AngelLestat

If you want to use your mod power to said than it will be better had different topics to discuss different terraforming approach, ok. I understand. But you are saying that in this thread we can only discuss about terraforming and you prohibit talk about the 50km height approach (which is in fact the best method and first step to terraform Venus) We are in a science sections, so at least here true and facts needs to have some weight. Also if anyone still has doubts about whether this should or should not be in this topic, please explain me why the 2 most important sites about terraforming venus, mention the 50 km approach at the top? http://terraforming.wikia.com/wiki/Venus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus What is follow next? If I talk in a pet topic about cats, someone would ban me becouse we can only talk about dogs? You need an habitat just to separate the gases (nothing else) and becouse is not the final terraforming process. But from there, you only need to make that layer of the atmosphere breatheable and thats it. First step with just masks to avoid the co2, and then who knows. Just with the cloud approach you have day/night cycle of 96hr, 1 bar and same range of temperatures. If you dont use that approach, to get the same similarities you need to get rid of the 90 bar of atmosphere, change its rotation speed, change its orbit or its atmosphere composition to get zero greenhouse effect just to have similar temperature than earth. One approach it only has to deal with floating envelopes (the same if we want to leave over an ocean planet surfuce) the second approach needs an amount of energy impossible to achieve by us. Now tell me, what is the best approach? In your case, if you wanna make use of the earth surface cover by water to live, what do you do? you extract all the water, or you just float things over? Curriculums does not count, only count the things that you said. If there are truth or not. I can said than I am a Venus specialist and eminence about venus technologies, but if said wrong things, there are still wrong. Venus´s air?? There is not Air in venus! Air is the gas mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, etc.. all in their current % values, and it does not have nothing to do with pressure. You need to ask? If a scientist makes a paper explaning how to achieve something, it always provides tons of sources to prove the things that he dint bother to explain well or it may look doubtful for the reader. Or you never had to make a monograph, document, paper or tesis in your career like Biochemist?? I just dont wanna start a discussion about construction methods, I can see ways to solve space labors issues and also floating labors issues. Both has their pros and cons, but in general view, but the fact that we dont need a space suit and the fact that all our movements are just the same that we are accustomed (our body is designed for this ambient and not a zero g ambient) so in my opinion venus has its advantage to construct things. Ahh, but you are talking about going and back, in that case a very close NEO it has also 8km/s (go and back). That it does not produce the same damage than an equal-power nuclear bomb. No, you just need heat the water, the hole you already did it with a laser or by other medium. so if you have heated water, vaccum and a hole. You have a propulsion noozle. Yeah, but I dont know how to calculate that in a flyby case, in case you know, find if its a real problem or not. But if we dont have any number it does not help us to see if its a problem or not. Remember that I said that we can not destroy the saturn rings, so this mean that is not so close the flyby. Like I already explain and prove, this is an important step and it has everything to do with terraforming. A sun shade?? I dont understand. Something breatheable means something that not poison you.. The mixture that your body needs. Is not? oh, I thought that it was the biggest encyclopedia even made. Also an encyclopedia is also a dictionary. But well, here you got different dictionary means: wordreference: breathable adj (air: healthy to breathe in) thefreedictionary breath·a·ble (brē′thÉ™-bÉ™l) adj. 1. Suitable or pleasant for breathing: breathable air. 2. Permitting air to pass through: a breathable fabric breathable (ˈbriËÂðəbÉ™l) adj 1. (of air) fit to be breathed You find a place in all definitions that mention something about the pressure? Fit to be breathed.. You can be at 20km of height and breath the air that is at that height. The fact that is not enoght to my body, it does not mean that it can not be breathed! Breath means aspirate, gas inside your lungs. It has nothing to do with pressure. And that proves me wrong.. how???? YOu dont understand? all sources are against you!! Is not about pressure. Is all about mixture. Read what is AIR (ahh.. but the only source that is correct is the one that is inside your head dont you?)

I dont know if it is precisely what you are looking for. But from the creator of centauri dreams site (Paul Gilster) you can read: "Centauri Dreams Imagininng and planning interstellar exploration" Is one of the newest books about that topic, whereby it is very updated with the latest discoveries.

heh, ok. Lets assume that all dictionary definitions are wrong If is like you said... then there is a pressure level when the breatheable air stop being breatheable air. What is that pressure value? At everest pressure? Some people that they are not trained, they can not get enoght oxigen at that height. So we can said that is not breatheable air? Not becouse many people can. Ok, but everest pressure is not too low. But what happens if we double that height? Then we can said for sure that the air is not breatheable? not. Becouse if we are falling or traveling fast with out mouth open, then we can breath enoght oxygen. Also depends if we smoke or many other reasons. So that is a good way to define if we have breatheable air? NOT. Why? Becouse the true is that no matter what pressure we have, we can breath that. The fact that its volume is or is not enoght, is another issue. But is Breatheable air! All our atmosphere is made of air! And what is air? 78% Nitrogen, and 22% Oxygen. The pressure it does not matter in the definition of what is a breatheable air or what is not. Is clear enoght? Dont get me wrong, I dont have nothing against someone trying to point errors. is something good for any discussion. But when the errors was already solve prove it wrong, why keep ignoring the facts?

Is in the definition on the wikipedia that I show.. I win. period. You like it, or not. The same for terraforming. Deal with it. that is also my posture. we dont know. But you need to said this to rubisco. Not to me. Well Rubisco and SargeRho, the only that you did in this thread was give negatives about the cloud idea becouse from the start never of you thoght that was so well supported. But now you kept being as negative as possible just for a proud matter. Which I think is the most silly behavior that we can have in a discussion. More when you kept ignoring all source and any kind of proff. But is fine for me, if someone want to split the topic or werever, can do it. But with people who bring positive ideas and solutions, if I am the only one, I dont see the point.

Inside the enclosed habitat you are right, is not about terraforming. But rise the ground level to 50km in height is in fact a terraforming process. Yes, but I would not said something that is not true. Rise the ground level is a terraforming process, they like it or not. Is one of the first things that Landis mention, the problem with venus is that its 1bar level is too high over the surface, at that point venus has the most like it similarities to earth from the entire solar system. Why Io? haha, so in your definition if you are floating in a hidrogen ballon or with a high speed airplane here at earth, that gas that is outside is not breathable air? Why you can not breath that? The fact that is too thin to be brethed it does not convert it in "not breatheable". Stop inventing your own definitions just to try to prove your points. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing_gas Is all about compositions mixtures. Is not about pressure. But we were talking about how much important temperature it is if you have all the other earth similarities. So you can not use the vaccum case. Try to find a biologist who share your point of view. Like I said is not the most important, you just want to take 2 similarities for the price of one. Gas Mixture and pressure. But you only can choose one like I explain above. So minerals means all elements? Not, just minerals. And that is not all true, depending where you mine is the mixture that you would find. Your explanations is too vague, can you point a source to read about? is possible, but I would put my money that is easier and cheaper construct in venus than in space. No I posted that source before, there are already over 100 known requiring less then 4.5 km/s. Yeah, from the 6000 that we know. Then you can make a list of how many with less than 2,5km/s like you said. You quote 2km/s asteroids when you mention to use the moon to capture them. 16km/s? against 2? what calculate are you doing???? I want to know. With the difference that you dont need to do that in venus, you can extract it all from there. why you invent words that I never used. I never said that harmlessly leak out? where you get that?? I said that the energy is absorb in a bigger volume, not just concentred in a small volume which give you a shockwave. Ideas. a simple idea can change everything. Like the cloud city idea, you get 3 earth similarities just floating things, how much energy you need to spend to have those similarities at venus surface level? you are very possitive about that, but what about all collateral effects than an impact gives you?

This does not mean than a cloud city is not a terraforming process. Is the ultimate terraforming? No.. is just one step that gives you already 3 important similarities. You are sure? You can work hard at mars to get 78% nitrogen and 22% oxygen, but if your atmosphere pressure is still 0,6% compared with earth then you would die 100 times faster than in venus breathing 98% co2. Now lets see how important is temperature. You know that air conditioning is the second more energy demanding after transport here at earth. And we spend all that energy to change the temperature a few degress to get comfort. Just to change the air temperature 50 degrees from an average apartment, you would need 35000 kw/h. And what do you do if you need to go outside? Or if you need to heat the atmosphere some how? Gravity, is still unknown the effects of long exposure to a different gravity. In the ISS Astronauts workout 2 hr at day, and even with that they need a lot of rehabilitation after come back. So what happen if you born in mars? That is a problem which evolution never face it, so something is sure, our genetic is not prepared. Like I show to you, pressure, temperature and gravity are equal or more important than any other similarity. Really? what are they wating to do it at earth if it is so easy?? why we not change all mining methods to obtain 100 % of all elements inside each m3 of ground or rock? You're chasing a mining utopia. Will always be more efficient and profitable focus at some elements at the time and ignore rest. More when you have smalls amounts of certain element. With each extra element that you want to obtain and purify you are increasing the machinary complexity by a lot. And it is very easy to reach the point when its not worth it. Another dream, how much time may take to construc a space colony taking all the difficulties of space labors and materials needed? All this time you would be at side from an asteroid which have ice and other componds trap it, with huge heat differences between light exposure and shadows plus vaccum. That is a time bomb. I dont remember the name of the probe that was destroy just by close a little bit to the tail from a comet. What calculations? You dint read the source that I show to you about the few Neo objects with a deltav less than 4,5km/s? And you want a neo with 2km/s, with all elements, and avoid all possible problems with sun heat. ok... good luck. What evidence you have that they have all those compounds? Please.. I really want a source that tells me if is possible to get all the elements from 1 asteroid. That is very different than said: -what kinds of elements you "may" find in a "c-type" asteroid. I said moons, no moon. Is easy to avoid confusion than said sattelites. read! You even read?? What I said? I said than an antimatter explosion release almost all its energy in gama ray form, like these are difficult to stop, the energy is realease it in a bigger volume. SO... is a lot less destructive than a nuclear detonation with equal power. Also I dint think nothing, is very clear in my words that we need a new technology, we can not move moons yet. Get a magnetic field would be nice to avoid lose more hidrogen, but this happen too slow than is not worth to considering. About the co2, like rubisko point it, you can not extract it without water. Plants extract the o2 from the h2o, not from the co2, and they storage that carbon. I hear of some methods to extract o2 in direct way from the co2. But they still are far from be as efficient like plats. Besides, the best about plants its than they replicate. There is another way, we know than some purple sulfur bacteria here at earth transform: CO2 + 2H2S → (CH2O) + H2O + 2S And the amount of 2h2s or some of their derivatives are higher than the amount of water vapor in venus. Also if we dont cool the atmosphere first, all the death bacterias which had their carbon storage inside its cells would fall to the surfuce, were maybe the co2 would be release it again using the new oxygen from the atmosphere. For that reason I said about cool down the atmosphere with an amount of water similar to earth, but you need drop the water wihout orbital velocity. yup

If some day I have more fingers, I would try another numeral system.

Nice ideas, but the only one who mention what to put inside was Sillychris. But when I thought in a space museum I imagine more icon stuffs. Like Voyager. I would keep the voyager traveling untouch like its now, so I would put a string some meters around with a "No Trespassing" sign (museum style), matching voyager speed. I sort of satisfy all requirements. Is in orbit (around galaxy), there is not much radiation problems there, kinda visible and in the future you can go with your ship and your kids, stop at side and gaze at our first instruments which open our eyes and knowledge, still in duty with its mission.

Well I guess this would be my last reply in this topic, becouse we said almost that we could said. I would have liked a discussion with more contributions of ideas and solutions in regard to life and features that would have a cloud city. That is certainly the most interesting proposal regarding venus. I know, I meant to said increase rotation, but the amount of energy require is huge, so it does not worth it. We already have winds that give us 96hs cicle. If we took like example the day/night cicle of countries here at earth close to the poles, then you can said that 96hrs is more than ok. Well, you can use that t-shirt at mars or in the space vaccum (not much difference) and then tell me which do you prefer. So now you invent the rules of terraforming? the definition is your definition? Not. Terraformin is any process that takes you more close to earth conditions. Get almost the same G, temperature and pressure. Is a very good approach, if you wanna have 3 similar characteristics in any other place, you need to spend incredible amounts of energy and time. You can have oxigen, but if you dont have a similar pressure and temperature, you dont gain nothing. I explain this too many times.. First, you would not find all elements, and if you find it in 10ppm amounts its completely useless. First you need to mine a lot just to have almost nothing, and you can not have a perfect method to separate and divide 1 hundred elements. I said floaties, but I meant to said space colony, we were talking aboout how to get all colony materials from just 1 asteroid. By the way, there is not problem to get all the elements from venus. And yes you can process them some down, some at the clounds. Efficiency is irrelevant?? First, YOu ARE NOT at 1AU from the SUN! YOU ARE IN THE ASTEROID BELT BECOUSE YOU SAID THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE A COLONY TOO. (with full shields and radars to avoid hits) SO YOU NEED WATER. AND YOU CAN NOT HAVE WATER IN A ASTEROID WITH AN ORBIT SO NEAR TO THE SUN. I also explain and I give it to you a source of how less is the amount of NEO with less than 4km/s So there is not a good target in NEO. Besides your calculates are crazy, you does not have into account everything. Why you said it like if it was my idea? It was always your idea search water in the oort cloud. You think that wikipedia said that there is water ammonia co2 and methane, is becouse we measure most of them and we find that? Not. We measure the big ones, 7 or 10 I guess. And then with solar system formations theories we complete the holes, so those are our estimations. Yeah with the size of a planet or moon (and only 10 years ago). A little of common sense here, pls. You read my whole answer before reply? I said that we needed another kind of propulsion to get the thrust that we need. So your reply is useless. ??? blow the moon? with waht? with the method that I mention? WHy? You just heat the water undergroung, and with the hole produce it by the laser you have a noozle. An antimatter bomb is not so destructive like normal nuclear bombs. Becouse release the energy (radiation) in a bigger volume. Gamma ray are difficult to stop. i dont know. Is easy to see it in that way when we think in small pieces. But if we think that is the same amount of mass. I dont see much difference. Maybe someone made this calculations already. A source would be nice. If some day I made a ksp version with real solar system mod (i dont know if iapetus is in), I would test it. Then will see. ------------------------------------------------------------ Well maybe we reach to the page 20, or maybe we dont. It was a good talk anyways. I learn a lot of things.

First, I never want to stop its rotation, that is Rubisco idea. Second, then if we follow your terraforming definition, then is impossible terraform any other planet. Becouse there would be always discrepancies. For example, mars has 0,3g, even if you match pressure, temperature, atmophere composition, water, etc. It never would be the earth. Its diameter or gravity is too different. Each process that you made to have more similarity condition than earth in other planet is terraforming. So find a way to leave in the clouds (equal to rise the ground lv) is the best terraforming approach for venus. Becouse with just that step you get pressure, temperature and almost 1g. If you want to get that in any other planet or with different methods you would require huge amounts of energy. About the elements, no, you dont have the diversity of elements that you need in the amounts that you need. A floating colony would have to use all elements that we know. Just to made medicines, any kind of electronics or artefacts, or different chemicals to transform or divide other sustains. Also if you have a mining method that is good to extract metals and water or other materials, it would not be so good to extract other materials. You can not have all in one keeping good efficiencies. So dont think that you would be able to mining something of 20ppm, divide it, select it and storage that at the same time you mine all the other 100 elements. Kuiper belt start from 30au, the objects are bigger than asteroid belt and they are more spaced. They recieve much more light than an object at 4000 AU. If there was an object like pluto at 4000AU it would be almost impossible to find. Lets take eris for example, is bigger than pluto, its periapsis is 39 au and apoapsis 97au. It was discover in the 2003, but they was not sure until 2005. So what can we expect from a small "rock" at 4000Au. Tell me its composition We dont have the composition of objects from kuiper, we have just estimations due to bigger objets and solar system formation theories. Yeah, but is not possible see them, even if we have a super instrument, how we know where to point our instrument to find a rock in all that space? More powerfull telescope equals to more difficult to find a target. There is not need Rhea, Titan has 75 times the mass of iapetus. That it would be enoght. So once you get there, it can shot you to a very close approach to saturn (well not so much, people would be bad if we make a hole in the rings :S), then like you was in free fall from that far orbit, the oberth effect it would be very powerfull. So a little burn it would be enoght to reach jupiter, from there venus. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Iapetus_orbit_%28polar%29.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Iapetus_orbit_%28side%29.jpg My estimation of deltaV to reach Titan orbit from iapetus is a deltaV of 2.5kms. Weird I would be expected a lot less. I dont know how to calculate orbits assits, but my estimation once you reach titan, you can reach venus with no more than 0.5kms So that give us a total of 3km/s. Of course we need some big pushes, we can not do this with fussion or anything else. We need something big. Maybe making a hole in iapetus cortex with a powerfull laser, and then send an antimatter projectile to heat all the underground water, so you will get a noozle from the size of that hole. But how much water we spend doing this it will depends on the exhaust velocity of water across the hole. The main problem is how we drop all the water without crashing iapetus into venus.. In this point we need another miracle or a very good idea.. Ye But is almost the same with small pieces or big. The energy would be the same. And the atmosphere would trap all that energy, and release it slowly due to the cloud top temperature. But it does not matter how method would take more crashing, if we crash things we would have more problems and for sure it would take 1 millons years minimun.

Dude.. "From the 7000 NEO only 69 has less of 4km/s of deltaV to reach them. And from all those, you need to select 1 that has all elements (you cant do that even if you have 100000000 to select), adding the fact that all these asteroids has a periapsis lower than earth, So is very difficult they had water, and if they had, you can not mining them becouse it would destroy your /habitat/ships/machinery. So forget your silly 2km/s of deltaV, if you wanna search a good target, you need to go and risk in the asteroid belt." And 1 c-type asteroid has NOT all elements. Get that out of your head or find a source of one asteroid that contain all. And I mean all in the amount needed so Rubisco can make its colony with just 1 asteroid. You can use aerocapture with venus. About terraforming, so if you crush comets, you stop the rotation, you remove all the co2, you bring water, you get 1bar but still dont have the right amount of nitrogen or oxigen then all the things that you did is not terraforming? Terraforming is each process that close you more to an earth enviroment.

Damm Rubisco, these comments are becoming increasingly long, just becouse you keep ignoring all facts that I detail. Just remember, ignoring them does not make them disappears. Search aerocraft dream dragon in youtube. But rubisco is talking about build a huge habitat to solve the earth population problem taking all materials from just one asteroid. Yeah, I also thought in that. But everything is solvable. We don't have them because we never needed them. The needs it what push all progress. So if a high temperaute explosive is possible, then also a detonator. There is no need BECOUSE YOU CANT use aerocapture with an asteroid. Besides the mass that it adds is NOTHING in comparison to the fuel that you need to cut the same dv. Also believe that you can get all components to sustain a big habitat and get profit mining just with a near earth object asteroid using only 2km/s of deltaV or less. I dont know why you dont like the venus idea, because you already are living in the clouds A little of info for you: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.4152.pdf From the 7000 NEO only 69 has less of 4km/s of deltaV to reach them. And from all those, you need to select 1 that has all elements (you cant do that even if you have 100000000 to select), adding the fact that all these asteroids has a periapsis lower than earth, So is very difficult that they had water, and if they had, you can not mining them becouse it would destroy your /habitat/ships/machinery. YOU UNDERSTAND? So forget your silly 2km/s of deltaV, if you wanna search a good target, you need to go and risk in the asteroid belt. They are already testing all the main parts of these rovers, but well, lets take your word. There are just "paper study". So then all your paper study of how to mining at zero g are only that.. a paper. So lets ignore them. You can not mine at zerog The mass added to solve those "problems" is a lot lower of what you imagine. An increase of 10% or 20% in a rover it does no makes much difference, less when you already had all the infrastructure to produce things in venus. keep making those comments, so everybody see how you "think".I just was trying to teach you that had 90 bar of pressure it does not mean that "pressure" would crush things. If we my examples you still can not visualize, then I am sorry for you. Why then all this time you was talking that is so easy mine or drill asteroids becouse its density was so low?Where all the things that you most want are harded than iron. Until you reach a hard part, giving that you are fixed to 1.3g/cm3 material, that would represent a problem. Sounds good for me. Fun video. Aircrafts? they can not land in everywhere. Also more fuel. Helicopters? They can not lift much, they consume a lot of fuel, and they can not stay all the time they want in the air. The time that it may take against an aircraft is not an issue, there is a lot of payloads which has not rush to be delivery, also if you count how much time it takes send the payload by truck (in case is not big or heavy enoght) to the (boat aircraft or train), then the time to unload the cargo to another truck and deliver to destinations. You aircraft or wherever does not sound so good. This thing can load a payload (of any size and heavy) everywhere (in the middle of the sea if you want), delivery to everywhere with less fuel consumption than any other techonology with a max speed of 200km/h (you can rise or down searching winds to gain even more speed), also can be used like entertening (who doesn´t want to fly in that?). But with your "economic knowledge" you would not invest any penny in this. In the same way you said that venus has not value. Lucky us, pentagon and nasa disagree with you. They can not. In the same way that if I mine just one part on the earth I would not find all elements. We are agree. ?? ?? ?? With all the mechanical energy loses due to friction to transform a circular movement into 100 different movements? Also you can not storage energy this way. But with the steam cycle you can, and is very easy to use in any kind of movemements that you need. But all this was just an example how you can (If you want) produce work without electrical motors. But like I said, special electric motors was already prove it in venus conditions with success. Europa has a lot of water, but its -50% water only. 80% is the enseladus case "maybe". If there are small ones instead a big one? I guess is the same in venus case becouse you had a thick atmosphere. It is. Search in wiki what terraforming is mean. We are rising the ground level with materials from the ground and atmosphere. To get earth like conditions. And we are getting them. Same temperature, same pressure, same G; then we can start to convert co2 to get oxigen. That is terraforming. In Rubisco case, he is taking the asteroids from 4000AU, at that distance our sun looks almost like any other star. So a solar sail so far is pointless. Besides, if these asteroids has water, we can use that like reaction mass. Is a lot more effective. Why reflect all less IR? Your 4000AU case is too extreme I guess. A little more and you try to get asteroids from the centauri system You know how much time take a mission to go there? Another problem is how to select a good targets (and you need a lot), even if we have a super telescope it would not be enoght I guess, becouse this objects does not receive almost any light from our sun. So make an analysis to see if they got enoght water seems impossible. The deltav benefic seems good, but we need to calculate too how much deltav we need to carry all engines to there. There is another posibility to get a lot of water. Iapetus, saturns satellite. Is the one that is more far from saturn (perfect for deltav escape), Its radius is 730km, 80% water, so this mean between 85% of earth water (perfect for venus). You can burn into retrograde and get gravity assist from titan, that can take you very close to saturn, or just you can get another gravity assist from Rhea, until you get a very close periapsis with saturn (where you can use the oberth effect) to gain a encounter with jupiter (gravity assist) and then Venus. The problem that with low trust, all that manuver can cause a mess in the saturn system XD. But the benefics are many. Still you need more deltav. But is all the water is just one place. I dont think that crushing things into venus can solve problems, but maybe with the new techonologies advances, we can have new energy resources and methods to make something like that possible.

Yeah, there is some ways like all you mention, lucky us, we dont have to use them... There would be many more deaths and tragedies. But my comment was just to point the energetic benefits than any living being gain by using oxygen. Relax, you are in safe ground now Well I will follow some topic rules, and I would said genetic memory. The abilitiy to learn from the experience, record those experiences in adn code, then transmite that info to its offspring.

Well, now ask rockets to use any other other elements instead oxigen to reach orbit. :S

Lol, you are not helping seret, and you are the specialist. Think out of the box for 1 min please. Yesterday, I was thinking in the detonator problem, becouse I know before you answer that it will represent an issue. So I imaging an electrical resistance inside a high pressure container with a liquid. Then if you heat the liquid to very high temperatures you would have a shockwave in conjunction with heat. But I was not sure of how much m/s that shockwave would be. Today I see your answer, it seems that the c4 melting point it was also a issue. But comming back to my idea, I thought that if I was correct it was very probably another came with this idea before me. And tadan... http://www.google.com/patents/US1408565 Then, if exist such detonator then it means that there is a explosives for high temperatures. The answer is yes "BTDAONAB" http://www.wydawnictwa.ipo.waw.pl/cejem/vol-9-3-2012/Agrawal.pdf It can be used for very deep drill holes, so they need to stand temperatures until 500Celcius and high pressures. This one, stand 550Celcius and 300000Bar (How I said, deal with pressure is not a big deal). So, problem solve. And I think if chemist know that they dont need to worry for the oxygen (a big oxidant element) they could find many different solutions. ?? read again please. When I said how much easy is to reach orbit each year, I meant the cost due to technologies or just for practice in the matter. It has nothing to do with launch windows. But now you mention, that also reflects into the cost some how. Really? in what year? 1960 comming back from the moon to super speed?Well never mind, lets said that is like you said. If 15% is what do you need to earth, then for the same speed you need almost the half of that in venus. And now we have a lot of better materials, and like I said, it depends also of the design and density. You have inflatable heat shields, does decrease a lot your density by unit of area. Also the same inflatable heat shield can work like ballon once you are at 50km height. Lol, you think those rovers are just a draw??? You think that Geoffrey Landis and its team are just a regular internet guys?It works in the NIAC, high advance nasa concepts. Read his curriculum, He design many rovers or different aplications that was used in many of the nasa missions. AND PLEASE STOP WITH THE PRESSURE ISSUE!! IS NOT AN ISSUE!!! Yes..!! Humans can die with that pressure, The max is 33 bar, but if you overseed that you die for chemicals reasons, no due to pressure. For example Cachalot are mammals like us, this is mean they had air inside its lungs (pressure problem if you change from high pressure to light pressure quick or vice versa.), but nonetheless, they can immerse to 3km of deep (250Bar) for search food. And their limits is not becouse pressure, Is becouse they can hold their breath 90min. You think that all asteroids form from dust? Asteroids were parts of stars or other planets, they have metals portions more dense than we can find at earth. Do you like to read about asteroid mining, but you never read how difficult it is. What are the problems that you need to deal. First, anything that we know about mining at earth or different methods, etc. Do not work in space. Second a simple drill, if you dont fix your tool to your asteroid (this is mean extra holes that you need to do), the only one that will turn it will be you, or your spacestation. Third, you need always something to push against. That is super easy in a planet with gravity (that is becouse all transports vehicles are 10000 more efficient than any space vehicle). How you move all the material that you extract? How you keep all material in one place without float around and lost it? You can not su.ck them becouse there is not air. You can not use a simple conveyor belt becouse you dont have gravity. There is ways to solve these problems, but you always need to deal with the fact that you dont have something to push against. So? they still have a product which has not competitors in what it does. One advice, always tries to delegate any economic decision. I am not talking about very rare elements, I am talking about elements that you may need in big amounts and you do not have enoght. Maybe carbon, calcium, magneso, sulfure, lithium, potacium, argon, xenon, sulfur, phosphorus, sodium, etc. Besides, a C type asteroid "may" be compound of many elements, but in any place it said that has all. No even in small amounts. Is like in the planets, if you mine one place you will find that you have a lot of some components and almost nothing of others. The same happen with asteroids becouse they form in a similar way. Meanwhile at venus you can search in other place, in your space mining station you need to go and search another asteroid, or wait to be sent from the earth (9,5km/s just leo). I am not saying that asteroid mining has no benefics or profits. I never said that. But asteroid mining does not solve all earth problems. In the same way than an airplane can not solve all transport problems. You got that? ?? So why I mention the mechanical windmill? It was not for electrical purpose. It was to produce work. This work would cold the water so the cycle can continue.In fact, water start to boil at 300celcius at 90 bar. Now you just need a liquid than the boiling point at that pressure were close to 400Celcius and ready, you have a very efficient work transference cycle. I put that in hold, I will do the math to compare both cases. Then I tell you. What adding cost? the same propulsion system that you can use to move a massive object, it will be the same than shot all that water in the right direction. With this approach you only move the water, not the whole planets with its core, grounds, etc. How much % of water has europa or pluton? The surfuce yes.. But here you need to take the atmosphere. After the moon formation, is estimated that earth took 10 millons years to cold down. This is becouse most of its gas and water remains covering all earth with clouds, so then you need to take into account the temperature of clouds like surfuce at high altitude, this is mean low temperatures at high altitude but really high temperatures in the surfuce. You are wrong, these ideas are about terraforming venus. We are rising its ground lv to heights with more habitable conditions. After that we can start to convert the co2 of direct way without use water. But is less efficient than use a replicator like plants. i dont care :S, And you have a psicologic issue if you interpret all my words this way. When I mention education problems, you start to talk about poor countries and discrimination. Now I said fusion with the ambient and you talk about kill 99% of the populate. I will not even bother to explain this.

Sorry, but this question is too vague. I would not know where to start.It depends on each species and their environments. Besides, if we take out the human impact from all this. All our our estimations are kinda pointless. For example, humans change the enviroments very fast, this does not gives much time to any evolution process (at least for species with more than 1 year of reproduction cycle), but species behaviors change faster.

Hi Seret, thanks for the extra data. I really appreciate your knowledge on the subject. Yes, now that I remember, they mention that you can also use it to cook. In fact, I guess some time they measure what fuel was more effective in mass/calories to heat water (c4 was there). But that reaction does not need oxygen? At venus we have 450Celcius at the surfuce but without oxygen, and it will be all manage it by remote controlled machinery from the clouds cities. Is not that safe enoght? The problem come I guess with the detonator, is the detonator heat resistent? It would be possible to make a detonator heat resistent in case is not? PD: interesting work yours, I will like to know more.

Look I respect your opinion. I think that the first mining steps (and they would be more like practice than to get real benefics) it would be the Moon short followed but some asteroids. Then at the same time we would have some manned missions to mars, I am not sure if an small colony would try to settle or not in the comming years. After that, the first plans to start a colony at venus would appear, all with small steps. But when the colony is already settle, after that all steps would be big, it would not take much time to overcome the small mars colony first, then moon, and near asteroids habitats. Becouse the venus potential is bigger if we see the big picture. About C4, I watch a MythBuster episode some time back, where they try to detonate C4 without the detonator. They could not. They sink the c4 in melt thermit (that is close to 2000k), then they shot it with all kind of guns, they crushed dropping a heavy weight from height, etc. Until they ask to an expert why they could not detonate. Becouse that is the main reason of the explosive, to be super safe, it was made for that. You can only detonate with EXTREME HEAT and a SHOCKWAVE. Read about it. I dint. Your number 1 is also my number 1. You need 8,5km/s to reach orbit. (but there are methods to reduce that, then if you count how much easy is get orbit each year, it reachs the point where is only the fuel price and the management cost. Your number 2. Why I need to be in the list?? its almost irrelevant from the mass point of view. I can kill 6000 or 12000m/s if I want in venus atmosphere. How much fuel you would need if you want kill that speed without aerocapture? Also depends on the design and density. For example skylon does not have a heat shield. Your number 3. Why the mass increase? Is not a manned vehicle!!! You dint see the new desigs for the new venus rovers??? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Venus_Rover.jpg http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/681522main_Landis_Image_2012-1.jpg Those are massive for you? Of course a mined vehicle needs to be massive, but just equal massive like any other vehicle at mars or machinery at asteroid belt. And any problems mining in the surfuce of venus that you need to have into account, is highly countered by the benefic of mining at 0.9g But you dint see the videos, before talk you need to understand why old airships fail, and why this one has so much to offer. Helicopters cant carry bigger or heavy payloads, besides the fuel consumption is 8 or 10 times higher. Airplanes needs a good landing strip. They can not carry big payloads and fuel consumptions is 6 times more. Normal zeppelings needs ballast and other things to land. This one can land in water or any way. It does not have those problems. It can be also used with turism transport or entertainment. Is like said that cruises has not profits becouse airplanes are fast. What happens if you need bigger amounts of that ppm material? Or you need to wait to mine all the asteroid before star construct the things that you need? Are you joking XD? First, 15kw/h per kilogram. That seems very energy inneficient taking into account that is 1kg, I dont know how you see it... Then you think that harvester energy far from the sun is easier than a mechanical windmill? "innovative system????? lol" In this case the high pressure is a benefic, you have low wind speed (perfect for mills) with high density (more energy for unit of area). The venus surfuce heat you use it to boil the water or any similar liquid. I never said move europa, I just take it like a theorical example in case something similar (with europa amount of water) it would be orbiting venus. And the only idea that I drop in that case was shot the water using a noozle from the surfuce to venus. But in case that you have a moon that is almost 80% water (maybe enceladus), it would be a lot more efficient try to move enceladus away from saturn than find, reach and move an amount of asteroids that equals enceladu´s water from asteroid belt or oort cloud. and what do you mean by free fall? All things that are in orbit are in free fall. You need to slow their orbital velocity. You can use enceladu water like reaction mass for a nuclear or fussion engine. Oort Cloud is very very far. Is just a matter of scale up, instead put millons of fussions reactors over all asteroids in oort cloud, you may put those millons reactors in enceladus. But something is clear, it does not worth it, the only solution is like I thought, try to use the exhaust velocity of a fussion engine to send all the water. Maybe there is way to focus those particles. But still, always we talk about move things, it require energy, and if those things are massive like planets, it does not matter what you do. It will require an amount of energy according the mass you want to move. I dont see with good eyes any impact strategy, you would need to wait millons of years to the planet recover from the impact. With a lot of collateral problems. And what happen if 1000 years after the impact you realize that there is a better way to do it? XD Check how much time the earth take to cold before the "moon" impact. Sorry, I dint follow you in your math to see if is ok or not, just becouse I dont believe that crash things into venus is the way to go. You dont need to forget the atmosphere, is so thick that if you crash small sizes asteroids into venus they would not reach the ground, for that reason venus has no visible craters. You would just heat the venus atmophere even more. And if you crush things, the most possible is that you remove the little amount of water that venus has first. Those are 15000km3 of watter, so you have a lot of asteroids there. And all those huge problems just to try to impose a 24hs spin. When the airwinds already give us 96hs spin. We need to forget terraform venus, all those matters are impractical (taking the advantage you get) even if we have free energy. The problem is that we se all from earth perspective. But maybe Venus has more benefics being like that, than similar to earth. We must learn to take the good things and not try to change the bad according to our tastes. That is equal true for planets like people. Our social problems are always to try to change the ambient to our needs instead try to fusion us with the ambient.

C4.. well that was fast dont you thing? You can use drills if you want in venus like already explain. Why? there is something that I dint explain? And my examples show you that, all problems even combined can be manage it, I thought in some of the solutions for those problems.. So if I can, then it would be a lot easier for a company with people working in this all days. So you dont have more excuses.. Accept it!! is a facinating idea

I will no answer word by word becouse I am getting tired. Besides, I explain all this several times already. If these notions can not enter in your heads, not blame me. I give many reasons with real examples. Resume: Venus floating cities colonization: Cons: 1-Harder to start with the first manned mission, due to the extra deltaV to take off from 50km in comparison with asteroids, moon and mars. 2-The water is scattered in the atmosphere, this increase the difficulties for the first missions. 3-No easy to mine resources at the surfuce due to heat and pressure, this is a difficulty for the first missions. 4-Extra transit time needed to reach venus than moon. 5-Sufure acid scattlered in the atmosphere which forces to use antiacid covers and cloth to protect skin and materials from longer exposures. 6-No great amont of water, this is big difficulty in case we wanna start any terraform process. Pros: 1-The most similar environment to Earth in the whole solar system, 0,9g, 1Bar and earth range temperatures. 2-At 50km altitude, venus atmophere provide better shielding againt sun or cosmic radiation than earth atmophere. 3-Very easy to float things in a CO2 atmophere; Air is a lifting gas, hidrogen provide a lot of lift. Less gravity than earth. 4-Constant horizontal wings that provide a 96hrs day/night cycle, High DV between winds at different altitud to provide a lot of energy. 5-Enoght water and all kind of resources to sustain a popullation like earth floating in the Venus clouds. 6-Venus gets 2 times more energy than earth. It can be harvested with solar cells pointing to any place due to the clouds refrectivity. 7-Sulfure acid very easy to get, this is main ingredient that any industry needs. 8-Shorted launch windows and transit times to any place in the solar system. 9-Thick atmophere which allows high deltav aerocaptures saving a lot of proppelent. 10-Locate some automated industries process on the surfuce to take advantage of the heat and pressure to decrease the cost of many developments products. 11-Once you have all infrastructure set, Venus has the potential to grow its economics faster than earth. To understand all this cons and pross, we need to be able to see the big picture. -Kg to orbit cost lows every year, this is equal also to the deltaV cost. -Earth popullations growth, this can be only mitigated by global politics, epidemics, wars or equal distribution of resources and education (utopia, but internet may have the last word). -Increase of the Non-renewable resources cost, each time is more difficult to extract them. -There is not need for a an enterprice to be competitive from begining with the already established ones to start receive investments, support and some profits. And it might took from 1 to 100 years to remplace its competitors. This last items are facts! If someone disagree, go and ask your concerns to someone else. How to deal with 700K Temperature, 90 bar Pressure and sulfure acids. To start I will remember again the Trieste, first manned submarine to reach 11 km depth (990 Bar) in 1960 Space craft reentry deal with temperatures of 7500K or more, also experiments of fussion or high power lasers also deal with great amount of temperature. We deal with sulfure acids all days, in all parts of the world since ancient times. There is hundreds of materials that are inmune to acids. So lets start talk about materials. All carbon based materials resist +3000K (they not melt, sublime), this include Diamonds (for drilled tips), CNT, graphene the most resistent with +5000K. (sulfure acid affect some carbon based, but diamond are very resistent) Platinum: Melting point 2000K (inmune to sulfure acids) Deal with pressure has nothing to do with materials, is a design matter. Any open shape like an hot air ballon envelope would not present any problems. In fact one of the design probes from geoffrey landis is a spheric hermetic ballon metal microns thick which contains water inside and nitrogen gas. So when the ballon entry in the atmosphere, how is low dense resist the reentry heat, then fall until reach higher pressures and temperatures, so the water start to boil and expand coutering the pressure. More heat equal to more internal pressure. So you dont have problems with external pressure. Electronics: there is already 500K electronics, and we know already how to make 750K electronics. Carbon based materials, uranium oxide, valves, etc. Someone mention a electric motor. Well you can remplace the copper with CNT wires to the coil. Then remplace the common coil varnish with another insulator, in case a different insultor presents problems with strenth or mechanical properties, then you may make the coils fix position and the magnets in the rotor. Here there is a note about electric motors or other devices already test it for Venus aplications, with temperatures +800K. http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=23200 We can also have a liquid like water in a sealed container, when this is heated by the atmosphere, expand produce work (all kind of movements you want) and then you need to cool it again, for that you can use wind (surfuce 10km/h high density) mechanical energy without the need of any electrical device to produce movement. (Is easy to forget our oldest technologies). About drill.. yes sure, how I explain you can use tons of materials for that, but one thing.. why you need to drill? You can detonate. That is the advantage of venus over zero g mining. Another misunderstood from the graphics, is that if you are on haze cloud lv, you can not see nothing and you will melt by sulfure without cloth. The concentrations remains low. The visibility remains high. Here in earth we have a normal 40% humidity in the air. At Venus that humidity made of water vapour and sulfure acid it would be close to 0.xx%. But the cloud had many km of height, so for that reason you can not see through them. Rubisco, I guess these folks disagree with your point of view about airships. And they bet millons into this. You wanna rise your bet? Airships are not so common at earth becouse oxigen, that was clear after the hidenburg disaster. So hidrogen is not allow. But they still have their place. Long time ago zepellings dominated the sky (weird becouse aircraft came first, dont you?), Its strength was proved at war, dropping hundreds of bombs from an altutude where airplanes can not damage them. And if they did. 10 or 100 holes was not a big issue. That amount of hidrogen did not escape so fast. (you remember when you ask me how fast a city would sink with a rip?) They can be good to transport big payloads without much fuel consuptions, there max velocity is 200km/h, but if they intercepts the high air currents, with that they can reach 400km/h. The legs of that airship are great, they can work in the water, like overcraft, like suc-kers for high winds conditions and they can be deploy or opposite just suc-king the air. You mention oort cloud, and type c asteroids, first I ask you to mention one asteroids that contains all elements, 4 or 8 elements are not all elements, you can manage well with 8 elements, but you would always needs something else. More with something so complex like a space habitat. And the oort cloud does not enter in the discuccion becouse is absurd. I will no spend more details about it xd I guess if you both put in my posicion to defend the idea, you can find all ways to counter those negative issues. But you just not want it. PD: thanks for the europa info. PD2: Yes sure, if their are Saiyajin, I guess they would not have any trouble.

First we would need to know more about the greenhouse effect, there is still some doubts how this process work. For example at Venus there are some things that does not seems to match with the earth models about greenhouse effect. And if we go wrong about this, then we can throw away all our efforts to terraform. But if our theories are right, then yes. Try to search a way to activate a chain reaction would be the way to go.

From 0.1nm to 35nm, most particle however are 0.5nm. My estimation said that the common size at that altitude would be 2 nm. Here is the source where is better explain the altitude and process. So you said that all elements can be extracted from 1 asteroid? Source? But machinary or robots would not have any problems with this, so only remains the g-factor. Or I need to quote the trieste and re-entry examples again? I read Rendevouz with Rama and all its secuels 15 years ago. In this case such thing was made by the galaxy monitor. We already had this at 1930: http://tweedlandthegentlemansclub.blogspot.com.ar/2012/08/the-fabulous-interiors-of-hindenburg.html http://www.nlhs.com/images/hindenburg/big_hindenburg_crew_mess.jpg http://www.canadiancar.technomuses.ca/images/frise_chronologique-timeline/full/1930/Po-1930.jpg 90 years later, we have this in space: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/114305main_iss010e25228.jpg http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-34/hires/iss034e023541.jpg So this mean that when we would be able to make something like you said, then in venus we can have something 10 times better. mined is the right word?? 20ppm in the whole atmophere 92 bar. We need to know yet with accuracy how much it is in the cloud level. Then you need to add the water inside sulfure acid 150ppm that is mostly at cloud lv too. you mean the cost? of course it would be also reduce it. But the deltav it would be always the same. So now you are a especialist nuclear engineer? Where it said that is highly unstable? For earth we can have skylon, for venus it seems a good option. First you was talking about bring asteroids from asteroid belt, then you speak about near object, then I said that mostly all near object needs at least 5,4km/s, then you said that there is some with less. Now what? you need to find an asteroid that has all elements (I am not sure if that asteroid exist even in the asteroid belt) then it needs to have 2,2 km/s max deltav (less than earth escape velocity), and all the manuvers that you are using are the most low energy manuvers. So they take a lot of time. And time is money. I can use also the Interplanetary Transport Network if the time is not important. With aerocapture you can kill 15km/s or more if you want. I really need to answer this?? if in 2000 millons of years we still "alive", then is the sun the one that needs to move away of us. In jupiter? In jupiter clouds? No you cant. Gravity is too high. It seems that you are out of valid points, the only things that you do is repeat your self that an asteroid colony is more realistic with the hope you start to believe it. And in my design I manage how to avoid all possible risks and how to collect energy at night. You would not find that in other place. There is not enoght comets or asteroids to get that amount of water. And you would take a lot more to do. Yeah, that is tricky. I know that its name is Europa, but Europa here in spanish means Europe (continent), so I thought that maybe this planet was called Europa in reference to the continent´s name. ok Winds dont blow right now at high speeds over the surfuce becouse the pressure, its all relative to the pressure. So almost all details of venus atmosphere at 50km 1bar should remain at venus surfuce 1 bar. Yes indee, but what you mean? At orbit or clouds? I would like to know how to extract more energy at the surfuce of venus. Becouse there is only 200 w/m2 there. But there is plenty of energy, maybe we can have some turbines harvesting the 10km/h heavy wings.

we dont know for sure, but there is something that we know. Heavy elements are easy to find close to the sun. With some discrepancies in atmospheric models, surfuce temperature, volcane activity, etc. Scientist come to the conclusion that Venus is not become much cold under surfuce, the temperature can go down a bit, but then start to rise again. This is due to an higher amount of radioactive elements than earth. About supernovas, it is believed that an hipernova produce one of the biggest global extintions at earth.

I never understand very well why with interstellar rockets (fussion, antimatter) the exhaust velocity is equal to its ISP. I guess becouse there is not point to include the earth gravity, but It makes more difficult to compare. It would not be the same for rockets already in orbit?

When I said "stop it", I mean stop the risk, try push the asteroid to dodge us. We already had the technology to off-world colonization, we need just resources over time. The problem with the asteroid or any other danger that we can face, is that we might not have the time. So the idea is not ridiculous.