Venus vs. Mars colonization

[Panel]

I don't think that crashing asteroids into Mars would increase its gravity by any significant amount. Asteroids are minuscule compared to a planet, and it would probably take millions of years to bring up the mass enough. Besides, there would probably be a lot of problems with composition.

[AngelLestat]

8 hours ago, fredinno said:

Actually, a colony on Venus, even in the air would likely still need more delta V, as launching from the upper atmosphere there is like launching from Earth due to similar gravity and air pressure.

Mars might be ok for humans due to having a 33% gravity> threshold.

You have the import cost and the export cost.. In mars you can export cheap but the import is expensive because you need much more deltav than venus.
DeltaV to venus is low the same than time windows, and you can use aerocapture..
On mars you need more deltav and you need to use supersonic retropropulsion and then extra deltav to land.
What is the thing a colony need most for its early development?  Cheap import.
If you want to export something from venus, you choice the most expensive material and still payoff.
Once you are well established, deltav does not matter anymore.. tech eventually solve those things.. we are very close to achieve it with spacex and later with skylon in the future.

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

On discussion of Venus...

I don't know if this would be viable or not, but could you use a low-temperature reservoir as an energy source on a robotic Venusian lander? 

Better idea just use that hydrogen with a fuel cell to produce work, but in venus case as I explain, there is a better reaction that use the co2 from venus.
But that is only for probes that are send it from here, there is no need to use those stuff with machinery if you already live there and you have access to different sources of energy.

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

You might also have to cool the outer hull... A lot of materials melt in those temperatures.

Then let's not choose those materials.. But there are more materials that resist those temperatures than materials who don't.
Here there is a list of all the elements and their melting point.
http://www.lenntech.com/periodic-chart-elements/melting-point.htm
Then mostly all metals and alloys resist that.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html
You has also a lot of different mix that are not metals that also resist that.
Tethers, ceramics and even some plastics or almost all insulators as aerogels.  Take a look to all the things that firefighter use.
So the only way you can design something that does not resist venus temperatures, it is on purpose.
We have millons of common products that we use all the time that resist that.

40 minutes ago, Gnoyze said:

Also it would be easier to mine the asteroids from mars and possibly slowly increase the planet mass (by towing asteroids to it and terraforming* the surface.

Forget about any kind of terraformation, that is no practically possible.
Besides, Venus is much better location to mine near asteroids or the asteroid belt. I explained already few pages back on this topic.

[fredinno]

42 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

You have the import cost and the export cost.. In mars you can export cheap but the import is expensive because you need much more deltav than venus.
DeltaV to venus is low the same than time windows, and you can use aerocapture..
On mars you need more deltav and you need to use supersonic retropropulsion and then extra deltav to land.
What is the thing a colony need most for its early development?  Cheap import.
If you want to export something from venus, you choice the most expensive material and still payoff.
Once you are well established, deltav does not matter anymore.. tech eventually solve those things.. we are very close to achieve it with spacex and later with skylon in the future.

Better idea just use that hydrogen with a fuel cell to produce work, but in venus case as I explain, there is a better reaction that use the co2 from venus.
But that is only for probes that are send it from here, there is no need to use those stuff with machinery if you already live there and you have access to different sources of energy.

Then let's not choose those materials.. But there are more materials that resist those temperatures than materials who don't.
Here there is a list of all the elements and their melting point.
http://www.lenntech.com/periodic-chart-elements/melting-point.htm
Then mostly all metals and alloys resist that.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html
You has also a lot of different mix that are not metals that also resist that.
Tethers, ceramics and even some plastics or almost all insulators as aerogels.  Take a look to all the things that firefighter use.
So the only way you can design something that does not resist venus temperatures, it is on purpose.
We have millons of common products that we use all the time that resist that.

Forget about any kind of terraformation, that is no practically possible.
Besides, Venus is much better location to mine near asteroids or the asteroid belt. I explained already few pages back on this topic.

 Importing to Venus is more difficult- you need an airship, a way to dock with the airship colony, and it's also a lot less reusable since you have to throw away the balloon, where you can build practical refuelable SSTOs on Mars. Also, landing can use the same systems as your ascent system- engines (parachutes not necessary), with a vertical landing- something that we have lots of experience with, unlike docking airships together so that cargo can be transported.

 

2 hours ago, Gnoyze said:

The way I see it, Mars would be more suitable for resource gathering whereas venus would prove more suitable for human colonization in the upper atmo (where temperature is more tolerable and bar pressure is close to that of earth's sea level pressure)
Both would be suitable for their respective types of factories. Albeit it may be safer to have a subteranian factory on mars due to lack of atmo and risk of meteor shower damage. Also it would be easier to mine the asteroids from mars and possibly slowly increase the planet mass (by towing asteroids to it and terraforming* the surface. Long and costly process, but this would increase the planet's gravity slowly until it is closer to earth gravity, then just pull some extra atmo from venus maybe?)

*spell check seems to thing it's not a word.

Some, but not all. Sure, carrying more mass will help maintain muscle strength and slow down bone loss a bit, but what about the fact that gravity at a cellular level is the same?

Also, a two pound weight on mars is alot less than two pounds, but one kilogram of mass is still one kilogram on mars. Weight and mass are different.

Gravity is still gravity, and Mars likely has enough to stave of the worst of it- we don't really know for sure due to lack of partial gravity data.

And that brings a question- how would a Venus Colony be economically self-sustaining? There's not much economic resource or manufacturing use of a Venus Colony, except maybe having abundant acids available for manufacturing. Even Japan managed to turn lemons into lemonade because it had a large human worker base to tap off of.

[Bill Phil]

@AngelLestat

Yes there are many materials that resist those temperatures, but what about pressures? On the phase diagram you'll probably run into a few areas where the materials you use are messed up.

Resisting doesn't mean that it doesn't become that temperature. Aerogel will eventually heat up. Even the materials that don't melt will still be really hot. This can reduce strength, and can even cause problems to other components.

[Gnoyze]

28 minutes ago, fredinno said:

 Importing to Venus is more difficult- you need an airship, a way to dock with the airship colony, and it's also a lot less reusable since you have to throw away the balloon, where you can build practical refuelable SSTOs on Mars. Also, landing can use the same systems as your ascent system- engines (parachutes not necessary), with a vertical landing- something that we have lots of experience with, unlike docking airships together so that cargo can be transported.

 

Gravity is still gravity, and Mars likely has enough to stave of the worst of it- we don't really know for sure due to lack of partial gravity data.

And that brings a question- how would a Venus Colony be economically self-sustaining? There's not much economic resource or manufacturing use of a Venus Colony, except maybe having abundant acids available for manufacturing. Even Japan managed to turn lemons into lemonade because it had a large human worker base to tap off of.

" a lot less reusable since you have to throw away the balloon," Please do explain the why. You could simply compress the gasses, or use a balloon that can be used for expansion. I dont think they'd be so stupid to not design a buoyancy module that can't be easily repurposed. Also, you can't very well aerobrake on mars. You stated that parachutes aren't necessary, but rather, impossible to use. It's much easier to land with a parachute than with a powered landing. cheaper and lighter too. And honestly, docking airships isn't that much of an issue. Other colony too far away? Well whip out your electric propeller and solar panel and fly your airship to it. Not that hard.

Yes, we do lack sufficient gravity data, yet we have enough to know that <~0.4 G is less healthy than ~0.9 G.

Self sustaining? Well, as you said: plastics. Also very efficient plant growth which would allow for longer sustained colonies. Mars on the other hand has resources that are easier to obtain, but low solar power means lower plant growth. This means you'll need more food for your colonists. Also, good luck with solar fields when the meteor shower hits. Most of your power will need to be provided by RTG or nuclear reactors. Or solid fuels if you want to burn up all your O2

4 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

@AngelLestat

Yes there are many materials that resist those temperatures, but what about pressures? On the phase diagram you'll probably run into a few areas where the materials you use are messed up.

Resisting doesn't mean that it doesn't become that temperature. Aerogel will eventually heat up. Even the materials that don't melt will still be really hot. This can reduce strength, and can even cause problems to other components.

Simple solution: Dont use affected materials. Too hot? Use heat resistant materials. (Since you lack the apparent common sense, I'm talking about the ones that are still effective at those temperatures, not the ones that weaken due to prolonged exposure.) Pressure too high? Well, again lets try this. Use materials that are unaffected by high pressures and construction methods that withstand those pressures. For unmanned, most of the craft can have an equalized pressure. For manned, just look at what we already have: space ships and submarines. Both of which tackle the problem of high pressure difference.

[Bill Phil]

24 minutes ago, Gnoyze said:

" a lot less reusable since you have to throw away the balloon," Please do explain the why. You could simply compress the gasses, or use a balloon that can be used for expansion. I dont think they'd be so stupid to not design a buoyancy module that can't be easily repurposed. Also, you can't very well aerobrake on mars. You stated that parachutes aren't necessary, but rather, impossible to use. It's much easier to land with a parachute than with a powered landing. cheaper and lighter too. And honestly, docking airships isn't that much of an issue. Other colony too far away? Well whip out your electric propeller and solar panel and fly your airship to it. Not that hard.

Yes, we do lack sufficient gravity data, yet we have enough to know that <~0.4 G is less healthy than ~0.9 G.

Self sustaining? Well, as you said: plastics. Also very efficient plant growth which would allow for longer sustained colonies. Mars on the other hand has resources that are easier to obtain, but low solar power means lower plant growth. This means you'll need more food for your colonists. Also, good luck with solar fields when the meteor shower hits. Most of your power will need to be provided by RTG or nuclear reactors. Or solid fuels if you want to burn up all your O2

Simple solution: Dont use affected materials. Too hot? Use heat resistant materials. (Since you lack the apparent common sense, I'm talking about the ones that are still effective at those temperatures, not the ones that weaken due to prolonged exposure.) Pressure too high? Well, again lets try this. Use materials that are unaffected by high pressures and construction methods that withstand those pressures. For unmanned, most of the craft can have an equalized pressure. For manned, just look at what we already have: space ships and submarines. Both of which tackle the problem of high pressure difference.

Nothing is unaffected by high temperatures. Lead melts at Venus' surface temp. And anything that doesn't melt will get hot. Common sense. Many things, when hot, become weeker. Just about everything does this. The degree of weekening depends, though.

It's not a simple matter of using materials resistant to those effects. You need to engineer things to survive the environment, which isn't just hot temps and high pressures. 

Problems are heat and pressure, both of which are solvable, I'm not saying they're not. But it's not easy. Doable =\= easy.

And what's the goal of the vehicle? Is it a sphere with not extrusions? Fine, just use strong and heat resistant materials, and it might not melt. Is it using landing legs? That's a real complication.

Surviving high pressures at low temps isn't the same as high pressures at high temps. 

And I don't think insultin my lack of common sense is a good thing to do.

Venus just isn't a cake walk. The moon is peanuts to a venus lander that survives. High temp, high pressure, erosion, weathering, perhaps the compounds in the atmosphere could complicate things, or it might not.

Venus is hard to survive on, and space is hard to get to. And we've already landed things on Venus, they just couldn't survive...

[Gnoyze]

2 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

Nothing is unaffected by high temperatures. Lead melts at Venus' surface temp. And anything that doesn't melt will get hot. Common sense. Many things, when hot, become weeker. Just about everything does this. The degree of weekening depends, though.

It's not a simple matter of using materials resistant to those effects. You need to engineer things to survive the environment, which isn't just hot temps and high pressures. 

Problems are heat and pressure, both of which are solvable, I'm not saying they're not. But it's not easy. Doable =\= easy.

And what's the goal of the vehicle? Is it a sphere with not extrusions? Fine, just use strong and heat resistant materials, and it might not melt. Is it using landing legs? That's a real complication.

Surviving high pressures at low temps isn't the same as high pressures at high temps. 

And I don't think insultin my lack of common sense is a good thing to do.

Venus just isn't a cake walk. The moon is peanuts to a venus lander that survives. High temp, high pressure, erosion, weathering, perhaps the compounds in the atmosphere could complicate things, or it might not.

Venus is hard to survive on, and space is hard to get to. And we've already landed things on Venus, they just couldn't survive...

Common sense: Dont make a lead buggy. And there are many materials that withstand constant high temperatures. What do they make the cauldrons that hold liquid steel out of? I'm not saying it's easy to make something that can withstand the temperature, pressure and surface weather, I'm just saying that it's hardly impossible. We only failed before cause we didn't have the engineering skill at the time to tackle these problems.

Legs/wheels for the vehicle? Ever heard of a "lattice"? you can make one out of nearly any material and it would be virtually resistant to atmospheric pressure. Though I'm pretty sure you could just make a buoyant vehicle that propels itself around with electric motors. May not work, but again, we can test more with probes. And for starters, the main purpose would be science.

I know the whole pressure/temperature relation thing. I'm not saying it's the same, I'm saying we already have two sources of similar data that we can build off of.

I was meaning to be comically clearer. Sorry you felt insulted. You may want to avoid trolls if you don't want health problems.

Living on earth itself isn't a cake walk either, neither is space, mars, the asteroids or venus. "We go... ... because it is hard"

Also, do we really need to land on the Venusian surface right away? Plenty of resources can be extracted from the atmosphere.

[Gnoyze]

On 1/13/2016 at 11:22 PM, AngelLestat said:

Why not a parafoil with an electric propeller?  With an alternative method or extra parafoil in case something happen.

So... why dont we have parafoils in KSP? This just struck me. We need these.

[AngelLestat]

7 hours ago, fredinno said:

 Importing to Venus is more difficult- you need an airship, a way to dock with the airship colony, and it's also a lot less reusable since you have to throw away the balloon, where you can build practical refuelable SSTOs on Mars. Also, landing can use the same systems as your ascent system- engines (parachutes not necessary), with a vertical landing- something that we have lots of experience with, unlike docking airships together so that cargo can be transported.

You dont need an airship.. and you dont need to dock with the floating cargo, you just need to pick it up and take it to the base.
You dont need to drop it from space in a way that it will fall close to the base, you just need to point more or less to a certain latitude, it will float at lower height to reduce your balloon requirements and there is no acid there.  the east to west currents are slower than at high altitudes, an airship drone can pick it up and rise altitude to carry the cargo to the colony without wasting much energy, just compressing and expanding gases to change its buoyancy.
So depending the cargo, you can choose the best altitude to float, an average can be 35km, in where the temperature is 180c and you lift 7kg for each m3 of hydrogen, this mean that a 100T package only needs  2T of hydrogen and a balloon with 30m of diameter, that seems a lot to you?..  if it does.. let me tell you that each of the 3 main chute of the Orion Capsule (10T) has 35m of diameter!
 

7 hours ago, fredinno said:

And that brings a question- how would a Venus Colony be economically self-sustaining? There's not much economic resource or manufacturing use of a Venus Colony, except maybe having abundant acids available for manufacturing. Even Japan managed to turn lemons into lemonade because it had a large human worker base to tap off of.

Better than mars, I will prove it in the other topic when I include and explain estimatives cost of all other necessary things.
I guess you can get cheaper resources (all kind) from venus than mars. 

7 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

@AngelLestat

Yes there are many materials that resist those temperatures, but what about pressures? On the phase diagram you'll probably run into a few areas where the materials you use are messed up.

Resisting doesn't mean that it doesn't become that temperature. Aerogel will eventually heat up. Even the materials that don't melt will still be really hot. This can reduce strength, and can even cause problems to other components.

You did not read the main post where I explain all this?  Is in the point 1

You dont need pressure resistant containers if you dont have a pressure differential..  This machines are not manned, they are teleoperated from the colonies.
And almost all materials (no gases) are not compressible at those pressures.  The effect of pressure is absolutly zero.
Materials just start to change properties after many GIGAs of pressure. Close to 1 millon times higher pressure than venus surface. 
As I said, the only problem that probes (from earth)  might have on venus is the lack of energy sources (no much sunlight).
But as I explain in that link, if you have colonies there, you can solve that with many ways that are very cheap.

5 hours ago, Gnoyze said:

So... why dont we have parafoils in KSP? This just struck me. We need these.

Ask to the Real Chute modder, maybe is hard to combine chute surfaces animation and make it to work fine with FAR mod.

[fredinno]

15 hours ago, Gnoyze said:

" a lot less reusable since you have to throw away the balloon," Please do explain the why. You could simply compress the gasses, or use a balloon that can be used for expansion. I dont think they'd be so stupid to not design a buoyancy module that can't be easily repurposed. Also, you can't very well aerobrake on mars. You stated that parachutes aren't necessary, but rather, impossible to use. It's much easier to land with a parachute than with a powered landing. cheaper and lighter too. And honestly, docking airships isn't that much of an issue. Other colony too far away? Well whip out your electric propeller and solar panel and fly your airship to it. Not that hard.

Yes, we do lack sufficient gravity data, yet we have enough to know that <~0.4 G is less healthy than ~0.9 G.

Self sustaining? Well, as you said: plastics. Also very efficient plant growth which would allow for longer sustained colonies. Mars on the other hand has resources that are easier to obtain, but low solar power means lower plant growth. This means you'll need more food for your colonists. Also, good luck with solar fields when the meteor shower hits. Most of your power will need to be provided by RTG or nuclear reactors. Or solid fuels if you want to burn up all your O2

Simple solution: Dont use affected materials. Too hot? Use heat resistant materials. (Since you lack the apparent common sense, I'm talking about the ones that are still effective at those temperatures, not the ones that weaken due to prolonged exposure.) Pressure too high? Well, again lets try this. Use materials that are unaffected by high pressures and construction methods that withstand those pressures. For unmanned, most of the craft can have an equalized pressure. For manned, just look at what we already have: space ships and submarines. Both of which tackle the problem of high pressure difference.

Honestly, though, metors are always a problem in most places in space. We can deal with it on the ISS, we can do it on Mars- the atmosphere wuld burn the smallest stuff, and large impacts are rare.

14 hours ago, Gnoyze said:

Common sense: Dont make a lead buggy. And there are many materials that withstand constant high temperatures. What do they make the cauldrons that hold liquid steel out of? I'm not saying it's easy to make something that can withstand the temperature, pressure and surface weather, I'm just saying that it's hardly impossible. We only failed before cause we didn't have the engineering skill at the time to tackle these problems.

Legs/wheels for the vehicle? Ever heard of a "lattice"? you can make one out of nearly any material and it would be virtually resistant to atmospheric pressure. Though I'm pretty sure you could just make a buoyant vehicle that propels itself around with electric motors. May not work, but again, we can test more with probes. And for starters, the main purpose would be science.

I know the whole pressure/temperature relation thing. I'm not saying it's the same, I'm saying we already have two sources of similar data that we can build off of.

I was meaning to be comically clearer. Sorry you felt insulted. You may want to avoid trolls if you don't want health problems.

Living on earth itself isn't a cake walk either, neither is space, mars, the asteroids or venus. "We go... ... because it is hard"

Also, do we really need to land on the Venusian surface right away? Plenty of resources can be extracted from the atmosphere.

The problem is that you have to extend stuff out if you want to mine, and at least a harpoon if you do not want the wind to carry you away if you want to use a balloon.

6 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

You dont need an airship.. and you dont need to dock with the floating cargo, you just need to pick it up and take it to the base.
You dont need to drop it from space in a way that it will fall close to the base, you just need to point more or less to a certain latitude, it will float at lower height to reduce your balloon requirements and there is no acid there.  the east to west currents are slower than at high altitudes, an airship drone can pick it up and rise altitude to carry the cargo to the colony without wasting much energy, just compressing and expanding gases to change its buoyancy.
So depending the cargo, you can choose the best altitude to float, an average can be 35km, in where the temperature is 180c and you lift 7kg for each m3 of hydrogen, this mean that a 100T package only needs  2T of hydrogen and a balloon with 30m of diameter, that seems a lot to you?..  if it does.. let me tell you that each of the 3 main chute of the Orion Capsule (10T) has 35m of diameter!
 

Better than mars, I will prove it in the other topic when I include and explain estimatives cost of all other necessary things.
I guess you can get cheaper resources (all kind) from venus than mars. 

You did not read the main post where I explain all this?  Is in the point 1

You dont need pressure resistant containers if you dont have a pressure differential..  This machines are not manned, they are teleoperated from the colonies.
And almost all materials (no gases) are not compressible at those pressures.  The effect of pressure is absolutly zero.
Materials just start to change properties after many GIGAs of pressure. Close to 1 millon times higher pressure than venus surface. 
As I said, the only problem that probes (from earth)  might have on venus is the lack of energy sources (no much sunlight).
But as I explain in that link, if you have colonies there, you can solve that with many ways that are very cheap.

Ask to the Real Chute modder, maybe is hard to combine chute surfaces animation and make it to work fine with FAR mod.

Yeah, without an additional ballon, how do you expect them to do capture? Just Drop it and hope it lands?

Airplanes might work, but still need to deal with the problem of needing to be carried on the resupply vessel- you might be able to get away with folding wings.

Yeah, and fat chance ANYTHING from Venus will be cheaper than Mars,even with 100% reuse. Launching from the upper atmsophere is only slightly easier than from Earth, but the need to keep everything in the air makes it overall more diffiult. Don't even get me started on Venus Surface mining.

[sevenperforce]

If you could build a habitable planet from scratch, what would be the optimal parameter set for making space as accessible as possible? 

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

Apart from problems caused by not being able to launch a rocket from a blimp, unreliability of blimps, corrosive atmosphere and high pressure, Venus is better, but before we stop all of that,  Mars is better, and poses an advantage over asteroid colonies by having an ataatmosphere.

[sevenperforce]

7 minutes ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

Apart from problems caused by not being able to launch a rocket from a blimp, unreliability of blimps, corrosive atmosphere and high pressure, Venus is better, but before we stop all of that,  Mars is better, and poses an advantage over asteroid colonies by having an ataatmosphere.

Are blimps necessary, per se? If you brought a bunch of simple cylindrical fuel tanks (accumulated from earlier launches) and filled them with a nominal amount of lightweight gas, you could build a stable floating platform in the Venusian sky.

[GoSlash27]

A settlement would have to be self- sustaining in order to be a "colony". Otherwise, it's just a temporary outpost.
It should ideally be able to procure everything necessary for life locally. This probably wouldn't be the case for either proposed colony, but it'd be easier on Mars.

 If it's not totally self- sufficient, it must have an export to pay for the imports. Something that is only available there and would be in high demand. There is nothing worth exporting from Venus' clouds and probably nothing worth exporting from Mars' surface either.

 A colony in either setting isn't likely in the foreseeable future, but I don't picture a colony in Venus' clouds ever happening.

Best,
-Slashy

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

If you could build a habitable planet from scratch, what would be the optimal parameter set for making space as accessible as possible? 

Possibly 20% Earth mass, large moon, and around a red or orange dwarf (planets are closer).

6 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Are blimps necessary, per se? If you brought a bunch of simple cylindrical fuel tanks (accumulated from earlier launches) and filled them with a nominal amount of lightweight gas, you could build a stable floating platform in the Venusian sky.

Well, a plane would still work- as long as you were able to fold those wings up real good.

[Gnoyze]

1 minute ago, fredinno said:

Well, a plane would still work- as long as you were able to fold those wings up real good.

I'm gonna assume you have no idea what an ultralite is then. One of those, just space grade material and with an electric motor and a backup balloon ballast

[Spaceception]

11 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

If you could build a habitable planet from scratch, what would be the optimal parameter set for making space as accessible as possible? 

130% The Earths mass, medium moon with 300% The Moons mass, orbiting a red dwarf like Lalande 21185

[fredinno]

8 hours ago, Gnoyze said:

I'm gonna assume you have no idea what an ultralite is then. One of those, just space grade material and with an electric motor and a backup balloon ballast

Whatos an ultralite?

4 hours ago, Spaceception said:

130% The Earths mass, medium moon with 300% The Moons mass, orbiting a red dwarf like Lalande 21185

Damn, that's pretty close to binary.

[Spaceception]

47 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Damn, that's pretty close to binary.

Well, if it was for colonization, I want the moon to have at least .2 gees of gravity, preferably, .35 gees, with a thin atmosphere.

[AngelLestat]

17 hours ago, fredinno said:

Honestly, though, metors are always a problem in most places in space. We can deal with it on the ISS, we can do it on Mars- the atmosphere wuld burn the smallest stuff, and large impacts are rare.

Which increase the cost..  but well, I already help you in that matter with the under the ice pole location. Radiation shielding, meteorit shielding, vacuum proof, close to the main resource, close to the energy source (nuclear) and much easier and safe to dig in ice than in dirt.

North pole should be the best of the two, it does not have a 8m deep dry ice layer, it is a lower altitude than the south pole which give you a bit more of radiation shielding for surface operations.

Quote

The problem is that you have to extend stuff out if you want to mine, and at least a harpoon if you do not want the wind to carry you away if you want to use a balloon.

You mean by the almost 0 wind speed on the surface? Yeah it is very dense.. but you don't need harpoons.  In fact one venus rover design use sails to take advantage of any trace of wind that might be there.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/early_stage_innovation/niac/2012_phase_I_fellows_landis.html
Look how light it is.

Quote

Yeah, without an additional ballon, how do you expect them to do capture? Just Drop it and hope it lands?

The explanation is right there in the 5 lines that you are quoting!  Is not the first time you do that, everybody is pointing you the same thing, you don't even read the things you are answering.
It seems that your only goal is to spam as many comments you can, no sure if it is just trolling or what.. 
You had learned before how to quote just the part of the post you want to reply, but it seems that it take you much time which is against your spam goal.
And I forget to mention in case was no obvious enough.. you can recover the balloon with the hydrogen too, which it will be welcome for the venusian people.

Quote

Airplanes might work, but still need to deal with the problem of needing to be carried on the resupply vessel- you might be able to get away with folding wings.

You dont really need airplanes in venus, but in any case, airplanes will look like this:
Half airplane, half airship, even without propellers will float at 50km, it can reach an altitude of 70km.



VIDEO

Quote

Yeah, and fat chance ANYTHING from Venus will be cheaper than Mars,even with 100% reuse. Launching from the upper atmsophere is only slightly easier than from Earth, but the need to keep everything in the air makes it overall more diffiult. Don't even get me started on Venus Surface mining.

And you get to that conclusion following what info or logic? Because all your past comments had a big lack of info or understanding.
Dont me get started on venus surface mining??
Lol, what does it mean?  What could you possible add that I did not crush before with tons of evidence and logic.
Machines able to mine the venus surface would be as common or simple as any industrial cooking oven. If you will make a reply, do it base to all the info that I already provide on that matter.  
    

16 hours ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

Apart from problems caused by not being able to launch a rocket from a blimp, unreliability of blimps, corrosive atmosphere and high pressure, Venus is better, but before we stop all of that,  Mars is better, and poses an advantage over asteroid colonies by having an ataatmosphere.

Why you can not launch a rocket from a blimp?  a whole nasa venus concept is base on that.. HAVOC.
We also launch rockets to space before under airplanes, which are no as stable as an airship.
 

16 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Are blimps necessary, per se? If you brought a bunch of simple cylindrical fuel tanks (accumulated from earlier launches) and filled them with a nominal amount of lightweight gas, you could build a stable floating platform in the Venusian sky.

Only if you want to float at 10 or 20km altitude, that seems good to recover emply rocket stages, but no for an habitat.
 

16 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

A settlement would have to be self- sustaining in order to be a "colony". Otherwise, it's just a temporary outpost.
It should ideally be able to procure everything necessary for life locally. This probably wouldn't be the case for either proposed colony, but it'd be easier on Mars.

 If it's not totally self- sufficient, it must have an export to pay for the imports. Something that is only available there and would be in high demand. There is nothing worth exporting from Venus' clouds and probably nothing worth exporting from Mars' surface either.

 A colony in either setting isn't likely in the foreseeable future, but I don't picture a colony in Venus' clouds ever happening.

Wow a lot of comments on this forum and you never read any of the benefits of venus?  
Mining atmospheres is the most cheap and efficient to do (you need to pressurize mars atmosphere to take advantage of that), and you can mine the venus surface very easy (read 2 pages back).
Venus has more heavy elements than mars because is close to the sun and it is geologically active (this mean high concentration locations of certain minerals)
It does not really need to have export to pay imports, take a look to many cities on earth and tell me what they export.. There are cities with huge exponential grow with no exports, I explain that with more detail here:

By the way, there are tons of other pros than a Venus colony has over mars.

Edited February 21, 2016 by AngelLestat

[GoSlash27]

22 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

It does not really need to have export to pay imports, take a look to many cities on earth and tell me what they export.. There are cities with huge exponential grow with no exports, I explain that with more detail here:

False. Name a city and I'll tell you what it exports.

 There is no place on Earth where people live continuously that is not either self- sufficient or able to pay for it's imports with goods and services in trade.

27 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Mining atmospheres is the most cheap and efficient to do (you need to pressurize mars atmosphere to take advantage of that), and you can mine the venus surface very easy (read 2 pages back).
Venus has more heavy elements than mars because is close to the sun and it is geologically active (this mean high concentration locations of certain minerals)

"Mining" for what, exactly? What does Venus offer that can't be had cheaper somewhere else?

 

[AngelLestat]

all your questions were already answered in a general way in the topic that I show you and you did not read.
First read that, then take the case for those cities and we can continue with the discussion. 

[peadar1987]

We've had this chat before:

There's not much you could get from Venus that would be in any way worthwhile. Cheapest current launch prices from earth are about $4000/kg just now. Let's be generous and say we can get that down to $3,000/kg soon with mass production. If we send a payload to Venus to mine platinum (current price, around $30,000/kg), it will have to come back with about 10% of its weight in platinum just to break even on your launch costs from earth. A 10% payload fraction on a launch from Venus to earth is pure fantasy.

That's before you even begin to think about the things you'd actually need to bring to set up a colony and mining operation, and the consequences to the market of dumping huge quantities of things like platinum on it.

[GoSlash27]

45 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

all your questions were already answered in a general way in the topic that I show you and you did not read.
First read that, then take the case for those cities and we can continue with the discussion. 

I wasn't asking for "a general" answer. I'm looking for a specific one. I suspect the problem is that you don't have one. What, exactly, do you propose the Venus colonists will mine that can't be had cheaper elsewhere? Specifically, not "heavy elements".

 And again, name a city and I'll tell you what it exports.

 This is your one chance to seriously engage my curiosity. I'm pretty sure I've already wasted too much time on this, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt one last time before I write you off and move on...

Best,
-Slashy

[Vanamonde]

Watch the tempers, please.