Nasa is considering a Manned Mission to Venus before Mars!

[AngelLestat]

The usage of kites to counter the relative poleward and equatorial winds on Venus sound interesting, but I'm concerned that these kites would be delicate, likely to tangle in the wind or with each other and would be impossible to untangle.

There is no chance to be entangle between them, they are separate by 2000 mts all the time, one towards left up to 700 mts, the other towards right, down to -700 mts. Also these things are very acurate in their maneuvers and I believe that never gets tangle by it self. There is a company called kitegen which is developing a carrusel shape with lots of kites all flying very high and close.

And I dont said that are not get entangle just to said.. This things are designed to not be tangle, they fall to the water and rise again, in the beach there are lots of people with kitesails and I never see any problem.

Would not simply lowering a static parachute into deeper air with lower relative wind speed be an adequate 'air anchor' without relying on complex active control. A drawstring on the chute should allow it to be expanded and collapsed for differing the amount of drag produced as well as allow it to be fully reeled back into the craft if needed.

You cant counter the pole drift with a chute, you can only brake your circulation over venus, which the days and nights would be longer.

That was my first idea 1 year back, to get energy using your propellers as generator.

But well, I understand that this venus kite case is not easy to see, sometimes is even hard for me, even when I draw the pictures and I understand the sail physsics because I had a sailboat before.

In addiction, this concept is super new, I invented

In fact, I realize that as we increase speed, you need to increase the starboard and larboard angle to harvester the new aparent winds due your speed.

With winds of 7 m/s in the altitude gradient, then you can achieve 6 times that speed. Of course you will need to compress the pressure inside the blimp due the lower pressure in the surface by bernully effect.

I find that you might be able to flight an airplane without engines active just using the kites (in this case wing solid kites, but in the same configuration) because you achieve 150 to 200 kmh.

This effect not only work to counter by a lot the pole drift, it also works to generate electrical power with your propellers. But that is too much information by now.. Let me explain the basic..

Sail basic principles:

Sails are very similar to wings, you get propulsion by drag and by lift (Bernoulli effect).

The keel of the sailboat is key to counter the drift due all the wind directions less from behind. That is why I chose to use 2 kites, because with only one kite it would have just a 10 or 20 % of efficiency, and you can not use the blimp fins, they need to be huge to counter drift, in this case keels works on water so is not needed to be so big. In our case, we have 2 kites, one counters the drift than the other, that is what makes this so powerful.

A sailboat can achieve speeds more faster than the winds speeds. This is due the apparent wind. The maximun speed it will depend on the drag and the lower angle that can achieve traveling upwind. Mostly all sailboats has 35 degres, but special sailboats achieve 20 degress and even 10 degress with ice boats. 10 degress means that you can achieve 6 times the wind speed.

Some of them is called it "SAIL ROCKET".

Something that I dint notice before, is that it has certain resemble with my 2 kites configuration:

This is how this sail rocket works:

If you see careful, the keel and sail angle, is the same that my 2 kites. But in my case, the second kite produce also propulsion without drag and zero drift.

Also in the case of kites, they are not delicates, a 40m2 kite can produce 1 MW.

Here a video that show also speed with kites, insane guy at 5:12

http://youtu.be/u_9wq7lDWvk?t=4m24s

Returning to the venus sailing case:

As you see, we can explain sail vehicles in earth with 2d vectors (mostly).

But in venus we need to do the same with 3d vectors and 2 different wind direction depending altitude.

So each travel direction that I think off, it takes me several minutes to understand what is the best position for both kites.

Because is not enoght to just take a look at the wind direction, you need to take a look to the apparent wind once you gain speed. So new possibilities arise due the change of winds.

Controling the height, both angles and pattern of each kite, you can go in almost any direction. Even up and down until certain height (but we also lose wind speed gradient if we move away 50km)

Tomorrow I will make 3D pictures of the kite configuration and the forces involve. So it will be easy to understand.

The low density of H2/O2 propellent makes rockets very puffy and increases atmospheric drag, on Earth for launching from the ground they often end up being no better then hydrocarbon rockets. Add in the extreme cooling requirements for the Hydrogen which we basically can't even do on Earth (the hydrogen is allowed to boil inside the rocket on the pad) and I think that propellent choice is out. The traditional Methane/LoX combo from Mars would just optimal for Venus as well. As ISPP is considered a must have for human landings on Mars I think it is perfectly valid to incorporate the same technology on Venus.

There is already graphene oxide covers that we may use in case is needed. They block 100% any hydrogen molecule. Right now is still in testing, but in 5 years will be ready a good cost.

But I am agree. The Met/Lox seems a lot much simple.

can we merge the "airbreak" and the Acid Bucket into a single application? Or is there enviromental or multitasking issues with that idea?

Given the energy we have available, what kind of catalists and reactions would we need to create methane+LoX out of sulpheric acid and Co2?

Someone can calculate the amount of hydrogen needed to made Met/lox?

To see if worth to extract the hydrogen in venus, or if can be carry from earth.

Their might be some conflict in which altitude is optimal for each device though, the maximum acidity level for the collector is unlikely to be the ideal location for a parachute, the chute is going to need to be very acid proof if it lives at that altitude. Still that seems better then trying to have two separate things dangling under the blimp, the inevitable tangle is just so obvious.

Only one is under the blimp, the other is full of hydrogen so never will go down at least you recover it. The acid is not a big issue, not sure if the kite materials is already acid proff. But in case is not, then you can protect them with any acid cover.

If you see the acid test that NASA did for this mission, was not to see if the covers succumb to acids. It was to see if the covers with the time change color which may reduce the solar panels efficiency.

Thats all.

The Acid solution naturally decays back into water vapor and Sulfur-Trioxide when it's heated in the lower atmosphere to 300C, perhaps this is all that needs to be done. I think I also read somewhere that CO might do the job, would steal an O atom leaving sulfur dioxide and water, can anyone else confirm?

check the CO case, I guess I read something similar long time ago. But I dont remember.

Edited January 14, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Borklund]

So I enter to just talk about this? It seems very selfish. Besides the few other forums related to space or physsics that I know, have almost the same average of Professional, Engineers and Physicists than KSP.

Yeah, no. My impression is that there are a lot of people on here who believe they know more than they really do and/or who get their information mainly from wikipedia or cooky websites.

Someone can calculate the amount of hydrogen needed to made Met/lox?

To see if worth to extract the hydrogen in venus, or if can be carry from earth.

You don't need to bring hydrogen to Mars. You can get hydrogen from electrolyzing water, which you are (ideally) already making to sustain humans and plants.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Borklund

[mjl1966]

You can't plant a flag on Venus. Debate over.

[Sean Mirrsen]

You can't plant a flag on Venus. Debate over.

Yes you can. You can literally drop a weighted flag down and it will spear itself into the ground, and you can watch as it does so with a probe. The only places you can't plant a flag on are places where there isn't a solid enough surface to "plant" something into. And even then you can have banner-balloons.

[Newt]

Regardless, you should not go somewhere just to plant a flag, have you ever heard of national prestige?

[AngelLestat]

but we are not conquering the land, just the atmosphere.. so you need place a flag there. 1m3 of nitrogen+oxygen ballon painted with a beacon would be enoght.

Then if you wanna see it again, you need to go and find it here:

Venus toilet.

Edited January 22, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Impaler]

I've altually been doing some thinking about what WOULD be necessary to get a 'flag and footprints' event on the Venus surface. I'm looking at half hour 2 man landing, grab rocks and go. Rocketry is not remotely feasible, but I think something more like a deep-sea dive via cable is conceivable all though HIGHLY challenging.

First off you start with an entire second dirigible comparable in size to the HAVOC one, this one carries only a massive spool of cable, a 'cage' attached to the cable and an anchor on a short cable under the cage with winch. The cage has room for two massive rigid-body suits capable of withstanding the Venus pressure, the suits will need to be super insulated, likely by utilizing a double layer thermos type structure as well as active cooling, the suit will be impossible to move by human muscle power so it will be hydraulically powered by a kind of exoskeleton. Hydraulic fluid and active coolant (possibly the same fluid) will be supplied by a umbilical line no more then 100 m long connected to a large compressor/cooler unit in the cage. The compressor will be powered electrically by electrical lines embedded in the cable up to the dirigible.

This is ofcourse a crazy inefficient arrangement for actual mobility and practical exploration, it would be vastly easier to just lower a 'submarine/tank' vehicle that the crew never leaves on the cable, but then no footprints, and a flag stuck in the ground by a robot arm is hardly very glorious. So in the interests of pure melodrama and the realization that Venus surface is a location we will go to initially only FOR such drama I'm proposing suits at the end of the cable.

Operationally the scenario would involve the manned HAVOC blimp mooring in mid-air with the decent equipped blimp, the decent blimp with be forward with respect to the wind to create a in-line configuration that minimizes wind drag. This is necessary because once the whole cage/cable/blimp must come to zero velocity with the Venus surface and any thing NOT attached to that line and also at zero velocity is going to be hundreds of miles down range by the time the sortie is completed and separating the crew from their return rocket is a bad idea even if it is temporary.

The crew will transfer to the decent blimp by zip-line while wearing oxygen masks, enter the suits by rear hatches and begin being lowered on the cable. As the cable descends into lower denser and slower winds it will act as a air-anchor and begin to be pulled at an angle from the blimp while also slowing the blimp. This will be accentuated by use of a parachute or para-foil deployed from the cage. By the time the cage is just above the Venus surface it will be moving only a few m/s relative to surface and the Blimp far above will be in nearly full 100 m/s winds which will be putting huge tension on the cable (far in excess of the weight of the cage), this force will want to bring the blimp down so it may be necessary for large air-foils on the blimps to generate more lift, much like a kite. Contact with the surface is made by lowering the anchor from the cage and hooking it to the Venus surface, then the cage is winched down onto the anchor and pinions are drilled into the surface to fully secure everything.

The cable nessary to perform this mission looks to be the largest engineering challenge. Zylon plastic is our highest specific strength material and could easily handle the total distance without breaking under it's own or the cables weight, but it can only do some of the upper portion of the cable because it losses too much strength above ~200C. A series of materials with progressively higher temperature tolerances would be needed, with some kind of metal alloy like titanium or steal being used at the lowest portion, carbon fiber might be good for the middle section. The suits may need to be made of Inconel, a nickel based super alloy that can take the full heat of Venus surface and not lose a bit of strength.

[Dispatcher]

Actually a "challenge" to land and return from Venus' surface is part of the subject of "Venus" by Ben Bova. Its a good read.

[AngelLestat]

yeah, I am so done with the "ground-surface" 2D way of thinking.

To understand my posture better:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108772-Living-at-other-worlds-A-paradigm-shift

I dont see any point to visit venus ground with a manned mission, when is so easy to use tele commanded robots from the atmosphere.

In any case, I will help you to imagine the best way to do it.

You need the floating city and 2 extra floating vehicles.

None is attached to the other one. You can not do that, the difference in speed at different altitudes is too high, this would produce huge dynamic pressure over the two vehicles.

So how is done?

First, a variable bouyancy airship depart from the cloud city, this vehicle is capable to float between 50 km to 35 km, teflon cover.

Then this vehicle dock with a second variable bouyancy airship (or we can call it almost a submarine), able to float between 35 km to ground.

At that height it does not really need acid protection, but in case it needed, can use tantalum.. It has perfect sulfuric cover and melting point is 3000 celcius. Is not expensive either.

So compressing and expanding gases, these two vehicles can rise and down any number of times.

We need 2 first airships operating at 50 to 35km, because if we use just one, we need to wait at least 4 days until we can dock again, with humans inside we would need to expend a lot of energy to keep that heat outside.

A little remainded: wind speeds goes from 100 m/s at 50 km, to 3m/s on the ground. Of course those 3m/s at 92 atm carry a lot of energy. It would not be possible to be stand on the ground without fall due the wind.

[Impaler]

My solution was aimed at a Venus which is still just barely being visited by humans. If permanent habitation aka cities exist then that substantially alters the analysis and your multiple balloon rendezvous scenario becomes much more feasible.

I still do not see how one could avoid mooring the vehicles together at some point. If the lower decent blimp is restricted to staying within it's allotted height bands then they will inevitably be swept downwind of the city when not in use and can't be reused until they complete one whole revolution more then city per the relative ground speed difference between them and the city. It seems that it has to get moored to the city by cable even if it is many km below the city and acting like an anchor.

The key factors in making this scenario work are the amount of vertical range each balloon can accommodate as well as giving it horizontal cross range so it can accommodate for being blown downwind when at low altitude. Blimp like balloons need to keep their shape and inflation and are going to have less vertical range, but weather balloons can expand or contract radically for huge vertical range, but they don't have much ability to push themselves around horizontally.

Crew transfer may also be ticky at the 35km height, that's not a survivable temperature at that height?

Edited January 29, 2015 by Impaler

[Chowderpat]

I think that this mission is a good idea, but what would the mission succeed? I mean if you're not going to land or do anything, what are we going to study? The air?

[Kerbart]

The best way to get boots on the ground on Venus is to stick them to a robot lander.

[Nibb31]

I've altually been doing some thinking about what WOULD be necessary to get a 'flag and footprints' event on the Venus surface. I'm looking at half hour 2 man landing, grab rocks and go.

What would be the point of that? If you want rocks, a robot could get them with much less effort.

[Scotius]

I agree. In foreseeable future we can reasonably plan to explore upper layers of Venus atmosphere. Surface is, and will be for a long time accessible only to heavy-duty robotic probes. And building a probe able to withstand heat and pressure for days and months will be difficult and expensive - i reckon we could send couple of martian missions or an Outer Planets mission for the same money, but with bigger science gain.

[Technical Ben]

The flag would melt after a few seconds... right?

Why not just plan to land on the sun?

[AngelLestat]

I think that this mission is a good idea, but what would the mission succeed? I mean if you're not going to land or do anything, what are we going to study? The air?

not land is not equal to do anything.

Ground surface is not always the layer more valuable of each planet or satellite. What is the point to land in europa? The important layer there is the sea under the ice.

In venus the important layer is at 50km height. Is the place more similar to earth in the whole solar system.

There is the key to improve all our climate models and being able to predict with accuracy the global warming and the best way to countered. Just with that it has more use that any other planet can give us.

But Venus is also more easy than mars (this is mention for the same NASA) and it has several and important advantages over mars to become our second home.

I agree. In foreseeable future we can reasonably plan to explore upper layers of Venus atmosphere. Surface is, and will be for a long time accessible only to heavy-duty robotic probes. And building a probe able to withstand heat and pressure for days and months will be difficult and expensive - i reckon we could send couple of martian missions or an Outer Planets mission for the same money, but with bigger science gain.

You can explore with probes the surface of venus very easy. First land is not a problem.. you can land there even without parachutes.. Missions to venus always had like 80% of sucess instead of 50% of mars.

There are already many probes designs that are small and can last a week exploring the surface. There is also electronics develope in gleem research center which can stand venus temperatures by months.

But as I said.. the most important layer on venus is at 50km, not in its surface.

[Scotius]

OK, let's say you have your habitats floating 50 kilometers above the surface - then what? You won't be able to go outside without protective gear because of all that acid in the air. Everything you need must be brought from Earth, because getting resources from the pressure cooker below you will be a herculean task for a loooong time. Similiarities to Earth won't count because you will not be able to build proper colonies where people would want to live. I can see a floating science base drifting above the surface and dropping probes in more interesting regions - but nothing more.

[Kibble]

Everything you need must be brought from Earth, because getting resources from the pressure cooker below you will be a herculean task for a loooong time.

You can extract trace resources from the atmosphere.

[Bill Phil]

You can extract trace resources from the atmosphere.

With what equipment? It's at a low TRL, correct? A Mars mission may not need ISRU at all.

[Commander Jebidiah]

Now i wonder who has done this in KSP or who will. Maybe i will.

[magnemoe]

I agree. In foreseeable future we can reasonably plan to explore upper layers of Venus atmosphere. Surface is, and will be for a long time accessible only to heavy-duty robotic probes. And building a probe able to withstand heat and pressure for days and months will be difficult and expensive - i reckon we could send couple of martian missions or an Outer Planets mission for the same money, but with bigger science gain.

Yes, an probe airship to Venus to do an more detail scan of it is an sensible mission, you bring disposable surface probes, however its hardly any need for humans here.

Even if possible it would increase the cost multiple order of magnitudes.

It makes manned Mars and asteroid missions seems simple and here humans are useful, outside of planting the flag you want humans as they are very agile compared to robots and its no communication delay, first is useless in the airship cabin, second is of limited use.

- - - Updated - - -

Now i wonder who has done this in KSP or who will. Maybe i will.

Done airship missions to Eve and Jool, landed Jeb on the surface of Jool back in 0.183 then it had an surface, he was unable to plant the flag so I submitted an bug report, next update and Jool had no surface. Used kas winces to get him back.

Airships is definitely the way to get around on Eve.

One crazy guy did an manned venus mission in RSS, this was in an standard rocket.

[Commander Jebidiah]

Yeah ive seen that video.

[Xannari Ferrows]

This looks absolutely amazing, in theory. Real life involves plenty more risks than simulations, but I still can't wait to see what they do with it.

[Naten]

NASA, we are taking notes.

manned Eve landing with Hooligan Labs Airship Parts time

This really seemed crazy to me, because of the atmosphere, but that's an excellent idea to stay above the thicker part the whole time!

But that's a lot of totally-real-not-propaganda SLS stuff to work on. I mean, big launch, with a launcher that we still need to finish. We should focus on launchers first, rather than coming up with mission ideas. And then, we can SPAAACE!

[RedPine]

I'd like to clear up a misconception about my field, meteorology (the real kind that airplanes use, not the weather channel or scientists).

/EDIT

The KSP community is great, and even those I sometimes disagree with on some issues are reasonably well informed and use the soundest arguments and evidence they have available, which are often thought provoking and fascinating.

The remainder of this post is a rant. Feel free to agree, disagree, or ignore. Please PM me instead of necroing a post that would be a necro if it weren't linked to a list of best threads of 2015.

/END EDIT

I have yet to meet a single coworker who believes in global warming. The only global warming advocates that I have met, that are also meteorologists, have been university students (who must pass a pro global warming class) and university professors (who literally receive millions of dollars from the federal government to research global warming.) This is my personal experience and might not be representative of my field but... look, my job revolves around pattern recognition using images, graphs, and text. If it were easy to prove global warming did or didn't exist using scientific evidence, the debate would have ended long ago.

Also, meteorologists don't understand clouds. I'm not joking, we really don't. It's easier to get to the bottom of the ocean and come back alive than it is to fly into the center of a supercell updraft or tornado and come back alive. It's easier to live underneath the ocean for six months than it is to stay airborne six months. It's easier to measure temperature 10 feet below the water than it is to measure temperatures 10 feet above the ground. It's easier to understand the currents in a liquid than it is to understand the wind in a gas. We found bacteria in water long before we even suspected bacteria could be in clouds.

When mass media, politicians, and forum readers like you guys claim that we meteorologists "know" that global warming is happening, I feel a little offended. Nobody asked me about my opinion, instead they pay university researchers millions of dollars to study global warming, ask those researchers for their opinion on global warming, and then stop funding those researchers if they deny global warming.

You guys claiming to know that meteorologists like me believe in global warming is like you guys claiming to know what NASA scientists believe in sending people to other planets. The world of space travel is far more complicated than layman like us understand, especially since the experts don't fully understand the complicated issues either.

PS I would only colonize another planet if it meant I could do interplanetary weather forecasting. Assuming they'd let 80 year old astronauts in (once I get that old), I'd even be willing to go on a one way suicide mission to study extraterrestial weather.

Edited April 25, 2015 by RedPine