Or you could just check the math yourself. It's not particularly hard. Doing so for a couple of the branches, its a bit simplistic (e.g. does not take into account inclination by the look of it) but it is roughly correct. Not enough to plan a mission with but more than enough for what the comparison the anon used it for.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 03:00:06 2018 No.10253893 >>10238128 We should market this as a utopia for blacks, and then all of the commies would start investing their jew gold into space X and all the niggers could move there.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 03:02:13 2018 No.10253895 >>10253874 He's talking about floating the colony around 50km up. Otherwise it would be 90 atm not 1.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 03:07:38 2018 No.10253899 >>10253895 Oh that seems even stupider in terms of energy cost to get established then

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 03:46:19 2018 No.10253940

>>10253899
It's not active propulsion. The basic concept is that due to the density of the atmosphere, at the altitude where the pressure is 1atm and the temperature is livable, a breathable atmosphere acts as a lifting gas. So just by filling your colony with air, it'd be buoyant .

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 04:09:08 2018 No.10253950 File: 724 KB, 717x1000, 1546130588498.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10238128 If I wanted to fap to my 2d waifu outside the structure without a suit on, how quick would I need to cum and run inside to avoid permanent injury?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 06:08:41 2018 No.10254063 >>10245352 What process enables a rocket to gain propulsion from carbon monoxide?

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 06:13:57 2018 No.10254069

>>10253950
Without a space suit or without clothes at all? The first, basically as long as you can hold your breath. The second instantaneously. Sulfuric Acid concentrations at that level are as high as 100mg/m^3. On Earth Sulfuric Acid mists are considered "high exposure" at 0.3mg/m^3 and that will cause nasal, throat and lung damage, risk of blindness, etching of your teeth, severe irritation and damage in all mucus membrane etc.
I'd advise against it.
>>10254063
Same as almost any - oxidation. In this case to CO2. Its not amazing as rocket fuel, but its easy to make.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 07:00:45 2018 No.10254112 >>10254069 Who'd want to live on a planet where you're basically bubble boy 24/7?

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 07:10:18 2018 No.10254126

>>10254112
I mean, you have the city itself to wander around in shirtsleeves. Its not like you're in a spacesuit or a zorb 24/7
Oh wait sorry, I almost missed the chance to be "zany" and make a shitty joke
>Half the anons here never leave their parents' basement so not like they'd notice a difference

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 07:11:39 2018 No.10254128 >>10254126 To be fair my families too poor to have basement so I live in the attic.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 09:00:40 2018 No.10254222 >>10253892 >Or you could just check the math yourself. Cool. It's wrong.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 09:15:10 2018 No.10254239

>>10254222
>>10253892
>>10251115
>>10251046
https://www.reddit.com/r/AerospaceEngineering/comments/59bpg0/questions_about_astrodynamics_jobs/

No, we should accept any old numbers from people that barely passed through college with mediocre GPAs, and happen to WANT to work in astrodynamics. They are surely reliable and not totally wrong.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 12:31:24 2018 No.10254617
File: 5 KB, 221x250, 1545884637616.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10254222
>Or you could just check the math yourself.
>Cool. It's wrong.
Given its relatively consistent with numbers from Apollo, NASA trajectory calculator, Caltech's PMA faculty, you're wrong or you didn't do the math yourself. Either way is embarrassing. Imagine being dumber than a plebbitor.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 12:39:38 2018 No.10254636 File: 42 KB, 600x300, 20suns-600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10238136 >We should also be trying to harness the power of the sun, let's get closer to our solar benefactor. based

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 13:05:05 2018 No.10254699 >>10254636 >the guy in charge of mental health is the first to go off the deep end

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 13:09:08 2018 No.10254709 >>10254699 you've seen psychology students? all a bunch of weirdos

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 14:02:52 2018 No.10254821 >>10254617 >Given its relatively consistent with numbers from Apollo, NASA trajectory calculator, Caltech's PMA faculty Cite them sources buddy. Also >relatively consistent Uh huh.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 23:28:50 2018 No.10256056
File: 205 KB, 1656x1284, ApolloEnergyRequirementsMSC1966.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10254821
>Apollo
pic related, pg 49, Apollo Lunar Landing Mission Symposium, June 25-27, 1966
>Caltech's Physics, Math and Astronomy Division
https://web.archive.org/web/20070701211813/http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~chirata/deltav.html
>NASA trajectory calculator
https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php
>Relatively Consistent
Yes, relatively consistent. Anything as simple as a 2d dV map is going to make a lot of assumptions. How you simplify eccentricity and inclination for example will make noticeable changes and not every version will make the same assmptions but if you want something static thems the breaks. But it is still more than enough for basic comparisons, especially if you're talking about many launches spread over time and not a single launch.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:03:20 2018 No.10256140

>>10256056
If you follow up on the numbers you'll see that the Mars ones are about 1km/s too low overall. The guy used Hohmann transfer orbits for everything, and that doesn't make sense for the moon. What you posted may be where they've got their numbers for the moon from, but you'll notice that, okay, orbit to surface is about the same, and LEO to "intercept"/injection is about the same, there's a floaty little 670m/s in between. That might be them trying to do the Hohmann transfer assumption there, I dunno. It should give an overestimate anyway and it seems to have done.

There's quite a few other annoying things about the graph too, but there's no point going into everything. Try not to use KSP based graphs as evidence in the future would be my advice.

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/1ktjfi/deltav_map_of_the_solar_system/

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:05:57 2018 No.10256147 >>10256140 >"intercept"/injection Sorry, intercept is the same as insertion, not injection on the graph, brain fart there.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:13:43 2018 No.10256154

>>10251425
>>10253756
>>10253758
>>10253763
>>10253766
>>10253769
>>10253814
Hold up, I'll post the citations and videos soon, I'm phoneposting and drunk as fuck right now. It's Neil Gershenfield center for bits and atoms group. It's like mit.cba. or something

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:14:02 2018 No.10256155 >>10253940 you still have retarded energy requirements to be able to slow whatever transport craft you're using without being able to take advantage of the higher air density at the ground and having to come to a complete stop

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:15:20 2018 No.10256157 >>10256154 >and videos Ugh.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:32:57 2018 No.10256180 >>10256155 What makes you think that?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:36:30 2018 No.10256184 >>10256180 i dunno, maybe the fact that crashing into the planet would be a bad idea

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:38:43 2018 No.10256189 >>10256184 You're worried about colonies floating 50km aove the surface crashing into the ground?

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:40:29 2018 No.10256197

>>10256189
you realise the materials that get to the colony won't be landing on the surface and floating up right? You'd have to survive the landing, deal with the fucking heat, and still be subject to the same shitty acid conditions and then waste energy getting back up to fucking 50km

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:46:35 2018 No.10256208

>>10256197
>you realise the materials that get to the colony won't be landing on the surface and floating up right?
...
>Hey dudes, how are we meant to get the cargo to the colonists?
>Just throw it out of the spacecraft so it lands on the ground
>Shouldn't there be some sort of craft to drop them, maybe one that is buoyant like the colonies?
>No, that is verboten as for Venus we must do everything as if we had extreme brain damage

Do you also have trouble understanding things like why and how the military do air drops? Like they throw stuff out the plane, but not in a totally retarded way.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:50:47 2018 No.10256211 > thread so based it's bumped a week later Based

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:51:40 2018 No.10256212 >>10256208 missed my point, retard, it takes more effort to have the shit land and send it back up

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:53:50 2018 No.10256214 >>10256212 Cool, so do it in a way that is a bit more thought out. Venus wins again!

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:54:19 2018 No.10256216

>>10256140
As I said, the assumption you make when you do your calculations make a lot of difference. Caltechs being 5% lower makes sense because it assumes a low energy transfer for the Mars transfer. The Lunar branch does not, which is why the less than 1% difference between the two lunar dV is dominated by the different in the assumed dV to LEO and not by a difference elsewhere.
And using a Hohmann transfer is fine for the Moon - almost all TLIs approximate one. Yes you can cut your orbit to orbit dV down to 80 or 70% with a LET but at the cost of hugely increasing your flight time. Thats fine for a probe, but not for manned missions. Thats why that dV map closely approximates Apollo but would be terrible for something like the Japanese Hiten probe which used a WSB transfer.
Honestly its only ever going to be a rough approximation and it has limitations, but I still say its fine to use it as the other anon did. Now the argument he BUILT from it was bullshit as the anon he was trying to answer figured out, but that doesn't make the basic use case wrong.
>>10256212
I think you missed his point anon, he's saying you don't land it and send it back up. You arrest its fall at ~the target altitude. Its bouyancy, not a rocket.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:56:03 2018 No.10256219 >>10256216 getting speed down close to zero is still far more effort than slowing down for a crash landing

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 00:58:40 2018 No.10256225 >>10256219 Huh? Nothing is going to crash land in either case, and Venus is amazing for aerobraking. What are you talking about?

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 01:03:04 2018 No.10256233

>>10256216
>And using a Hohmann transfer is fine for the Moon - almost all TLIs approximate one. Yes you can cut your orbit to orbit dV down to 80 or 70% with a LET but at the cost of hugely increasing your flight time.
You've confused yourself. The issue with Hohmann transfer with the moon is that you're never outside of the influence of either body, it only works if you're going between two bodies that orbit a third body. In the case of the moon you end up with a fair overestimate of dV. This is not the same as mapping out a trajectory to approximate a Hohmann transfer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 01:15:54 2018 No.10256254 >>10256233 I'm saying that the most efficient direct transfers resemble and can be adequately modeled in this instance by Hohmann transfers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 01:16:31 2018 No.10256255 >>10256225 >venus is amazing for aerobraking not if you're trying to stop before it gets to 1 atmosphere

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 01:38:44 2018 No.10256280 >>10256255 No it still is, the relative density is great and it shows in the atmosphere. The atmosphere on Venus is denser at 70km than on Earth at 12km and unlike Earth.

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 02:22:18 2018 No.10256349

>>10256056
It would be nice if that chart also showed the relative efficiency, i.e. propellant mass divided by total mass (perhaps divided by the average of dry and full mass instead). Also re-entry does not take 0 ∆v, it just takes very little actual propellant while the rest is done by aerobraking.

But with 3 or 4 Saturn V launches now, we could have easily docked together a rocket in orbit could get men to Mars and back, but instead they did 17 Apollo missions, 6 of which were aimed towards the moon after 11 had gone there. Ignoring the technology and knowledge differences between then and now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 31 14:48:15 2018 No.10257653 File: 79 KB, 585x399, 3476432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10244349 >u cant bref atmospher so its bad place to be XD >lol u r idiot if u disagree

Anonymous Mon Dec 31 15:19:10 2018 No.10257741

>>10246531
God is feared ergo god is dangerous. Congrats you are now scared of a personal, subjective abstraction.
>>10246887
>It isn't far off.
You are beyond retarded. You probably think the start trek scenes where the computer says "10 seconds to lethal radiation dose" is realistic as well. Read a book you absolute cretin.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math