Go to Venus, not Mars.

[Darnok]

Mars has no magnetic field, almost no atmosphere, it is smaller than Earth, lower gravity for long missions would have impact on our health, why anyone wants to go there?

Go to Venus instead, it is almost at size of Earth, it has atmosphere, much denser, but that is good thing, we can use it.

We could start with flying bases like this one

Venus has very long day ~120 Earth days, so you can hide from radiation and solar flares on "the dark side" with that flying base.

Later we could build underground bases and mine for resources.

We could grow there plants faster than on Mars, plants needs carbon dioxide ~96.5% of Venus atmosphere is carbon dioxide.

[NuclearNut]

Ah, yes, a corrosive, poisonous, extremely heavy atmosphere is SO much better.

Might as well propose they use hydrochloric acid as the chemical shim in PWRs because "it is an acid like boric acid, so it must be good chemical shim, right?" Not all atmospheres are created equal.

[SargeRho]

All the resources you need to build a self-sustaining colony on Mars are in the ground. Mining the surface of Venus is...problematic, to say the least.

Plants don't fare well in high-CO2 environments, because they're not anaerobic.

[G'th]

As with all things space, its no where near as simple as you're making it. Beyond the fact that establishing a colony (Or sending any sort of manned mission into its atmosphere period) on Venus would be immensely more complicated than doing the same on Mars, Mars simply has more scientific value to us than Venus does. Especially when you look at it from the perspective of what a manned mission could deliver. Unlike Mars, a manned mission to Venus would be pointless as probes really could do most of the same work without all the complexity. The advantages of a manned mission really don't apply to Venus, especially with modern or near future technology.

[Darnok]

Mars simply has more scientific value to us than Venus does.

Mars is dead' date=' while Venus is at stage where basic building blocks of life were formed.

Although the environment at that time (including the constant bombardment by asteroids and prodigious volcanic activity) would have been highly hazardous to life, the necessary ingredients were all present in some form or another: liquid water, chemical building blocks (usually taken to be the six elements: oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, sulphur and phosphorus) and some kind of energy source.

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_life_early.html

[SargeRho]

Mars may well harbor subsurface life. While Venusian conditions aren't exactly favorable. There's no liquid water, for one.

[Darnok]

Mars may well harbor subsurface life. While Venusian conditions aren't exactly favorable. There's no liquid water, for one.

On ground level yes, that is why I said we should start with flying bases and later go underground as fast as possible.

We are mapping Mars just like we have mapped Earth, but did anyone made map of Venus?

On Mars there is no liquid water on on a surface, so why would you expect water on Venus, we have to drill for water on both planets. Also I remember scientific talks from 10-15 years ago, scientists were saying that there is no water in our solar system except for Earth and today boom we have water everywhere.

There are going to make few missions to Venus and Mercury, so I think soon we will see t-shirts with label "get your *** to Venus"

[SargeRho]

Yes, Venus has indeed been mapped: http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/sos/features/combined_venus_lon_180_center.png

On Mars, there's ice under the surface and possibly liquid water deeper under ground. Venus' crust is bone-dry, which is why it doesn't have plate tectonics, but instead a cycle wherein the surface is renewed catastrophically every few hundred million years or so. There is simply no reason to want to send people to Venus.

[Streetwind]

The problem with a Venus base is that you can't make it self-sustaining because you have almost no access to usable resources on-site.

So, a research base? Sure, why not. A colony? Not going to work. If you want a colony, you'll have to go to Mars. And conveniently enough, a colony is also a research base.

That's why we're going to Mars, not Venus.

[PB666]

The problem with a Venus base is that you can't make it self-sustaining because you have almost no access to usable resources on-site.

So, a research base? Sure, why not. A colony? Not going to work. If you want a colony, you'll have to go to Mars. And conveniently enough, a colony is also a research base.

That's why we're going to Mars, not Venus.

mars colony, nope. You want a colony, build in space, you want a gravity trap, go to mars.

[magnemoe]

The problem with a Venus base is that you can't make it self-sustaining because you have almost no access to usable resources on-site.

So, a research base? Sure, why not. A colony? Not going to work. If you want a colony, you'll have to go to Mars. And conveniently enough, a colony is also a research base.

That's why we're going to Mars, not Venus.

Hardly even see an point with an research base as the stuff you do in orbit or with a balloon probe don't have an hurry so it can be remote controlled.

Something like an rover who benefit of close control to keep lightspeed delay low but an rover on Venus is challenging.

[Bill Phil]

Venus has a much deeper gravity well. It takes more energy to leave.

[Nibb31]

We have pretty much zero meteorological data about Venus's upper atmosphere. Let's send an unmanned blimp probe to find out if it's possible and to see what it's like up there. Then maybe we can talk about manned missions.

[Motokid600]

No way. Venus is a virtual hell. Underground? Again no way. I don't think people really grasp what the surface of Venus is really like. Dive a hundred meters down into water, heat that water up to several hundred degrees and make it acid. That's Venus.

You cannot send humans to the surface for prolonged missions. The only way I could imagine it is with a tether and floating down with balloons. Grab a few rocks before you get crushed and melt then bug out on the same balloons that brought you down. It's 1g of gravity roughly so the same on Earth. But with a ridiculous atmosphere. Mining will be impossible. Underground only means more preassure and more heat. ( Which is why that aspect is good on Mars )

Mars is much, much easier. We don't need a magnetic field to protect us.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Motokid600

[PB666]

Venus has a much deeper gravity well. It takes more energy to leave.

That would make sense, except for the fact that reaching or having a base at the venutian gravity well is impossible to begin with. This is like arguing that my bad logic is worse than someone ekses bad logic. In fact i never advocated venus either.

By forcing a planetary colonization here are the odor neutralizers of the brain kraken explosions.

By definition the earth is at the center of the suns contemporary goldilocks zone.

The earths gravity well has cleared its orbit of celestials, some think the moon is a remnant of one unlucky planet.

The earths satellite has insufficient mass to support an atmosphere, the satellite itself is responsible for creating earths dynamo, which in turn creates its magnetic feild which in turn protects earths atmosphere.

Conclusion 1 there are no more than 1 habitable celestial in earths goldlocks zone, that the goldilocks zone is a idealization of reality.

The assumption of colonization has to entertain the concept of stability.

Venus requires light sheilding at L1 mars requires mirrors at L2. neither of these are stable. Venus us somewhat more desirous because its easier to deal with extra resources than lack of as on Mars, Mars is somewhat more desirous because at least humans could land [cough] and survive for a few moments with current technology.

Mars lacks adequate hv in the light/uv portion to readily sustain a colony. it also has inadequate gravity. It would require solar technology which we do not have, and human life would be confined kargely to insulated underground bubbles. There is no prospect for a martian space program, it is a trap. Venus OTOH is a crucible which would take thousands of years of lower hv intensity just to see if it was possible to colonize.

So now we see that they are both unstable and difficult to colonize. we can look at phobos and philo, both are better choices because they are less of traps. It really makes no difference if atm is 0 or 0.01 of earths. neither have dust storms to cover the solar panels, both are relatively easy to get off of, bith still lack adequate hv intensity. better choices, but lower gravity.

Near earths orbit L1-L5

gravity-centripedal habitats

atmosphere-self contained

radiation-similar to earths

sheilding-plating, special metals

resources-asteroids and hijacked comets

Acces ti rst of system...good, better if cometary intercept plans are developed.

[_Augustus_]

Venus has a much deeper gravity well. It takes more energy to leave.

Yes, but the atmosphere is thick enough for a brick thrown by a human to fly. This means that blimps don't even need helium, they can just be used as oxygen and CO2 storage.

And a colony? It's not as hard as it sounds. You don't need anything more than firefighting gear to protect you in the upper atmosphere. Oxygen can be made from the CO2 in Venus' atmosphere. Even fuel can be made from the CO2 and small amounts of nitrogen in the atmosphere. Basically, the only thing you need on Venus that isn't available is hydrogen/water. But that could be solved by an orbital space station that brings in water shipments from interplanetary tankers and loads them into Skylons with parafoils that glide to and land on platforms.

[SargeRho]

Yes, but the atmosphere is thick enough for a brick thrown by a human to fly. This means that blimps don't even need helium, they can just be used as oxygen and CO2 storage.

And a colony? It's not as hard as it sounds. You don't need anything more than firefighting gear to protect you in the upper atmosphere. Oxygen can be made from the CO2 in Venus' atmosphere. Even fuel can be made from the CO2 and small amounts of nitrogen in the atmosphere. Basically, the only thing you need on Venus that isn't available is hydrogen/water. But that could be solved by an orbital space station that brings in water shipments from interplanetary tankers and loads them into Skylons with parafoils that glide to and land on platforms.

So it is exactly as hard as it sounds. If you need to import a very large portion of the resources you need, you can't really build a colony there.

[AngelLestat]

Cue AngelLestat's intervention in... 3... 2... 1...

haha, funny.. I was not going to do it, the same as the last 2 or 3 similar topics where I dint make any comment.

But I dont want to ruin your joke.. so one link:

http://www.science20.com/robert_inventor/will_we_build_colonies_that_float_over_venus_like_buckminster_fullers_cloud_nine-127573

For those who really want to know why is a better option, this site explained in detail. Is long... because there are a lot of aspects why is better.

And many aspects are not even explained in that site, but is a start for those who wanna challenge their convictions.

[RuBisCO]

Yeah this had been argued about before in previous threads.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71519-Cloud-cities/page8

I personally would say the asteroids are the best place to go, build orbital colonizes.

[Frozen_Heart]

You can't get resources to build with due to the ground being generally unpleasant, and the gravity well and atmo combined makes getting off it even worse than Earth.

Mars is a much better option for a manned outpost or colony.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

Another factor people haven't mentioned:

Mars has water. Water, Nitrogen, and CO2 can be used to make a variety of different rocket fuels and oxidizers, including hydrogen, methane, and even hypergolics or monoprops like N2O4 and hydrazine derivatives.

Venus has very little atmospheric water: Wikipedia says 20 ppm, which would be a pain in the ass to harvest. There aren't other sources of elemental hydrogen (which is a component in nearly all fuels that don't suck). Without hydrogen-containing fuels, your only option for orbital launch is running an NTR off nitrogen or CO2, which gives you ISP in the 500s IIRC.

Basically, this means that a Mars surface colony with sufficient infrastructure can send stuff into Martian orbit and back to Earth with a fleet of reusable SSTOs, or even mass drivers (harder on Mars than the moon, but its atmosphere is pretty thin which makes it easier to fling stuff to hypersonic speeds at the surface without it disintegrating). This is unlikely to be possible on Venus without exotic drive systems like gas-core NTRs.

[RuBisCO]

Well Venus does have H2SO4, that can be made into water easily. And of coursed N2 and CO2 is very prevent on Venus. Mining the surface though would present very new and radical engineering problems.

[cantab]

Venus has clouds of sulphuric acid. There's your hydrogen, once you process it appropriately.

[xenomorph555]

My opinion is there is that Venus should be colonised after we have colonised atleast Mars and the Moon, there's no resources to gain on Venus so all materials must be shipped there. As well as that you can't exactly explore the surface so it would be a very Earth dependant, modular habitat (like a space station) and less of a colony.

[Mitchz95]

Start with Mars and maybe the moon. Then we can talk about Venus.