Venus vs. Mars colonization

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Part of this answer is included in this post that you also reply:
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/130009-what-would-a-mars-colony-have-to-offer-in-the-way-of-goods-and-services/&do=findComment&comment=2370208

About long term.. is not needed, because for your time would be always steps in which you will want to participate or collaborate.
Mars exploration would be carry on with or without long term plans, these are only steps that can be taken after that.. 
Look Elon Musk, he is interesting in all those plans even if there is nothing builded yet.
Also not be so sure that these things happen so slowly, dubai was created in few years. Yeah. there is a huge distance with mars.. but if you have an reusable rocket which only cost is refuel plus the technology growth in the next years.. everything is changing faster than before. 

Not sure why so many find 450c and 90 bar so hard to overcome (no acid down there) 
Restaurant ovens deal with that temperature all the time, we have materials that can resist 2000c, 3000c or even more without compromise its material integrity. 
We have already electric motors that can operate without problem at 550c, we have electronics that operate at 350c, and new electronics in the way that would overcome that. 
Pressure is only a problem when you have a pressure differential (not sure why a teleoperated vehicles should have different pressure inside), and even if it has, we build in 1960 a manned submarine who resist 12 times venus pressure.
One of the veneras probes drill venus surface.. now we can drill up to 12000 m in earth where pressures and temperatures are higher than venus.
We can use explosives too.  Or mine the top of the mountains in venus (100 c less), or inflate some ballons with no external energy to rise our vehicles until they cool down for them go back just using working fluids and valves.

We see many venus characteristics as something wrong because they are different than earth.  But many of those characteristics can be of great help to manufacture some products at lower cost than earth.

 

Manufacturing costs aren't the only issue. You also have to account for transportation costs.

[kunok]

13 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

If you have an automated space station getting water and metals from the Asteroid belt, and a SSTO fleet going to and from the station to Venus, then kinda.

The point is using the H₂SO₄ of the atmosphere to get water, and avoid using metals at all

[AngelLestat]

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

yes, it would make both deep ocean and deep space look hospitable. For one thing anything will overheat in hours yes you could bring liquid gass for cooling but this is only practical for sensors or very short term stuff not anything like mining. 

Ok, now explain me in what I am wrong with my solution to this same question in the post above yours.
Seriously guys.. if you are going to keep saying that venus surface can not be exploited, then try to explain what thing is wrong from my proposals to deal with that issue?

4 hours ago, Albert VDS said:

So is a Venus colony ever going to be self sustaining?

We are working on that on the venus cloud thread, I guess we are in good direction.  We need somebody with better understanding on chemistry to know an estimative of the energy required for some process.
What about mars?  I saw many votes saying that is better.. but only few try to come out with some solutions.

4 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Manufacturing costs aren't the only issue. You also have to account for transportation costs.

transportation cost is only for the things you want to export or import (which is reduced from the export).
But as I explain in the mars goods thread, there is many ways how a city can by self sustained with different incomes that are not related with raw materials or different exports.

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, Spaceception said:

If you have an automated space station getting water and metals from the Asteroid belt, and a SSTO fleet going to and from the station to Venus, then kinda.

Which is really cheating, so no.

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Ok, now explain me in what I am wrong with my solution to this same question in the post above yours.
Seriously guys.. if you are going to keep saying that venus surface can not be exploited, then try to explain what thing is wrong from my proposals to deal with that issue?

We are working on that on the venus cloud thread, I guess we are in good direction.  We need somebody with better understanding on chemistry to know an estimative of the energy required for some process.
What about mars?  I saw many votes saying that is better.. but only few try to come out with some solutions.

transportation cost is only for the things you want to export or import (which is reduced from the export).
But as I explain in the mars goods thread, there is many ways how a city can by self sustained with different incomes that are not related with raw materials or different exports.

You also have to account for Labour costs, which are most of what a rocket's cost is, not the materials.You would need to have enough made to validate mass production and machines.

[Albert VDS]

4 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

We are working on that on the venus cloud thread, I guess we are in good direction.  We need somebody with better understanding on chemistry to know an estimative of the energy required for some process.
What about mars?  I saw many votes saying that is better.. but only few try to come out with some solutions.

It's because they solutions are very obvious and can be done with proven hardware.
A colony on Mars only needs the right tools to be self sustaining.

[AngelLestat]

5 hours ago, fredinno said:

You also have to account for Labour costs, which are most of what a rocket's cost is, not the materials.You would need to have enough made to validate mass production and machines.

For the first missions yeah, but after 20 years just following our current progress, the cost would not be much higher than the fuel.  Also.. many other technologies will make their debut in that time frame.

3 hours ago, Albert VDS said:

It's because they solutions are very obvious and can be done with proven hardware.
A colony on Mars only needs the right tools to be self sustaining.

airship technology is pretty obvious from 1911, but only when you try to do the math of how to reach self sustain is when you realize the real problems that you might have..
So if it is so obvious, make the plan with others. Let´s make a review. I imagine you will find 10x more info about this than venus.. so it should be easier.
Voting does not prove nothing. 

[Spaceception]

16 hours ago, kunok said:

9 hours ago, fredinno said:

Which is really cheating, so no.

 

It is, but the entire purpose of being a "Self sustainable" colony is to not have to rely on the Earth for resources. So yes, it's cheating:D But if we really want a "perfect" self sustaining civilization on Venus, we'll need to partially Terraform if so we can mine the surface, 3-D printing the atmosphere into stuff will be useful, but it's  not ideal.

[fredinno]

13 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

19 hours ago, fredinno said:

 

For the first missions yeah, but after 20 years just following our current progress, the cost would not be much higher than the fuel.  Also.. many other technologies will make their debut in that time frame

The Shuttle lasted 30 years, and was modified throughout, but it still failed to get anywhere close to "just fuel" for even the Orbiter and engines.

Granted, a SpaceX-style approach is a lot more flexible, but it would still take much longer than 20 years of continuous research and modifications.

 

[AngelLestat]

12 hours ago, Spaceception said:

So yes, it's cheating:D But if we really want a "perfect" self sustaining civilization on Venus, we'll need to partially Terraform if so we can mine the surface, 3-D printing the atmosphere into stuff will be useful, but it's  not ideal.

Trolling?       Is really hard to believe that someone still think that venus surface is out of the question for a medium city or big city.

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

The Shuttle lasted 30 years, and was modified throughout, but it still failed to get anywhere close to "just fuel" for even the Orbiter and engines.

Granted, a SpaceX-style approach is a lot more flexible, but it would still take much longer than 20 years of continuous research and modifications.

 

I guess spacex prove enough already to avoid any kind of comparison with NASA.  The future of space is not driven by nasa anymore, so you don't need to count the progress in decades..
Skylon will be in operation in just 7 or 9 years.

[Spaceception]

19 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Trolling?       Is really hard to believe that someone still think that venus surface is out of the question for a medium city or big city.

The atm. pressure is too high, we'll have to use very heavy and expensive equipment to setup a colony on the surface, also, what type of Spacesuits do you propose we use anyway? For surface operations/repairs/etc.

[fredinno]

7 hours ago, Spaceception said:

The atm. pressure is too high, we'll have to use very heavy and expensive equipment to setup a colony on the surface, also, what type of Spacesuits do you propose we use anyway? For surface operations/repairs/etc.

You can use robots, but it would be incredibly uneconomical to build something like that.

"really hard to believe that someone still think that venus surface is out of the question for a medium city or big city"

Kind of. Imaging how expensive a robot team to do that would be? What about power? How about cooling and pressure management?

"I guess spacex prove enough already to avoid any kind of comparison with NASA.  The future of space is not driven by nasa anymore, so you don't need to count the progress in decades..
Skylon will be in operation in just 7 or 9 years."

 Skylon.... In 7-9 years.... The chance of that happening is like reviving the Delta II production lines, or Kistler Aerospace comeing back from the dead. Really fat chance. You gave me a laugh though.

Edited January 22, 2016 by fredinno

[AngelLestat]

well, I hope to end with this surface limit myth once for all, I will try to explain each point the best I can.

Venus mining

Things to overcome:
Pressure: 90bar
Temperature: 460c
Energy source, PV is not a good option.

1-Pressure only matters if you want to keep a differential. We don't need a manned vehicle, so in practice it does not need to be strong at all, all elements can be at equal pressure, this saves money.
But just in case you need to keep a differential, lets remember that the Trieste manned submarine from 1960, achieved 11km of deep in our oceans, 1100 bar.

2-High temperature is bad for our current circuits, special electronics was designed in many parts of the world that can operate normally at 350c, other electronics are being developed for even higher temperatures.
This mean that rovers or probes designed to day can not work in venus?  No..  It means that they just need to spent a bit of energy in cooling (just the electronics). Why a bit?  Because the amount of heat you need to dissipate is related with how good is your insulation.. Very good insulation --> low heat flow, which is the heat you need to counter + electronics heat.
Venus mining machines does not need complex electronics as a rover that needs to process a lot of data and take some instant decisions by it self. These machines are the most similar to RC vehicles.
What about the other components?   -lead melts in the surface. 
Well.. let's not choose lead then..  But you can choose more than 70 materials that resist higher temperatures over 1000c, and one of the best choices would be all Carbon base materials,  with +3500c and no melting point.
What about engines?   Nasa has an electric engine that operates with no problem at 540c.

3-Energy... Ok.. this is the only thing that really bothers in case you want to design an independent probe or rover for venus, it limits how much time you can be down there.
But NASA and different agencies already have many proposals that overcome that issue for 2 months of operation in the surface. Thermoelectric power with a radioactive isotope, or fuel cells using co2 as agent for a co+o2 reaction. those are just 2 of many options.
Now.. if we already have medium habitats/cities in venus with some infrastructure.. then even with current technology all those things are much much easy to solve.
You can use microwave beam energy from the cities to the mining ground, this is not like "space base solar power at 36000km", here you just need to transmit that energy for 60km top.
Another way is with airborne wind energy, in this case you fill a much smaller volume with nitrogen, and you float your turbine at 10km with a cable attached to the ground close to your mining, at that height you find winds like earth but with 40 times the density.
You can also use geothermal if the location allow it. 

But as everybody can see..  there is absolutely no problem mining the surface. You can even put a factory down there for metals as aluminum, where you just need to rise the temperature 200c (instead 650c) to melt it and shape it.
This would save a lot of energy.. one of the advantages that the earth does not have.

Edited March 30, 2016 by AngelLestat

[fredinno]

4 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

well, I hope to end with this surface limit myth once for all, I will try to explain each point the best I can.

Venus mining

Things to overcome:
Pressure: 90bar
Temperature: 460c
Energy source, PV is not a good option.

1-Pressure only matters if you want to keep a differential. We don't need a manned vehicle, so in practice it does not need to be strong at all, all elements can be at equal pressure, this saves money.
But just in case you need to keep a differential, lets remember that the Trieste manned submarine from 1960, achieved 11km of deep in our oceans, 1100 bar.

2-High temperature is bad for our current circuits, special electronics was designed in many parts of the world that can operate normally at 350c, other electronics are being developed for even higher temperatures.
This mean that rovers or probes designed to day can not work in venus?  No..  It means that they just need to spent a bit of energy in cooling (just the electronics). Why a bit?  Because the amount of heat you need to dissipate is related with how good is your insulation.. Very good insulation --> low heat flow, which is the heat you need to counter + electronics heat.
Venus mining machines does not need complex electronics as a rover that needs to process a lot of data and take some instant decisions by it self. These machines are the most similar to RC vehicles.
Why about the other components?   -lead melts in the surface. 
Well.. let's not choose lead then..  But you can choose more than 70 materials that resist higher temperatures over 1000c, and one of the best choices would be all Carbon base materials,  with +3500c and no melting point.
What about engines?   Nasa has an electric engine that operates with no problem at 540c.

3-Energy... Ok.. this is the only thing that really bothers in case you want to design an independent probe or rover for venus, it limits how much time you can be down there.
But NASA and different agencies already have many proposals that overcome that issue for 2 months of operation in the surface. Thermoelectric power with a radioactive isotope, or fuel cells using co2 as agent for a co+o2 reaction. those are just 2 of many options.
Now.. if we already have medium habitats/cities in venus with some infrastructure.. then even with current technology all those things are much much easy to solve.
You can use microwave beam energy from the cities to the mining ground, this is not like "space base solar power at 36000km", here you just need to transmit that energy for 60km top.
Another way is with airborne wind energy, in this case you fill a much smaller volume with nitrogen, and you float your turbine at 10km with a cable attached to the ground close to your mining, at that height you find winds like earth but with 40 times the density.
You can also use geothermal if the location allow it. 

But as everybody can see..  there is absolutely no problem mining the surface. You can even put a factory down there for metals as aluminum, where you just need to rise the temperature 200c (instead 650c) to melt it and shape it.
This would save a lot of energy.. one of the advantages that the earth does not have.

The economical viability of this is like the viability of mining underneath the ice sheets of Greenland. Possible, but why? It would be better NOT to be self-sustaining, and make a trade based off selling data or useful goods out to other areas. But even then, I don't think more than a small base would be profitable here.

[Gnoyze]

Not sure if it's been stated, but health wise with relation to long term gravity exposure, a Venus colony would be better as the loss in bone mass would be minimal, whereas on mars, with it's low gravity, long term colonization would result in higher bone loss. It also takes less Delta V and provides a shorter transit too and from Venus. This is factoring in however that it has been solved on how to sustain a colony on either planet to begin with.

[Gnoyze]

As well, if you have a floating colony, the only suit you'd have to wear is an atmospheric suit to filter and protect you from the harmful elements. no bulky space suits here.

[fredinno]

36 minutes ago, Gnoyze said:

Not sure if it's been stated, but health wise with relation to long term gravity exposure, a Venus colony would be better as the loss in bone mass would be minimal, whereas on mars, with it's low gravity, long term colonization would result in higher bone loss. It also takes less Delta V and provides a shorter transit too and from Venus. This is factoring in however that it has been solved on how to sustain a colony on either planet to begin with.

Actually, a colony on Venus, even in the air would likely still need more delta V, as launching from the upper atmosphere there is like launching from Earth due to similar gravity and air pressure.

Mars might be ok for humans due to having a 33% gravity> threshold.

[Gnoyze]

13 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Actually, a colony on Venus, even in the air would likely still need more delta V, as launching from the upper atmosphere there is like launching from Earth due to similar gravity and air pressure.

Mars might be ok for humans due to having a 33% gravity> threshold.

Pretty sure you'll have less atmo to fly through. And also, I'm looking at the medical aspect of long term colonization. And some delta V can be gotten by using an airship to lift the rocket higher in the atmo from either earth or venus, theoretically. It works in Kerbal Space Program

[Motokid600]

2 hours ago, Gnoyze said:

Pretty sure you'll have less atmo to fly through. And also, I'm looking at the medical aspect of long term colonization. And some delta V can be gotten by using an airship to lift the rocket higher in the atmo from either earth or venus, theoretically. It works in Kerbal Space Program

It works in KSP because the planet's are so small. 1:1 scale Dv savings from launching at the top of the atmosphere are petty. 90% if not more is thrusting horizontal to gain orbital velocity. Even at the top of the atmosphere whether it'd be Venus or Earth a rocket with a decent TWR would still need to launch vertical and gain significant vertical velocity as well. A gravity turn still needs to be performed less the rocket will fall back into the air before orbital velocity is achieved.

You can maybe perform a shallower gravity turn. That's it. Dv savings would be very little. Getting off Mars would still be cheaper.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Motokid600

[sevenperforce]

On discussion of Venus...

I don't know if this would be viable or not, but could you use a low-temperature reservoir as an energy source on a robotic Venusian lander? A tank of slush hydrogen could be used as a heat sink, expanding through a manifold heated by ambient temperature in order to perform work. Proper design would also allow it to cool sensitive components, and once the mission was completed, the remaining liquid hydrogen could inflate a balloon to return to the clouds. 

[Bill Phil]

6 hours ago, Gnoyze said:

As well, if you have a floating colony, the only suit you'd have to wear is an atmospheric suit to filter and protect you from the harmful elements. no bulky space suits here.

Even on Mars, mechanical pressure suits can be used. Much less bulky than your friendly neighborhood space suit. They're in development, but not with a large budget....

7 hours ago, Gnoyze said:

Not sure if it's been stated, but health wise with relation to long term gravity exposure, a Venus colony would be better as the loss in bone mass would be minimal, whereas on mars, with it's low gravity, long term colonization would result in higher bone loss. It also takes less Delta V and provides a shorter transit too and from Venus. This is factoring in however that it has been solved on how to sustain a colony on either planet to begin with.

Neither are really that good. Until we get more energy available, it's very costly to colonize either planet.

On January 22, 2016 at 3:22 PM, AngelLestat said:

well, I hope to end with this surface limit myth once for all, I will try to explain each point the best I can.

Venus mining

Things to overcome:
Pressure: 90bar
Temperature: 460c
Energy source, PV is not a good option.

1-Pressure only matters if you want to keep a differential. We don't need a manned vehicle, so in practice it does not need to be strong at all, all elements can be at equal pressure, this saves money.
But just in case you need to keep a differential, lets remember that the Trieste manned submarine from 1960, achieved 11km of deep in our oceans, 1100 bar.

2-High temperature is bad for our current circuits, special electronics was designed in many parts of the world that can operate normally at 350c, other electronics are being developed for even higher temperatures.
This mean that rovers or probes designed to day can not work in venus?  No..  It means that they just need to spent a bit of energy in cooling (just the electronics). Why a bit?  Because the amount of heat you need to dissipate is related with how good is your insulation.. Very good insulation --> low heat flow, which is the heat you need to counter + electronics heat.
Venus mining machines does not need complex electronics as a rover that needs to process a lot of data and take some instant decisions by it self. These machines are the most similar to RC vehicles.
Why about the other components?   -lead melts in the surface. 
Well.. let's not choose lead then..  But you can choose more than 70 materials that resist higher temperatures over 1000c, and one of the best choices would be all Carbon base materials,  with +3500c and no melting point.
What about engines?   Nasa has an electric engine that operates with no problem at 540c.

3-Energy... Ok.. this is the only thing that really bothers in case you want to design an independent probe or rover for venus, it limits how much time you can be down there.
But NASA and different agencies already have many proposals that overcome that issue for 2 months of operation in the surface. Thermoelectric power with a radioactive isotope, or fuel cells using co2 as agent for a co+o2 reaction. those are just 2 of many options.
Now.. if we already have medium habitats/cities in venus with some infrastructure.. then even with current technology all those things are much much easy to solve.
You can use microwave beam energy from the cities to the mining ground, this is not like "space base solar power at 36000km", here you just need to transmit that energy for 60km top.
Another way is with airborne wind energy, in this case you fill a much smaller volume with nitrogen, and you float your turbine at 10km with a cable attached to the ground close to your mining, at that height you find winds like earth but with 40 times the density.
You can also use geothermal if the location allow it. 

But as everybody can see..  there is absolutely no problem mining the surface. You can even put a factory down there for metals as aluminum, where you just need to rise the temperature 200c (instead 650c) to melt it and shape it.
This would save a lot of energy.. one of the advantages that the earth does not have.

You might also have to cool the outer hull... A lot of materials melt in those temperatures.

[Panel]

I don't think that hydrogen could stay cool enough long enough for a mining operation. You would need a lot of hydrogen to inflate a balloon, and using leftover cooling fluid probably wouldn't be enough. 

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

On discussion of Venus...

I don't know if this would be viable or not, but could you use a low-temperature reservoir as an energy source on a robotic Venusian lander? A tank of slush hydrogen could be used as a heat sink, expanding through a manifold heated by ambient temperature in order to perform work. Proper design would also allow it to cool sensitive components, and once the mission was completed, the remaining liquid hydrogen could inflate a balloon to return to the clouds. 

It wouldn't last long enough,and the stuff would just all boil-off before even reaching the surface.

[Gnoyze]

What about meteor showers? Wouldn't the risk be less for a venusian sky colony versus a martain surface colony? Mars has no atmosphere to disintegrate the meteorites.

[PB666]

7 hours ago, Gnoyze said:

Pretty sure you'll have less atmo to fly through. And also, I'm looking at the medical aspect of long term colonization. And some delta V can be gotten by using an airship to lift the rocket higher in the atmo from either earth or venus, theoretically. It works in Kerbal Space Program

On Mars you could give the nauts weights to increase their weight to earth magnitudes and let the work out 2 @ 20 minutes a day. That should suffice to prevent some of the health problems

[Gnoyze]

The way I see it, Mars would be more suitable for resource gathering whereas venus would prove more suitable for human colonization in the upper atmo (where temperature is more tolerable and bar pressure is close to that of earth's sea level pressure)
Both would be suitable for their respective types of factories. Albeit it may be safer to have a subteranian factory on mars due to lack of atmo and risk of meteor shower damage. Also it would be easier to mine the asteroids from mars and possibly slowly increase the planet mass (by towing asteroids to it and terraforming* the surface. Long and costly process, but this would increase the planet's gravity slowly until it is closer to earth gravity, then just pull some extra atmo from venus maybe?)

*spell check seems to thing it's not a word.

14 minutes ago, PB666 said:

On Mars you could give the nauts weights to increase their weight to earth magnitudes and let the work out 2 @ 20 minutes a day. That should suffice to prevent some of the health problems

Some, but not all. Sure, carrying more mass will help maintain muscle strength and slow down bone loss a bit, but what about the fact that gravity at a cellular level is the same?

Also, a two pound weight on mars is alot less than two pounds, but one kilogram of mass is still one kilogram on mars. Weight and mass are different.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Gnoyze
too much space to go through before reaching the surface: "...and terra-..."