AngelLestat

So nuclear plants needs less area? Lets see this list: Chernobyl and Fukushima INES Lv 7 Kyshtym INES Lv 6 Windscale fire, Three Mile Island, First Chalk River, Lucens, Goiânia INES Lv 5 And there is a lot more with INES lv 4 or less. For example Japan has now a 100km diameter hole in its country that can not be used for the next 25000 years, that wihout count the radiactive world contamination released in the first week from the accident. Almost all countries stopped buy Japanese food for 3 month. What is the cost of that? They will never be able to reuse that field again. Animals, birds, fish will suffer some consequences too. But I know what are you thinking.. It was just an error design. It would not happen again... Is the same tell that you hear in each shedding of oil from 100 years ago to now, and we still had an issue all years. Wind generators takes lot of space? Why? You can not place them over crops or feeding fields? You dont need extra lines to transport the energy, you can use the same country grid due to the major distrubution and lower output of each generator. In the future you can use the batteries from all electric cars in each garage or streat to storage the energy or to take from them (which would reduce even more the cost, this is already in practice in some Nordic countries) Lets said that you are the inversor and you only care of your money. You really look up the numbers, the KW cost for each technology? The investment in a nuclear plant and the maintaince cost is huge. Its only cost effective if you manage to bribe the autorities to skip security measures. There are a lot of new renewable energy source being develope it, Is true that wind generators has an impact on birds, but you can use a Kite instead a rotor, is even more efficient.

But I have! You dont need make an assembly line just to know how much energy the manufacture process would take. Becouse you can make estimations knowing the energy cost from the different single components. For example a single Photovoltaics Panel takes 2 years to recover the energy waste in its manufacturing process. But this is not a single PV, you got crystals, glass, polymers, copper, etc. This "road cell block" weights a lot more than a normal PV. What is the energy needed to melt and mold these materials? To cut, assemble and polish? Is just common sense. I am not sure if I follow you in this answer. Of course I am agree with all this. But what are you saying exactly? That we can not judged this "solar road" technology becouse is not mature enoght? We can judge a partcular idea as they present to us. Of course we can not judge the possible ramifications and uses in which this idea could evolve, maybe in a very different approach and use in which this can have sense. But is not the case. One more thing, remind that when somebody said that wind and solar energy reach the point where is competitive, they are talking about Solar thermal. PV has an efficiency of 20% (35% the ones made it for space, of course the cost is crazy) but solar thermal (using mirrors) has an average efficiency of 80%. In the next 10 years this can change drastically, just due to all the nano advances that we are doing. PV technology seems very promising. Sorry, but you are wrong. Two year back, the anual study that was delivery to the main investors from the energy industry it began to show that many of the renewable energy as wind, solar, etc. showed more cost benefit (and I am talking only from the economic point of view, without add the ecologic benefic) than their fossil or nuclear competitors. In these studies they take into account not only the development costs, they take into account the risk for fails, the new policys and taxation to come, maintenance, efficiency, etc. So right now, if someone want to invest in the energy industry, it will have more profits if he/she invest in renewable. In fact, there is still some fossil or nuclear plants being development just becouse in some countries these technologies had a HUGE subsidies due to old policies, they also get tax-free agreements bribing the right people. This happens becouse the owners of the old energy technologies (which had licenses for coal, oil or nuclear thermal plants) result to them more cheap use their own technology than buy a new one. Geothermal is very good, but you can only do it with good cost in some geo thermal spots. Long Time ago I thought the same about nuclear, then I realize of the huge cost that it has. You should read about it. Now all remind that this opinion was only from the economic point of the investors. If you now add all the benefics from the ecologic point of view, to keep talking about non renewable energy is super dumb.

This idea reminds me the Footstep electrical generator In this case, you can let 500 people walk over and you will only get enoght energy to iluminate a bathroom for a few mins. I can not understand how people waste time to develope these useless inventions, they dont see the flaws? In my first reply I was not sure how they plan to use the road like solar panel, now I realize that is more silly that I thought. Also the energy waste that you get in the manufacture of all these components and materials is just much more that you can generate over their lifespam. I always read A LOT about sustainability and renewable energy (that is my passion), there are a lot of ways to improve the efficiency of all our processes and energy generation using renewable, being cost effective or even cheaper than fossil fuels / nuclear. But no this nonsense. In fact, these ideas are so bad that make people lose faith in renewable energies.

They still can radiate the heat with more efficiency than here at earth.

Solar road seems like a very bad idea. I am agree with the Seret´s Cons list as some others, and I want to add maintenance. There is no 1 km of road in the world which does not wroke by trafic and climate conditions every 1 or 2 years. The future of solar sails remains in buildings, dedicated plants, in space, etc. One other thing, how much cost and time you would need to remplace at least the 20% of roads with this technology? When you do that, almost all vehicles would fly.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Reentry Scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpcPLtHkWLI Second debris wave scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKnVPdem_rQ Reentry Scene - How was made Complaint how unreal a few scenes are in gravity is like critic all KSP game for the appearance of kerbals. -The hair does not float.. Solution?? made the hair digital?? -The space debris destruction happens too fast.. Solution?? Let all astronauts go back to earth and end the movie. For example where I saw the movie for the first time, I dint like the scene when Sandra Bullock try to hold to George Clooney but they keep feeling an acceleration even when they look stop. When I saw the scene again, is clearly that they are spining with respect to the space station, so that creates an centrifuge acceleration.

That offended me becouse you told me that I dint read, when in fact, it was the opposite, nevermind. Venus has 15000 km3 of water scattered in its atmosphere, a big part of that is in the cloud region, that is enoght to sustain the earth poppulation and more. But the atmosphere is so thick, that even if there is more water in venus atmosphere than earth atmosphere, the humidity (% of water/acid) is 50 times lower. So you need to use many of the extra energy that you get from the sun, to collect and filter water. Becouse hidrogen is something that you need for everything, plants can not produce oxigen without h2o, so that is an issue that you need to take seriusly if you wanna try to start colonize venus clouds. Is totally possible, but it has a cost. The problem that when somebody talks about sulfuric rain in Venus, is not like earth rain. The doplets are so small that is a pain in the ass try to collect them. Of course the fact that there is so much sulfuric acid in venus is something good, sulfuric acid is the most important sustain to any industry. That is one of the reasons why Venus has more economic potential than Mars in a long run. In 20 years our launch cost would be more close to the "fuel cost", the same would happen for Venus, that is one of the reasons I think that delta V to get Venus low orbit from Landis Land is not an issue. In the Geoffrey Landis Novel, he used a vaccum blimp to transport payload from low orbit to the cities and back. Of course he was using a very strong and light material for that matter. But I guess there are many ways to make that travel cheap. In the first topic I made a calculate about the dimensions needed for a solar sail to transport 5T of payload from LEO to LVO and back. I did the same calculate using a Nerva engine and the 400mts x 400mts sails prove to be the best option. Yeah that can work too, I still waiting for Idobox, so he can explain better if a CO2 Reaction engine is possible. I have understand that CO2 to CO it does not produce so much energy like oxigen with C, but the reaction needs high temperatures, this could be achieve with easy at high speeds.

Yeah, of course that forum is more serious to talk about this topic. I was tempted to do it in those days (in similar forums), but the Venus disccusion in this forum exhausted me enoght to repeat it in other place. In responce to the second, of course an small settlement in mars is easier than venus, but I was not talking about an small settlement. I said "in the long run". Venus has more value in many aspects, and like always happens, cities grow faster where opportunities arise. I am agree, but that can be mod it. Venus is more rich in minerals than Mars, becouse is closer to the sun so heavy elements are more common. That is one of the reasons why scietist believe that it does not have a solid core. Too much heat due to radiation. Also has a lot of volcanic activity which help to bring all heavy elements from inside to the surface. You're accusing me of not reading? hahaha. And you read my 100 huge post about this??? I WAS TWO MONTH DOING REASEARCH ABOUT VENUS, I read all the books that I could find. All papers, all different ideas that could be used in that scenenary. I was the first who post the Geoffrey Landis paper, I ask him many questions too who responded generously. I read his novel "the sultan of the clouds" which talks about this. The first topic has 18 pages talking about this approach, then you have the chemical edition that you must read if you wanna understand the venus atmosphere. Then third topic is all about venus cities too. And try to understand what I am talking about before answer without thinking. I never said that is impossible or nothing like that. I am talking about cost, the things that you must press attention to make all proyect more feasible. So I said it again, for a smal settlement, mars is most cost efficient. For a big settlement of people, venus is most cost efficient. One of the benefics of venus against mars, is that you dont need pressurized habitats. You can save a lot of money in structure or mechanism if you keep the same pressure that outside.So if you want more buyancy, you have 2 choices. Deal with heat, or produce lighter materials. I said a lot about this too. There is not need to use vaccum tubes for electronic, you can have high temperature electronics, many of those materials are being develop it right now. IDOBOX: I dont remember read nothing about CO2 as oxidant in Venus from our previus topic. Of course I am not denied that you did. But I would like to read more about this. You think that is possible to make a reaction engine in a Co2 atmosphere? That would be interesting.

This idea was discussed multiple times here in KSP forum, being me, the main defender of this approach. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68857-Terraforming-Venus/page2 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/69572-Venus-terraforming-fact-checking-Chemistry-edition http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71519-Cloud-cities/page8 It would be nice to see a topic with this info better collected and summarized, so the inventive people of this forum can use that information to try design and solve many of the aspects that a floating sustainable settlement would face. Or maybe in the future using an improvement of the "real solar system mod" with accurate physsics and data of venus atmosphere, we could try to mimic some of those approach in the game. Becouse I really believe that in the long run, a Venus settlement would had more profits (from the economic and habitat point of view) than a Mars settlement. I found a lot of PROS for a Venus settlement and 2 main issues to focus. One is the cost to extract heavy amount of water/hidrogen from the atmosphere, and second is the cost of the buoyancy for each ton of habitat that you need. Extracting raw material from the surface is not as hard as many would think.

I dint flip the coin, I just choose one. And I guess many people is doing the same. So this is not a good experiment about probability, becouse it seems that we all are a little more predisposed to choose Tails. Maybe becouse you place it in second place or just becouse the word sound nice.

The question is how stable this system is? How much time can last? 1 millon years? less... or a lot more? Clearly a lot of matter would fall into the neutron star, but maybe not too much becouse the neutron star also push mater away with the 2 jet beams. And what happen with the normal star fussion? Decrease or increase? Eventually the neutron star would become a black hole, from this point I dont know how much time would last.

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-thorne-zytkow.html Wow, I never contemplated this possibility.

All are giving a lot of thought from the evolution approach, but this is simple. Men are important in the offspring survival, but not as important like women. So is natural that it would be a difference in life span, but not so large, only 7 years. What matters is not how many years a women live, is that they dont die meanwhile they are breeding their childs. Given that reason, they need an stronger inmunity system. And this stronger inmunity system provide them with longer life expentency. Thats it. How we can measure that biological difference? In lower levels of testosterone and the fact that womens had 2 XX cromosome which reduce the chance of get a fail copy. So get google/bing or wherever, and search testosterone and life span. I know that, but what I wanna said is that if you took the average of childs for women in her life span (worldwide), you would see that you have an average of 2,5 childs for women. But in development coutries the average is 0 to 2, but there is not a big risk in development coutries in the give birth process. On the contrary there is a increase risk in poor countries, and the birth rate average for each women in those countries is 4 to 7. So there is a lot of risk of mother mortality in those places. But men from birth had more active lives (physical exercise) than women, becouse ever their games are more physical. In the first years is when this is more important becouse our body is in plain development (lungs, muscles, etc), this works against women, becouse is know how important is the exercise in health. I like that sentence. Pretty means healthy and capable to survive. Is not weird that some of the most pretty girls in MMA are the ones that are in top positions. (with cyborg exeption becouse she took a lot of steroids in her life.) There is a misconception in that sentence product of the age we live or we learn from the close history. Why you think that women did not hunt? There are many proff that show that women hunt in conjuntion with men in the age stone. If this would not be true in those times, maybe now we would not be here. Early times was not so easy, groups were not so numerous, so if you wanna try get food for winter, you need all the hands that you could get. Women not always was the "inferior being", the god figure of those times was a pregnant women (in all euroasia continent) What change that? I would said agroculture, Religion (Christianity main responsable) in conjunction with the OIL age. This give us a lot of energy and not need of extra hands. Yeah, maybe that is another way to see it.

What?? XD I am not a girl. So what is that anti-male propaganda?? I am trying to be neutral here, we are in a science forum after all; Lests be based in evidence, stadistics, studies and reality please. Haha miners?? lol, I remember that I had this same discussion long ago and people mention mining jobs in each sentence. Maybe the 30% of men are miners. There always was gender discrimination in all the world, even in USA when they had the highest values of discrimination against afroamericans, even so they gain vote rights like many others before womens. In the industrial revolution women had the worst jobs, like all works in textile or other factories with high chemical exposure, they also had all medical jobs like nurse, and they were in contact with all deceases. The pay for the same job was always less for women than mens. That is also something that contribute to stress and mental illness. Of course all that does not produce an instant death like some other men´s risk jobs, but they decrease life expentency by a lot. And they were very hard to prove. I dint found the studie that I read time ago from W.H.O. which talk and disprove the fact of women/men aging like factor of men risky jobs. But I found some similars: "I took the time to search them, so please take the time to do a quick read at least" http://www.who.int/gender/documents/Genderworkhealth.pdf http://www.who.int/gender/other_health/Gender,HealthandWorklast.pdf?ua=1 http://www.who.int/topics/womens_health/en/ http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/csdh_media/wgekn_final_report_07.pdf?ua=1 http://www.who.int/gender/events/2011/iwd/decent_work_health/en/index4.html There is also the fact that a baby girl has more chance to survive the birth and the first weaks after born than a boy. Where´s your "enviroment work theory" aplly into that? This is not the case in some Africa countries or low development countries where the "value" of baby girls are almost zero to the father, many does not survive the first years, is also common that the father sold (exchange her for a goat) to another old mans. Here there is some other links talking about testosterone. http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/girls-immune-systems-rule-boys-drool-73250/ http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2014/01/28/exploring-how-gender-affects-the-immune-system/ Yeah thanks, I forget about this. Give birth is not a very common death cause in development countries, but it is in every other place else. Women not always have a doctor or a specialist to help them to give birth, they are very expose to disease or infection or the same pain and damage of the process. And this is not like a few % of miners, or mens who has a risky job. What woman not give birth at least one child in her life?

Vaporized, you dont even read the last post before reply? That is soo wrong, is already proven that women had worst enviroment conditions than mens in work, no only that, when they come back to home they keep working with house tasks. But you are only imaging some 60th movie enviroment in some develope country where the men go to work and the women stay at home watching tv and making some smalls task. First, in those cases women live more than mens, but also in cases where womens had an inferno of live. The world is a lot bigger than the 60th movie style that you picture. What about africa, where girls since birth had less life expentency just becouse mens dont like to have daghters? what about the 80% of women which not live in development countries? Even in develoment countries women hard worst jobs. Read about it. A trusted source is W.H.O. World health organization. There are studies where men and womens had a very close social enviroment similarities, and even there women life span difference is the same. Why almost all males in the animal kingdom live less than females? What? they go to work in worst enviroment conditions? And majority of females not only they need to hunt for them, also for their progeny. There are a lot of countries who never enter in war, and you can see the same life span difference there.

If you want a better explanation, you just need to ask, like I said. I dint do it at first becouse I knew that it would take time (my english is not good), and maybe someone would like search for them self evidence to see if is true or not. You can said that women lives longer than men just becouse evolution (and you would not be wrong). Almost the majority of all female´s animals had longer life span. This is becouse females had a major impact in children survival than mens. For that, is normal that this evolution trait appears. But this does not explain the "why" in an accurate science way. There are several studies that prove how testosterone reduce our Immune System, womens are stronger against deseases, heart attacks, etc. Both genders had some Testosterone levels, but of course mens had more of it. This give us more strength and power, but it also acts as nitro in a normal engine (grind down). Stadistics and studies show that mens (and males in mostly all species) lives longer when they had low levels of testosterone. "historical data showing castrated Koreans far outlived their non-eunuch contemporaries." "research in Japan in which scientists created "super female" mice from genetic material from two females, with no genetic material from a male. These mice lived a third longer than ordinary female mice." "Laboratory studies have also shown cells in female rodents repair damage better than in males, but this difference is eliminated if the ovaries are surgically removed. It is also known that castrated male animals tend to live longer than intact animals. According to Kirkwood there is also evidence from an institution for the mentally disturbed in Kansas, where castration of male inmates was once a common practice, that castrated men lived an average of 14 years longer than uncastrated inmates." Regarding to the theory which stand that mens live less than women becouse they had major risks or worst work conditions, it was disproval in several studies. First, the World Health Organization show many times that womens had the worst works in average to mens, with less paid, more stress and repetivive and in exposition to harm enviroments (this is changing in out time, but still women had worst jobs according to health) Mens die more becouse drugs, alcolishm, risk behavior, etc. But womens also die of other causes, like given birth, a life with less physsical activity than mens, this give health proeblems to future, etc.

I was sure that someone in 4 pages would be knew the answer, but it seems not. (well I can not find it, sorry if this is not true) The answer is "Testosterone". And women would live even longer if they would have a similar live style like mens. If someone wants, I can give you more details of why is like that.

THat is photoshop or a real mod config? I really like that kind of Eve. Seems more real.

Try to raise from venus surfuce using any kind of rocket or ramjet propulsion would be almost as silly like try to launch a rocket from 300 meters deep in our oceans. Of course the first step to solve this problem would be float. The same in venus. You can reach 50km or 70 km of height before ignite your engines and start to burn fuel like crazy. I would said 8,5km/s of delta-V, becouse venus gravity as its diameter are lower than earth.

Sorry for delay, But I am too busy lately with my work. The problem is that you lift half of the total payload for the same lifting gas volume. In other words, you get "half" city for almost the same cost. Remember than even at 50km, you only lift half kilogram for each m3 of air. Of course is not easy to deal with the heat problem, but the true is that nobody try it to solve this before.. so we dont know all the possible solutions that can be waiting to be discover. Also this is not a Rubisco idea. Is mentioned for the same Geoffrey Landis in the video that I post in the Terraforming topic, he said that probably we wanna be at a height where we can have a passive heat control. But he dint talk much about that. THere is a big difference if we talk about a small outpost than a big city. If you wanna deal with the heat you need to spend mostly in insulation on the envelope surface of course. But if we measure how the cost taking into account the evelope surface with the volume of gas that you would use. It give you a ratio of: For a small outpost: 33-1 Small city: 330-1 Big City: 3300-1 Now you see? that is how the cost of gas volume grows in comparison with the envelope surface cost. Lets said that for a small outpost and a small city you find that is still cheaper the high altitude approach, but you will get a point "for sure" where is not. What are the key elements for insulation? -IR and UV reflective layers (super thin and cheap) / Or you can have a graphene composite layer tuned to convert into electricity those wavelenghts. -aerogel (super effective, very cheap to produce in venus, super light) -All the lights that plants does not absorb, you can have another graphene composite layer to transform in electricity the visible wavelenghts. -A good design where your city and envelope shape would work like a huge heat pump. -With a stratification approach you reduce in a 75% the amount of remaining heat to cool out. Also with this you dont lose lift power due to a low temperature insight. And you dont need to go straight ahead from 55 km to 50km (in case the high temperature chart is correct) from one pasive cooling system to the other. You can start reducing 1km at a time depending how big your city would be). But the question here is not why I am against the high altitude aprooach (which I am not). Is why all you are against me when I am just trying to be creative here.. If we are here just to talk about things that we can copy and paste from other places, then what is the point??? There is a huge difference trying to discover something new when you are dealing with a problem that almost nobody deal before. it's not like trying to find a cancer cure, where millons of people try all years, this is a new problem and enviroment, the idea was recent spread. So there is a great chance to find solutions that never did before. For example I have the idea of sky surfing in venus (using different altitude winds) to maintain a latitude (different from equator) against the meridional winds "2m/s to 6m/s", also how to harvester energy at night. "you would not find any solution to those problems in internet" The stratification idea I still not sure if it would work, but well, is a different approach. So again.. what is wrong in trying to search better solutions? I can make a list, you want? several times I prove you wrong and you never admit it. Not a good trait if you ask me. Not mass, at least not in a substantially way. You see?? 50km is the perfect spot to gain energy from the high deltaV wind difference. Not only that, you can get high winds, low winds or both at the same time. Also you are in the best zone to harvester sulfure acid (your most precious element in venus), in that place dodplets are bigger than at higher altitudes and you get more of them. Plus more lift. So? any word against "complete lack of evidence" ?? of course, so?? like in any place where you go. 30x230??? that is a surface data. you need to tell me the volume dimensions. 100kt?? 100000 Tons you said? In close orbit? Easy, you just need to reflect the light and thats it. what do you learn from that? can you quoted something interesting? Well, seeing that Rubisco did not help in answer your question, you need to take into account that if you expand a gas, the temperature of the gas lower. For that reason when you use any spray, you notice that is very cold. Venturi effect produce high velocity and low pressure, if you insulate all the path, less the part where the gas expand again, that part would absorb heat. Yeah, I was thinking more in a toroidal shape, but the weight and cost that you spend in the structure 2km or 3km to support the city, it may be similar or worst than just float higher. --------------------------------- I read a preview of the Sultan of the clouds from Geoffrey landis, in that novel he talks about the venus cloud cities, he mention diamond aerogel (but also like a way to produce very lights fornitudes) and cities that are at very low height, but the preview is limited, so I can not see the way that geoffrey landis describe to deal with hot temperatures. Heres is the preview (seems a very good story, he won some awards with that): https://www.asimovs.com/2010_09/exc_story1.shtml ---------------------------------- Here there is a new design that I am doing of a cloud city. "is not finish" I guess i am short in lifting volume. For this I would need a material 5 times more lighter than to day fiber carbon structures. I post it, becouse I dont know if I would be able to finish with all the late work that I have now. ------------------------------------ This is how to move between different latitudes. Height does not matter, you move with the wind. So your apparent wind it will be close to zero. What it matters is your speed difference against different altitude winds. Those are your winds. If you take 50km your zero potential value, at 48 km you would have a wind that blows at 15m/s in contrary direction against your movements (from surface), at 52 km you have 15m/s in your direction. But like kites use the wing principle, the force that you get (if your kites are parallel to the wind speed) is normal. You can harvester energy with the push force that the kite does, and then winding the rode to release it again. ------------------------------------------------ Sorry if my english was very bad in this last reply, I dint check the traductor.

I wanna share a picture that I find about venus floating cities: I am starting to think that is pointless to discuss with you. Or you dont understand the sentences, or you change the subject, but you will do anything to not said that you are wrong. That is a big defect, becouse is an impediment to learn. you can include a heat pump, or an absortion heat transfer process in the design of the city, so forget heavy machines.If the city is very well planned from start, you can play with its big surfaces and volumes. Controlling things like evaporation (extraction of heat), or venturi effects (also collling), with known physsics, You can make a passive heat pump that it would be big enoght like the city it self. Expending few materials. There are so many ways to extract energy, or how to use that energy that enters the city in your advantage. I would disagree if not be by the fact that below 50 km the conditions of winds, pressure, or to harvesting water or acid are not ideal like at 50km. First, we dont wanna build ballons on the surface, only the insulators.Send people? to where? to the surface or to venus? You need people in the clouds to control all the operations in the surface or in the clouds it self. Of course we dont start at the surface, like I said, first outpost are a higher altitude, get down in altitude becomes convenient if we are talking of big volumes. Its easier to deal with high temperatures with big volumes. Of course you dont go from 20C outposts to 66C cities over the night.. You start with 24C, 30C, the outpost become bigger and bigger. Until you have a city at 37C, then of course that continue. And from my calculate, the volume over surface ratio continue growing with no stop at bigger scales. You reach a point when you want to make 2 cities with the same volume of air. Also the envelope. THe ratio increase and you reach a point where you can not look to other side. That is your problem, you are stuck in the first venus missions. Of course that if we still dont have infrastructure at venus it will be CRAZY try to make a 500mts radius city. It reach a point where any big city would expell more oxygen that it use just using plants. But that does not mean that it has not value. Becouse if you reach that state, you need hundreds of different floating buildings to keep growing. as you wish, I like to think and solve problems, so I find more interesting the heat approach. I read Venus 1 book, Venus 2 book, and many other papers or studies. I never see any comments about measuments done by pionners of venera according to te things that you want to claim.It works like I explain in the last post. If you are inside a cloud, you almost not notice, but you would see other clouds like solid at distance. If you see satellites pictures of venus, its very obvious that there are places with more or less clouds.

Something similar to this it may look a Venus Launch Plataform. It will rise to 65km, launch. Then it compress the hidrogen so would down. The rocket would carry 5T to 10T of payload to Low Venus Orbit in 2 Stages, each stage detach with tank emptly, and giving the low density of each stage, would fall and float at 40km height. The launch plataform down and recover each part, then goes back to 52km where it waits until the next launch, over equator line. Inside each stage tank, can be few liters of amoniac, with the heat evaporates and expand, this is to stand the pressure at 40km. Well we have our first outpost (or skyhab). Sounds good. It will be safer if the first skyhab, produce hidrogen and oxygen, so when the next manned mission arrives, they have ready their ticket to go back (in case anything happens) mars direct style. I am not, what is the problem with deformations? These insulators triangle tables are not fixed or attached to any place, no even between them, they just support their own weight and form the structure thanks to gravity. They are outside of the structure between the 2 layer envelope and another (no friction) fabric that cover the structure. Like we have equal pressure, there is no much pressure from the 2 layer envelope against the fabric which cover the structure. This is not a solution... if we have the problem of the need for big volumes to lift a payload at great heights, you can not call a solutions "not do nothing" (we already have that). A solution would be found a way to reduce the volume or cost require to lift a same amount of payload. So aproachs would be get down and deal with heat, or try to combine different gases to gain extra lift for the same cost, or heat the inside gases to gain more lift, or use the winds speeds to gain lift, or many others. So? but my question was about a smaller volume. If you said that it takes you 10kw get m3 of hidrogen, I can not tell you, "not you are wrong, if you want convert all the hidrogen in venus it would cost you X" But I can generate work outside, and then introduce that work inside just using a conductor. My stratification approach tries to equally the average heat from inside to outside. But I guess the problems looks equal to forget about all the area that is average temperature, and then deal only with the refrigeration that small area with the internal heat generated. The same than temperature, we still dont know for sure how easy would be gather sulfuric acid. If you said that it will be cheap, then I can said that the temperature at 50km is 0C degree so there is not problem. We dont know. I never said carbon aerogel (otherwise, there is not oxygen in venus, so there is not much problem being flamable) I said Co2. Co2 is the main ingredient for aerogels and that is not all, it needs to be in supercritical state at 53 bar minimun. All venus surfuce has co2 in supercritical state at 90 bar. You just need "silica", that is the second more common components in the surfuce. produce aerogels Is almost free Remember when I told you that those conditions in venus surface may be a game change in production cost for some products. Of course, but the extra amount of gas that you need to produce is still a problem. And technology advance is thanks to people who find ways to solve problems. I dont understand. You need to take the volume difference between deal with 1 bar or X bar. You are still confuse with venus graphics clouds. Inside of venus clouds you have a lot of visibility, becouse clouds are not so dense. But this does not means that far clouds does not look fluffy. In fact they would look equal fluffy at distance. You never thoght a fog or a cloud at earth which looks so fluffy and closed, but when you are inside, you can see hundreds of meters, even other clouds in the sky?

ok good to know, I hope this project receive more contributions. (thanks jsimmonds) About the hide.. In that case all parts would be load anyway and consume memory (from my low undestanding of the game engine). In my case I have like 5 min of loading time with the active texture reduction mod. But maybe is just me. Well you know, if you have some work that is repetitive and tedious, pm me, and I will see how to help you. (without credits).

I did. What happen if anyone wants to create a new part? Not for your mod, just for the game (lets said a decoupler), but they dont want add 1 part for each standard diameter. They can borrow your code (with all credits listed) to make their part with your system? Or that is against your wish? In case they can, how easy is to addapt your code? I have a gun, let me see what I can do THat it would be the choice of the player, had some differences in the models or reduce their count part ,increasing game performance and increase their part possibilities by a lot.If you dont remplace the standard parts with yours, you are doing the thing that you dont want.. That is, increase the part counts. So maybe in the future needs to be a way to remove all game parts, or just ignore them in the game load. Also you can make a compatibility list, for example, you have a procedural part that remplace several standard tanks, also some other mods tanks. You can have a file that if some craft have that part, then is remplaced with X parameters of your procedural part to approach to the dimensions of that standard/mod part. If there is a way to do that, you can do it with one and I will help you to complete the list with the rest. For example, I have stretchy tanks, real fuels, and other procedural mods, I took the job to remove all the other parts that I dont need from KSP and other mods, and I lose all compatibility with oldest creations. This is a hard work that it takes hours. I am just saying that many people would not install the mods if they know that they need to do all that, becouse if they already had NP, or KW Rocketry. They would not find any improve if they dont delete the parts that can be remplaced.

Third time that I will type all this. I had 2 electricity cuts meanwhile I was doing it. The first time got me just in the finish :S I guess there is not much thermal difference in venus at that height, but nothing is certain, also winds will put soe stress to the structure. So lets see.. We would have a rigid structure of graphene composites or wherever. Then we cover all that with fabric, then we have the 2 layers from the envelope. Between the 2 layers and the fabric, we would have the aerogel, in triangle pieces one aside of the other (tetris style), so if there is expansion or contraction, pieces will push between them but without limits to grow (becouse is just 1/3 of the envelope), and they not weight much, so that force it will be almost null. The fabric and the envelope layers needs to have low friction coefficient. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I was talking about "earth" hot air ballons. To make a case of stratification, nothing more. Well, I just remove all the other sentences becouse they dont add much to the discussion, but this one is really important. Sharp question. In principle, yes this will meaning that I need to cold also all city process. But then I realize that I have a bigger problem in my design. I can not heat the air to 100C or more, so I can not have a higher average temperature than outside. The heat that rise between the envelope, does not receive any heat source with more than 66 degrees, and if I use the incomming radiation in UV and IR then I would need a higher gradiant to expell that energy. If I have time, I will think about this to see if I found a solution. I hope not being fighting against thermodynamics. Heh, a sphere with 365 mts of radius??? lol, what picture are you seeing?? we are talking of my egg envelope here. It has 230 mts tall and 100 mts wide. If we estimate a surfuce area of 25000, we will got 450kg of aerogel. In my first estimation I was thinking in 1 cm until the blue area. So giving this, my mental estimation of 1 person weight was not so far, dont you? Try to admit one mistake some day.. I said: First we need to have a reflective IR-UV layer in the whole envelope to counter the wavelenght heat due to Sun light and cloud reflective light. And you said: Great, no plant growth for food. These kind of complex thermodinamics calculations are out of our reach. Unless you know some free software to do this. It will be better if we just focus in the general thermodynamics principles. I can transform almost all heat inside the envelope into another type of energy, there is no thermodynamic law which prohibit that. But well, my design is still not good enoght, and maybe can not work. I dont know. You can have your smile for now But I know many technologies that can help here, I just need to think how to combine them. But you see your numbers? you have 20 hidrogen ballons of 235 m wide! You know that hidrogen is not so cheap in venus. First, insulators are very cheap, you can make aerogel from carbon dioxide (just that), mmm where we can find carbon dioxide in venus??? XD IR and UV reflective layers also very cheap and light. Then we need to find a good method to manage the heat "I still working on that". But after all, in case the temperatures are not cool enoght at 50km, we still can rise the altitude like you said. But you need to accept that like I prove, there is a solid case to deal with heat instead low pressure in air production, that mass ratio keeps growing. Before deal with those huge numbers I will try anything, maybe raise a hidrogen ballon with a light tube to aspirate all cold air from higher altitudes and use it like colling system (which I think it would not work due to the pressure difference). But well, rise in altitude, we already have that solution. whats more? The fact that we have a little less radiation flux at that height than earth surface, also you are watching in one direction, so you only need to count the flux that is comming in that direction. You have also sunrises and sunsets, with that thick atmosphere they are a lot darker than here. If we are talking of that year, then the temperature is not such an issue. We can convert all extra heat into electricity... which will help to pump more heat outside. At least you will have a quick death.. A push into the emptly space does not sound so nice either.