Piscator

By the time we're able to move around asteroids routinely, probably not all that much. I think, it's save to assume that engineering will have progressed to a point by then, at which there will be little noticeable difference between living in artificial habitats and living under the open sky. It would probably be easier, cheaper and faster to cover Moon or Mars with bubble domes from pole to pole than terraforming Venus in the described manner. (Assuming that blasting away parts of the atmosphere is a feasible strategy in the first place.) But since this is supposed to be fun; why not avoid the destabilizing effect on Earth's orbit of moving Venus outwards, by putting both bodies in orbit around each other directly? At the right distance, the tidal effects shouldn't be worse than the moon's (which would have been smacked into Venus at high speeds earlier to change its orbit and speed up its rotation to convenient levels ^^).

Just for curiosity's sake, could someone please double-check the original claim? My own calculations arrive at little under a week of perceived flight time for the given speed and distance (you would have to fly at about 0.9999999999c to make it in 5 hours). Am I doing it wrong or aren't the figures in the OP supposed to be a 100% accurate?

Actually, it is quite literally an atmosphere, even though a very thin and non-permanent one. But that's just semantic nitpicking. I agree with what you wrote. Comets seem like quite an obvious thing to add, since a large part of the necessary mechanics already seems to be in place and the benefits would be considerable (new challenges; re-enacting real-life missions; gathering science in new, interesting ways; long-term playability due to randomness). It seems too good to miss.