AngelLestat

A colony may had benefics using oxygen and nitrogen (until certain point, the colony needs to be aerodynamic enoght to avoid end in the poles, it needs a constant speed of 2 or 4m/s), but we are talking of this mission. Who cares if you spent hydrogen.. There are plenty here at earth, there is plenty there too. Of course it may be more valueable use it for other stuffs if you have a lot of colonies there. The mission concept use helium, more difficult to stop than hydrogen, because its molecule has a single atom. And with my idea, you just compress the hydrogen you need, which may help to vary buoyancy. Also helps saving weight and increasing energy storage at nights. As rakaydos said, you have almost equal pressure. Also there is ways to avoid hydrogen leaks, one is using reduced graphene oxide. These are also some of the advantages that graphene can provide to the Fuel Cells: http://www.understandingnano.com/fuel-cells.html I use 60% which is today normal efficiency for PEM fuel Cells , but in 5 or 7 years may reach 75%, one step closer to their 85% theoretical limit. Yeah, that might be one which is easier to do. I was thinking in a first unmanned mission to have all the missing data needed to plan this mission in the most efficient way. Then you sent a second and maybe a thid unmanned mission with a similar system that I show, but with the possibility to harvester sulfuric acid and extract the hydrogen and oxygen. So when the manned mission arrives (with the fuel needed to just go back from venus low orbit to earth), then can enter in the atmosphere (without fuel) and take it from one of the 2 unmanned harvesters. Of course it means docking in atmosphere. Case: It's not possible. Cooper: No. It's necessary. The manned blimp will be also equipped to produce fuel situ in case something happens with the 2 first harvesters. Then explore venus not for 1 month, 12 or 14 months. So you have a travel time back to earth of 3 months instead 300 days as is planned. Yeah I found the complete PDF from this concept study. It seems they also thought about ISRU and docking in atmosphere, but they said that might be a bit risky to be try it in the first mission. http://es.scribd.com/doc/250698199/HAVOC-Final-Outbrief-General-pdf So someone has an idea of how achieve a safe docking in the atmosphere? What kind of mechanism and procedure you will use it?

ok.. only 7:30 hs left to the launch.. Lets cross the fingers.. I hope they execute a check up to see if the rocket and the ship drone have the same coordinates set Someone know what other sensors it will use besides GPS?

heh, scientist guess that gravity may cross between universes, but I am not sure if that is a force that might have something to do with energy/information process. Of course there may still other forces with a key role avoiding the information lost. But something tell me that this way of thinking it does not help to solve this problem.

My knowledge about chemistry is low. So can you point me how a hydrogen blimp will be in danger in the Venus atmosphere? What conditions are needed to the reaction? How strong it will be?

Is a bit easier to contain and avoid leaks than helium, because in nature, hydrogen is bounded in a diatomic molecule h2, helium is not. About being reactive... what it matters? there is no oxygen in venus. What is the problem? Also those 66 hours (which we have very limited energy to spent) is the main reason of my fuel cell idea. With my idea you dont need limit so much your activity during night hours. You can harvester a lot of energy, save weight and use it as a way to control your buoyancy. Also we can get extra energy from the wings even at night hours, something that NASA never thought about it. If you see this graphic between 47 km and 52 km of altitude, we have a wing speed gradient of 50m/s (180 km/h in just 4 or 5 km) We dont need all that energy, just a little bit of that. How we do it? Similar to this: Of course that is not the best kite angle we need, but is good to understand the principle.. We need something like this: Venus winds towards the pole. This is similar to do Kite surfing, It can be done with only 1 kite, is not necesary choose both heights. So doing this we avoid to use the proppelers and all the energy they consume. We can use that energy to achieve different things, maybe as get fuel in situ.. But not with a manned vehicle.. maybe with its precursor unmanned vehicle. Then is not need to carry the fuel from earth to launch from venus.

I guess the exhaust of each nozzle does not interferes so much with their side nozzle, so the exhaust remains more collimated than the older way.. which increase efficiency. EDIT: this is on spacex page The Octaweb structure of the nine Merlin engines improves upon the former 3x3 engine arrangement. The Octaweb is a metal structure that supports eight engines surrounding a center engine at the base of the launch vehicle. This structure simplifies the design and assembly of the engine section, streamlining our manufacturing process.

I would love to see this hypothesis to be proven wrong. Being close to a black hole is equal to see the edge of our universe. Something that I think we can not see in other way. So cross it means the chance to leave this universe.. Now if we learn that we can not.. Then it means that we are confine to this universe for always. So is not a good feeling.

From what I understand, if we have a particle with its antiparticle in the edge of the black hole, then there is the chance that one falls, and the other dont. This phenomenom extracts energy from the black hole it self. So this happen more often if the black hole is small, because tidal forces at the edge are stronger, so evaporate faster. At least this is something that I read long time ago. So correct me if I am wrong. Now there is another hypothesis about what might happen if we fall in a black hole. You hear about the firewall solution to solve the black hole paradox? In brief, it said that if you fall into a black hole, when you reach the event horizon you crash against this firewall, which may sound ok from the perspective of one outsider, but difficult to understand if that really happens to someone who is falling. Although many scientist take this like an example that our theories are wrong (even for describe the edge of a black hole), but right now; they can not find the error with the firewall hypothesis. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/black-hole-firewalls-confound-theoretical-physicists/

Ok, I guess I have an idea to improve this concept mission. Lets see the problems first: Some data: We know that that at that altitude, we have winds of 85 m/s = 306km/h And north winds of 5m/s Venus circunference: 38.025 km This mean that the airship will be 62 hours at day and 62 hours at night. That is why it has energy storage for 66 hrs But how much energy? Only 2000 kwh This mean 32kwh each hour at night. And it needs to counter those 5m/s and keep energy to do more science. In other way we are wasting all the nights. The problem with storaging energy in batteries, is weight and not provide enoght power at nights. So here my solution: -First.. why hellium?? we are in earth?? Noo.. we are in venus! There is not O2 in the atmosphere. The only O2 is with the crew, you just need to insolate those. We fly with hydrogen airships over 40 years, with very primitive systems. In fact right now a lot of scientist are saying that we should go back to hydrogen airships here on earth, except for commercial flights. Hydrogen has slightly more lift, it does not leak so much as hellium, easy to contain. -Then we can improve the energy system with a hydrogen cycle using PEN fuel cells and Electrolysis. If the battery is charge then you dont have that lose in efficiency, so the energy bypass the battery, this only helps if needs provide extra power. That 75% is because you get 80% for charge, and 90 for discharge. The meridional wind can also be countered without spent electrical energy. And many more ways to improve the efficiency. I know the skinsuits, but are not ready yet.. this is the official new space suit, in the right.. I mean left.. It does not matter, because is still political. If one nation achieve place a human in other world then you gain the same respect as you would had the best weapon on the world. And right now wars are not as they were before, now there is too much media. Now a country can not do whatever they want and get away with it so easily. So how to win the new wars? marketing, publicity. After something like this, all the great minds would like to work in that country. Why any nation sent a human to mars yet? Because is too risky and expensive. But mosly for the risky part.. If they kill the astronauts, then all that money invested would play against them self. And mars has an history of 50-50. Not very encouraging taking into account than sent humans is many times harder. Meanwhile almost all last missions sent to venus were all successful.

no, that you take a breathe inside your habitat and then you go out, until you need to breathe again.

The farings bend first, which increase the force over the same farings, then as they are attached to the fuel tank, the tank breaks too. But I guess this is the only case of a rocket destroyed due high angles of attack, or not? come on shynung, we already talk about this. A manned mission is very important and gets extraordinary funds that in other way you will never receive with unmanned missions. Yeah, you can have desk or anything like a normal floor. The only complication is keep it air tight as anything in the moon.It can be used in Mars too with a different concavity to match the gravity vector. But I guess it will be more complicate and needs to spent energy to maintain rotation. Also is not so necesary like the moon. But my question is.. if there is no delay in transmissions with the moon. Why we need people there? Maybe now, because our tele-robots are not so advance yet. But I guess that a second home at least needs to had some pressure, gravity and radiation shielding, then of course something of value about the place. As I said before..Being in Venus at 52km. You can take a deep breath, go outside with any kind of cloth (or without), stay there at 37 celcius degrees in a dry breeze, then enter again and breath again without any harm. Maybe we can feel a slight ardor due the micro doplets of sulfuric acid. If we try the same thing in mars, all our air escape from our lungs, we would not feel the cold because we would lose awareness in 15 seconds due lack of oxygen. Then we have 1 or 2 min to be save us by somebody else or we would die. An oxygen mask can not save us, we need a space suit. What is there? XD 0,6% of earth atmosphere. pressure vessel? what you mean? You have equal pressure outside or inside your habitat. You can open the door, go outside, leave it open by 1 hour, that the leak of gasses (air or hydrogen) would be so slow, that it would not matter in case your habitat is big enoght. Take the example of the germany airships in the world war 2, they had hundreds of holes of caliber 50, and they never fall. The only solution for the british was to use incendiary ammunition. But even if you do the same thing agains an habitat in venus that use hydrogen as lifting gas, nothing happens because there is not much oxygen in the atmosphere. You have plenty of time to repair any leak. Also I imagine Venus like a place for tough guys; bars, girls.. just take your flying vehicle and go to the next floating city. In mars you need to wear a space suit to visit your neighbor. first you need to compress the co2. Then you need to get the energy to do it (venus has 240% more sun energy), also why is more easier? ah right.. because I would put a foot outside of the habitat and I will fall. I wonder why people dont fall from tall buildings. 100% agree in this one. heh, we can all have a lack of knowledge. But the most important and hard is indentify the things that we dont know.

Ok, I forget that a rocket needs to be as light as possible and its weakest part are the farings, although this rocket does not use farings. But I invite all to take a break of being 10000000% negative trying to find the smallest problems and make them huge, is like be in the Final Destination movie. What is funny.. that I never read: "oh yeah, all the other things that you point seems ok or right" or.. "that is a good concept or it can be a solution.." or "oh, I dint knew that" Dispatcher mention a possible way to get artificial gravity in the moon (without said if its in orbit or not), I help him with that making a design.. and you comment nothing. Is sad.

Pakledhostage, try to remember what are we talking about. Supersonics crafts with high TWR, tiny wings or small V wings and high inertia (aircraft density). Or just take a look to the rocket wings in the video. By other hand you are talking of structure stress limit which is only relative to cargo airplanes or low speed airplanes. Combat aircraft can reach angle of attack of 90% (with stall of course) but they recover without any problem due its TWR. They dont have structure stress problems either. So now be honest and tell me, you really think that a tiny wing rocket like that may have problems due turbulance? And all this making the wrong assumption (because it is against all the evidence) that venus atmosphere is turbulent.

My apologies then. But when I drop numbers, is not random or without a good understanding. Maybe the lack of space activity since apollo give you a conviction than everything happens very slow. But the technology never stop, we were just waiting and looking up there for the right moment. Already give you many economical examples of how things happens like the money invested in wars that is unimaginable, but if you take a look of the motivations. Then are similar to what we may get on venus. Is not all about how many you spent and how much money you get in "mining" the next year. Something like this inspire the world, it gives prestige to the country owner. All the great minds wants to go and live in that country, because things happens and projects are exciting. The biggest asset of any country are the great minds. Which can create google, silicon valley or any big company who bring money to the country with many new investors. Besides you can sell the new technologies that you develop, etc. Then you need to count that we might have soon a complete reusable program from spacex, or skylon in ESA. Those technologies can make drop the space cost by a HUGE amount, which will create a new market for space bussiness that nobody imagine before. The few predictions that I did before, some was already prove it, others goes in good track like this Venus Concept, which I defend before NASA notice it. So take my word or not. Right now the only thing that can stop a Venus colony it depends on how difficult would be collect sulfuric acid to get water. That is the main drawback that might have. Is all about aerodynamics, kinetic energy and inertia. A supersonic craft has speeds at least 4 times more than the stronger winds, so if you have a vertical wind of 300km/w (worst case) and your speed is 1200 km/h, then your apparent wind vector change only 10 degress, not even close to stall, in fact is like a very light maneuver for the aircraft. In fact, these kind of airplanes are used to fly through hurricanes with many meteorologists inside: http://www.ecu.edu/renci/_photos/HurricaneHunter/PlaneLanding01.jpg In addiction the rocket from the havoc concept has 2 very small wings, that rocket is all about speed and aerodynamics; plus all the 99% of evidence show that earth atmosphere has at least 1000% more turbulence than venus atmosphere. I dint find any in internet, no even a mention, so I draw one up: It can be made of an inflatable tether, then you need to block the view of the other side to not confound the senses, that same tether-roof that we see is iluminate from the center to provide soft light. I guess is not possible to project a sky mimic day and night. Then in needs some kind of superconductor magnetic shield to block radiation. But the thing is... If you will use the moon as refuelling base (maybe with a moon space elevator to make things easier) and maybe mine some things to sent earth. Why we need humans there? Is not like the other places where you have 5 or 15 min of delay. And you need humans there to take real time actions. Moon has only 2 seconds of delay. It can be manage it by tele-robotics. Maybe is necesary to have some humans there as a "moon center", but does it. It would not be our second home. aghhh too boring.. take a side already! If spaceX completes its reusable program, then it will be as cheap as that. only some pics?? If we get a manned mission, then we also get many terabytes of HD video. Watching every move that the crew does and all that they see with perfect detail, exploring other world like if we were watching a movie. They can made a 10 episode documentary of all the mission.

I saw it 2 years ago, good documentary, I guess the mission is too risky, but I have a great respect for zubrin as scientist. He publish amazing papers and I saw him in many debates and symposiums.

Is like explain evolution to someone who believe that earth has only 6000 years old. You dont need to put all the money from one day to the next.. There is a scale of time of 80 years. But is hard to understand 80 years if you only had 20 years. this process only start after you have a permanent settlement there of 50 people. Then Huge corporations funded by coutries arrive. So as I said, imagine those examples and take them to the next level... 100000 times more money than elon musk + country funds, then multiply that by 50 years . Well never mind.. I wish all a happy new year. cheers!

I can said without much blush (of such claim) that I can improve the Havoc mission by a considerable margin. It will require (between many changes) to dock in the atmosphere. It was in the 70´s (72 to 78). Of course that was true back then. With some post insulation techniques, even in the 80´s we could fourfold that operation time. Right now the only limitation in a venus rover would be the amount of free power to make science. But there is a sail rover cocepts which it will use the low speed (10km/h) but dense winds to move and explore over the flat venus terrain, leaving the extra power of PV to cool some degrees and do science. Here some electronics that resist those working temperatures without insulation or cooling. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/jan_2007/thursday/glenn230.pdf https://www.wallenberg.com/kaw/en/research/swedish-electronics-will-overcome-extreme-climate-venus By the end of this century, if we start design the havoc mission now and the SITU test seems favorable; years later the first trade attempts doesn´t need to be cost competitive because they will be funded by countries. What you would said when some mafia guys started to vision a city in the middle of the desert? Or when the cofounder of paypal started its own space launch company? Those guys are just tiny compared with huge international corporations that transcend time; promoted by power countries interests. Just take a look in the money invested in the big wars, fighting for some land or by trade privileges. If you need to transport all the pieces anyways, why dont move the whole thing to be mined close to home, in a safe enviroment and with extra sun power? Also it will not be cost effective or recommended to use aerocapture with the small pieces. I am working since 1 year in a global web page that will try to find solutions to all the earth problems with the help of their visitors, some kind of wiki structure to ideas. I scan the web all days to try to find new solutions to our biggest problems. That is why some times is easy for me imagine solutions relative to space, because I combine all the new discoveries or concepts that I read about. I have practice recognizing the most cost/energy-efficient ways to solve problems. Some problems seems easy to solve in theory, but impossible in practice. For example overpopulation. Is know that coutries with high level of education does not contribute with the problem, but equalize assets and education world wide (even if this is possible) would only achieve that humanity would need 5 to 10 times more resources. Try to deal with the problem with international politics and agreement to control the amount of childs by inhabitant is also impossible. I learn that you can not go against the basic survival instincts. You can provide different path or choices to each inhabitant, but you can not force them to follow one. You can try, but it will not work. The biggest problems are complex, and they dont have a single solution. The best way is provide tons of diferent solutions and let the people choose what of those is best for them. I can continue talking 10 years about this, but this is OFFTopic. If we want to keep updating our oceans current maps maybe we can improve the Colon caravels. I was reading some comments in that Mars forum, I was impressed at first to see so many possitive comments about venus. Then I realized that as Mars forum, they may be aware more than me of the difficulties on manned missions to Mars.. The biggest issue of Venus to a long term cost/efficient settlement is H2. Right now I dont know how cost efficient is to get sulfuric acid there. Maybe some ballon collectors at 45 km height, with static charge to attract some acid doplets, then cool the ballon surface to allow condensation, or just using big mesh. But we dont know yet. About Venus needed buyancy vs extra mars propellant, you said that is similar. How much speed you can lose using the new inflatable shields with a payload > than 30 tons? Of course you can not use by so long because then you have limit time to supersonic retropopulsion, limit time equals to less ISP. 0,874g, so if you will use a roughly number, use 0,85 as the havoc mission mention. Weather challenges?? Even if there is any.... (99% sure there is not) since when supersonic vehicles has any problem with weather?? same dV than earth? That CO2 that you are talking about is at 0.86g so is almost equal dense than air here at earth. The deltaV is closer to 7.5km/s or 7.7km/s. But that atmosphere with future methods can help us to push against and reduce a lot the amount of fuel needed. Also you are ignoring the risk of all systems that needs to work at perfect time and synchronization to land in mars. About moon first.. dunno. Is a lot easier than mars. But is not for long term settlements due gravity. It was already discuss with details in previous post. In brief: because is very important to launch a manned mission to other planet.

Thanks a lot karamazovnew, I will keep your post in mind each time I test different parameters. The only drawback of reduce the isp of engines inside atmosphere is the case we want to use those engines to land or hover.

Let's make something clear. If someone said that Venus is not a good place because A,B,C and D, later they add that Mars is better because E, F, G and H. Then in a logic world, if someone prove with reason and evidence that all those concept were wrong. He will need to admit that Venus makes a good case. But this never happen because the change of paradigm is too big and they will try to keep their opinion as if nothing important was mentioned. So lets try to keep some decency and logic. Lets open the mind to the new possibilities and reasons.. There is not point to talk or discuss if we cant. The asteroid belt (or places close to) are the worst places to mine the asteroid belt, some facts: -Despite illustrations, asteroids are very far from each other. -One base inside the asteroid belt has a lot more chances to be destroyed by debris. -Far from the sun = less power, this reduce the amount of extracted material and the possibility of being transported using solar sails. -Ceres is not a good target, it needs to be an small asteroid with a huge % of the material that we most want, a type M for example. It does not need to be in the asteroid belt either. -Workers would be far from their families without chance of a quick go back in case something happens (in the asteroid belt or at home). -The higher orbital velocity of Venus actually makes transfer orbits somewhat faster, as well as increasing the number of transfer opportunities. Venus is closer in time travel than Mars and Earth using the minimum-energy trajectory to the asteroid belt or any other place. -You can aerocapture asteroids with Venus, you can not do that with Earth due the risk and any effect on our atmosphere it will be hundreds of times more notorious. Of course we would not export Sulfuric acid being in Venus.. We would use it to manufacture anything we want. In case you want to manufacture something in other place than at earth, you need to carry that. A fleet of Solar Sails of 400mts*400mts can transport 5 tons each with a travel time of 5 to 8 months (best to worst case in launch window), they will take payloads at Earth low orbit or Venus low orbit, then drop the payload to aerocapture, dodge the planet and brake, then take the next payload and go back. If you have something like skylon at earth and something similar but less efficient in Venus, you get a self sustain economic system.´ Round trip of each sail will be from 11 to 13 month (≈1 year, it does not matter much the time window). I will not repeat my self. Read my previous answers. Explore-scientific missions?? noo XDThe main use is for commercial purposes. http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/768709 What? the fact that we were thinking in travel to mars since years it doesn´t make it closer to its accomplishment. In fact all the new things we know about mars indicate that is a lot harder than we thought before, some have issues without solution so far. Something that venus does not have. If we later find that venus has micro tornadoes at that height and extra design issues with the deployment not predicted before. Then mars can become closer again.. but that is very unlikely. Really? I need to ask again.. Really the evidence suggest that? One question, in what surface all our space ships "land"? WATER! There is no most difficult surface than solid to land. If you dont have the perfect angle and speed.. You crash! And the most easier place to "park" is air.. When you float, because you can have any angle, you have km to adjust your altitud, etc. (also you can not "land" in the atmosphere or in oceans) I cant believe that I am the only one pointing you this... this Mars alliance is ridiculous. This has common sense.But you need to force those conditions to be prepared the day you will need them. 40 years ago we did not need solar cells in those places where we could have alternative energy. However there was always people using them and factories making them. Even when they had a cost/benefic ratio 30 times lower than now. But thanks to those times we have now a way to counter our energy pollution problems in a way that makes economic sence. Is not about the sulfuric acid. As the solar cell tale, there is needs on earth that would have economic sense in the future, but you need to make the road before you reach it. Or you will have a collapse. Earth has a problem with population and resources. Each time cost more money extract any raw material. Each time we need to go more deep. It reach a point (which is not far) where you need to move thousands of m3 of soil to get few kg of some heavy element. Then you need to add the pollution you create trying to get those last accessible elements. You need to count with the need for an extra home in case something happen with earth. If you gather heavy elements from the venus surface, you transport them with a nuclear hot air ballon to the clouds, then you launch it to earth. It will reach the day when that would need less amount of energy than extract it from earth. In the first human ages, we spike the soil, and we found an oil geyser, we found kgs of gold just walking over a river, we enter in a cave and we found tons of diamonds. Those ages wait us in other words or asteroids.

Most people doesn´t know nothing about venus because never was in the media. Even us " the space geeks" only realize 3 or 1 year ago that venus has such a good place in their clouds.So dont tell me that the media does not play a rol. First as I said, Russia is not the best in media, no even inside its own country, and all these discoveries are from 1975, so I can not tell you how much their promote this or not. Of course now they dont want this media, because the people may push them to make it real.. And we know that Putin is not very interested in space. Tell me the last missions from Russia? The only thing they do now is sell seats to the ISS (to which contributes little) and launch commercial satellites. Not promoting, I am just telling some facts, I am a logic person who follow evidence and reason. It does not matter much my desire. If someone shows me that Mars has more sense due to X reasons. Then I will take only 5 seconds to recognize my mistake and support that idea. So I will understand if you tell me that you like Mars just because you can see some feets in the surface. But not tell me that Mars is easier, because all the evidence suggests otherwise. About feets on the surface, that is a concept that we need to leave behind when we think in other worlds. We can float in liquids or air, we can be many meters deep under land or in oceans. It does not matter, what matters is whether we can live in that world or not. ---------------------------------------------------------- @SargeRho 1- haha, what matter if we have a rocket or elephants as payload. Maybe you want to said "we never test it at those scales" True.. But as I said.. We can test it here in our atmosphere. 4- You are ignoring all the main reasons that I detail and explain, it seems like you just reading the tittle. 5- Pretty easy to deal with gravity in mars?? Tell me how. We are not sure yet how easy will be to get the sulphure acid in venus. In case is easy enoght. Then Venus would crush mars in economy, population growth and life style. Venus is the perfect place to mine the asteroid belt or any asteroid close to venus. You can use that thick atmosphere to aerocapture any asteroid. You can mine the surface without much complications using to day technology and spending low energy in the process. The elements in the atmosphere are like gold, you have all you need there. Even here at earth, the sulphure acid production or use is the best measure about that country power. And you have power.. THe planet is full of it just because is closest to the source.. Winds, temperatures, light and all kind of heavy elements (much more than mars) with many active volcano who bring them to the surface.

What I mean to said, is like FAR is a realistic aerodynamic model, you need highest velocities to experience the loss of deltaV due atmosphere. So in RSS you had highest velocities and extra time (inside the atmosphere, enoght to note the drag issue). That is why I am not sure if KIDS may help or not.´ I will try with your parameters Diazo when I find time.

1: -we launch rockets in our atmosphere from a plane or ballon in horizontal angle? yes.. check. -we inflate ballons meanwhile they enter in venus atmosphere? yes many times; and a blimp is just a ballon with an aerodynamic shape. We can make this same reentry - parachute - inflate and post launch test here at earth. check. Your falcon 9 example is far of from mars conditions. And I already mention the falcon 9. And you still need to solve all the other issues to land and launch. How many probes failed to land on mars? Many.. How many probes failed to inflate a ballon in venus atmosphere? None. 2- So you need to wait until we have fussion? Even with fussion Venus will be still the shortest travel time. And there is nothing you can do with launch windows. 3- Your only option is nuclear reactors, because there is also had dust storms that last 2 weeks. With 80% of the light blocked by the dust. 4- why all mars projects (even in theory) fail to accomplish that then? And they avoid many of the issues that I mention. But well, who cares.. Venus does not need all these considerations. 5- But you need to deal with that, and there is no way you can solve the gravity problem (that is the biggest problem in fetus deveploment.) and it may be a health problem to those who live there some years. And you play the terraforming card.. you may be desperate. The day we achieve that, we may have trasgenic humans with wings and able to breath co2, or a similar solution but with just technology.

I did not want to compare, but many still believe that Mars is easier than Venus. First some details that we may be agree: The first manned mission will be the asteroid redirect mission already planned by NASA and accepted by the goverment (not in official way). We would need probe mission to venus before sent any humans, to clarify any lack of information that we still may have, but this is already mentioned in this concept. About 2 previous unmanned missions, I dont see the need. I will sent 2 if the second probe mission is the one which will try SITU, so you dont need to carry the fuel from here. Mars Drawbacks: 1- Land in Mars, we dont have the technology to do it. The maximun mass we can land there was the opportunity 0,9 tons (we need 36 tons) The atmosphere is so thin that not even the new heat shields designs or the new parachutes are enoght to brake. You need to spent extra fuel to slow down and this is not all, you need to ignite the engine at 24000 km/h and keep it ignite all the time.. This seems super complex, several grade of magnitude beyond SpaceX reusable first stage. Then we need something as the sky crane to avoid any soil particle to enter in the engines and the turbulance generate by this (this not happen at the moon for the complete lack of atmosphere). Which becomes a high risk to land and takeoff. But dust can not be avoided due all the sand storms. So even if you can solve that with design, there will be always a risk. Also we need to place these >25 tons base/supplies near one of the other.. Right now in mars our accuracy is 10 or 20 km. 2- Longer travel times and time windows. The psychological effect of astronauts pent for 6 months or more, is hard to predict. Also when you arrive, you can not go back right away with low deltaV as in Venus, in a proeblem case. Also to receive supplies. 3- Power-energy You get almost nothing from solar panels. Get enoght energy in mars to survive is not a easy task. Venus is completly the opposite. You can even collect energy at any PV angle. Keep plants alive is very energy intensive. 4- 100% airtight Space suits and habitats. This generate a big problem with the life support system. ISS gets provisions every few months. Here you need to deal with any kind of waste, all life support projects for mars show big errors in their calculations. Also you need a system to keep the dust out. It can be very dangerous. Avoid to contaminate mars with our own bacterias. 5- Long term settlements seems almost impossible. Due the low gravity and high levels of radiation, births are out of the question in mars. They would born death. 6- You can not test these things here. So you waste a lot of money in multiple test to have somef certainty. On the contrary, you can test mostly all things about the venus mission in earth. 7- etc.. i'm sleepy. So you are telling me that all this media about "lets go to mars, mars is our destiny, it has land as we have in earth, we can not land in venus.. venus is a helll planet, all the endless notes about the necesary steps to go mars, movies, etc" did not cause any effect on your opinion?This is psychology 101, is very unlikely that anyone would face this change of paradigm without give a fight, more if in the past we use these sames arguments to educate anyone else asking for venus. Use your logic, and tell me if this can not be the cause about why venus sounds so crazy.

Yeah I also want the same thing that Matt516 wants. But I dont know if that is possible. I love FAR, but this push you to use RSS, I would like to use always RSS but not all mods are supported, the graphic quality decrease due to x10 and any mission duration is increased. So how can I use FAR/Near without decrease so much the difficulty to launch rockets, without change vaccum or atmospheric flights much. What settings on KIDS may help with this? Or the thing that we are asking is just not possible.

Thanks Dispatcher, I wish you a happy new year for you too. About the wind. These are the reasons why venus does not have vertical winds or turbulence. 1-Thick atmosphere, 92 times ours, this work like a huge capacitor, any source of energy (volcano or sun) that is absorbed is dispersed and attenuated by the thick atmosphere. 2-You dont have random places with shade (because clouds) and no shade. Clouds are very uniform. 3-Very dry, low amount of water/acid sulphure. Here at earth, moist air in the clouds is heavier and falls fast, producing strong vertical winds that when touch the ground they become horizontal. 4-Venus soil is all Supercritical carbon dioxide, which is an almost perfect thermal conductor. That balances any heat difference. 5-parking place at 50 km, is very far for any atmosphere effect due terrain. As montains effect in our atmosphere. 6-you dont have different type of soils. 7-the low planet rotation (almost none) generates a very uniform wind flux to compensate any heat (pressure) difference. This is so efficient and constant that the temperature difference between day at night is none. The few vertical speeds on venus are at the poles, you can find 2 giant cyclones. But the parking place is at equator. So there is no problem. The evidence data of all probe-ballons (more than 7 I guess) show no evidence of vertical winds or turbulence (they was floating by several days each one) Only one probe show that over few minutes a fast change in altitude, it was far from the equator and it dint receive any harm. But scientist was amazed They could not imagine what could cause that, maybe was an instrument error (their words). ------------------------------------------------------------------ Is interesting to see how many (from this forum) seems pesimistic or against this concept. I am quite sure this is due to the USA - Russia space race which USA became the media winner. Explanation here, my answer to Jedy master. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104177-Nasa-is-considering-a-Manned-Mission-to-Venus-before-Mars%21?p=1627106&viewfull=1#post1627106 Or is due to the lack of information about venus advantages and mars drawback.