Terraforming Venus

[AngelLestat]

Wrong. It creates an enclosed habitat. That has nothing to do with Terraforming.

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.

For the sake of ending this pointless argument, let's declare Landis Land "not terraforming" and something deserving of it's own thread. (where terraforming concerns can be ignored)

AngelLestat, would you care to make that thread?

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.

Then use electrolysis to turn the carbon dioxide into a mainly oxygen atmosphere (energy can be got via solar panels), and then put lots of mirrors/ a solar shade in place in order to cool it down into an earth like planet. After all of that, drag Io down into orbit around the planet to give it tides. Io could also act as a stopping point for ships.

Why Io?

Again breathable air means the minimum pressure and temperature to sustain human life, 0.6% is not enough pressure to make the air "breathable"

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.

The vacuum of space is a pretty good insulator, at 1 AU temperature control can be achieve passively or with very minimal energy input.

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.

Its doubtful it will be a serious problem, at least for people that never in their lives will set foot under earth gravity... more so if 100% earth gravity is what is needed then an orbital space colony in a gigantic centrifuge is the way to go.

Try to find a biologist who share your point of view.

No all your premises are invalid, breathable air is the most important factor. Let me put this way, someone gives you a choice on how to live, you can only have one: breathable air, earth gravity, earth pressure or earth temperature, any of the other beside breathable air means your dead in under a minute.

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.

Well first off because our rocks are differentiated and have much poor generally concentrations of minerals, and second of because without the power-plant mass to power advantages of zero gravity at 1 AU, it would not be energy efficient. On earth we need to burn fuels, complex power plants, we cant just aim a mirror at the sun and get continues heat and power 24/7. On earth 100 Kw per kg only makes sense for the most rare of elements, in space that would not be a concern because power is plentiful.

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.

Again I have explained how 2D thermal-electrocution process can separate every element, you can't make a vague statements as a counter argument, you need to actually explain how in detail my process can't separate every element. The machine is not fundamental complected, 20 cold traps with 5 electrodes per trap could separate ~100 elements.

Your explanations is too vague, can you point a source to read about?

A lot easier to build an asteroid colony then one on Venus. Want to talk about construction difficulty: try build stuff on a balloon, now that has not even been tried. Try mining and extracting and even constructing at 500 C and 92 atm, that too has never been tried, and yet you just assume it will be easy?

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.

Why 2km/s? I never said 2 km/s! Lets consider the round trip cost two and from Venus, even with aerobraking that is going to be a delta-v of over 16 km/s, with an asteroid colony we could do it in 8 km/s for hundreds of asteroids.

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.

Then I advice reading up on chondrites. Again this assertion of yours has been countered in multiple ways: a break down of the most common elements and quantities that could be extracted per ton of C-type material has been given to you. The argument that for what the asteroid colony can't make right way they can trade for in what they can mine, which can't be done on Venus without having to get things off of Venus. Heck even a stellar asteriod mining network would require less delta-v to get from each other then to get off of Venus!

With the difference that you dont need to do that in venus, you can extract it all from there.

What you said did not make sense. Well lets just assume you hitting anti-protons with protons and forming pure energy and that your saying these gamma rays will harmlessly leak out (harmless to what?) then would not most of the yield be lost to space? Anti-matter against regular multi-proton atoms though will be quite messy and form lots of high speed charged particles.

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.

Well sure, even with the near term ones like fission and fusion it would take obscene space infrastuture to do it, but I don't think technology is the limitation here: energy is! The amount of energy required to move that much matter is not going to change, and no new technology is going to reduce the energy needed, not even antimatter, which requires an unbelievable amount of energy to make.

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?

hydrogen will react with co2 thermochemically (by heat alone) to form water and carbon monoxide and methane at venus's temperatures and pressure (or by the temperatures of impact), no biology is required for that process. Also the process of reducing CO2 with hydrogen to make water and biomass is biologically common among certain primitive bacteria, mind you without needing light. Venus under sunshade would need to be kept warm by the impacts alone.

you are very possitive about that, but what about all collateral effects than an impact gives you?

[SargeRho]

"But rise the ground level to 50km in height is in fact a terraforming process."

Negative.

"Is all about compositions mixtures. Is not about pressure."

False. If you can't breathe a gas, either because it's toxic or too thin, it is not breathable by any applicable definition.

"Try to find a biologist who share your point of view."

You won't find one on either side of the fence, because the long term effects of .3g are unknown (as are those of 0.9g, btw).

[Rakaydos]

Mods, I would like to request a thread split, to pull the Venus atmospheric habitat discussion into it's own thread.

[AngelLestat]

False. If you can't breathe a gas, either because it's toxic or too thin, it is not breathable by any applicable definition.

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.

You won't find one on either side of the fence, because the long term effects of .3g are unknown (as are those of 0.9g, btw).

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.

Edited March 3, 2014 by AngelLestat

[SargeRho]

"Is in the definition on the wikipedia that I show.. I win. period."

And it is wrong. If the pressure of the gas you're surrounded by is too low, you can't breathe it. Can't breath it = unbreathable. So unless you have enough pressure, it's not breathable. Period.

"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."

No, I pointed out negatives and errors because you didn't.

"But now you kept being as negative as possible just for a proud matter."

Again, wrong.

[AngelLestat]

And it is wrong. If the pressure of the gas you're surrounded by is too low, you can't breathe it. Can't breath it = unbreathable. So unless you have enough pressure, it's not breathable. Period.

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?

No, I pointed out negatives and errors because you didn't.

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?

[Vanamonde]

Mods, I would like to request a thread split, to pull the Venus atmospheric habitat discussion into it's own thread.

Splitting the threads would require splitting posts as well, and would create quite a mess. Anyone who would like to start a thread about levitating cities should feel free to do so, but that discussion does not belong in this thread, and from this point on, will be considered off-topic here. Please continue discussing terraforming in this thread, and only terraforming.

(Also, remember Sal_vager's request for civility, as tempers seem to be rising again.)

[RuBisCO]

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?

If you can't sustain life breathing it, then yes it is not "breathable"... i don't see why that is so hard to understand?

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.

This is a matter of semantics here started by you not I. The point was to begin with is that habitable pressure, temperature and *snicker* gravity on venus is not worth as much as being able to live outside without respirator or your skin “melting offâ€Â, I would take lower gravity, lower air pressure and low temperatures for the ability to live in open air continuously without a respirator... now if “breathable air†is not the term you want to describe that by all means give it what ever name you want, but the term is not the point, the concept is.

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.

The point was that in venus's clouds we will still need a closed habitat with a completely different atmosphere made of [insert your name for the air]. Maintaining a closed habitat in the vacuum of space in solar orbit near an asteroid ~1AU from the sun would be easier then maintain a habitat on venus, for the advantages of lower delta-v, easily minable resources (as opposed multi-stationed robotics mines working in conditions of a literal hell) make up for the disadvantages of having to build pressure vessels and shield them from radiation and micro-meteors with asteroid mined waste, and spin them to produce what ever desired gravity one wants.

Try to find a biologist who share your point of view.

Appeal to authority... by the way I am a biochemist, does that count?

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.

Sure why not, lets make it a choice between air you can continue living on breathing, or air with the same pressure and temperature but can't continue living on breathing, which one do you want? And what do you mean by Gas Mixture exactly, venus's air is certainly not a gas mixture viable for breathing.

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.

No I mean elements, not minerals.

Your explanations is too vague, can you point a source to read about?

What specifically do you want a source for?

is possible, but I would put my money that is easier and cheaper construct in venus than in space.

Well that a personal belief, just like the belief that dental plaque is merely a figment of the liberal media and the dental industry to con people into buying toothpaste. Look believe what ever you want but if your not willing to test your beliefs and argue about them with the ability to change your mind, then don't waste everyone time by posting.

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.

Ok where did I say 2.5 km/s, if I did I was a in error. The point was and remains that we would need a round trip delta-v greater then 16 km/s to make Venus a competitive option for a space colony, frankly that covers ALL the asteroids in the asteroid belt!

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.

I don't know about this 2 km/s part, now its 2 km/s that I supposedly said? Anyways the 16 km/s is the 3.5 km/s required to get from LEO to Venus and the 12.7 km/s required to get off of venus and back to an earth transfer orbit, not including the cost of enter back into LEO (or landing) I believe the calculation is call “addition†The source is the cute delta-v cartoon everyone cites: http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/deltaveemap.html

With the difference that you dont need to do that in venus, you can extract it all from there.

If you have multiple automated based on the surface of Venus able to extract and separate different ores and produce different products all while operating at 500 C and 92 atmospheres... frankly mining several asteroids at once would cost less then developing the technology to mine Venus and sending it all to Venus.

why you invent words that I never used. I never said that harmlessly leak out? where you get that??

“less destructive†same to me, what exactly is it less destructive to?

I said that the energy is absorb in a bigger volume, not just concentred in a small volume which give you a shockwave.

Is not the point the shockwave? I'm really failing to see what your getting at here, blasting a “nozzle†into a KBO or a moon of Saturn is going to require an obscene amount of energy either as fissionable, fusionable or anti-matter material, and getting it to provide enough force to move said body rapidly will risk the structural integrity of that body regardless if the blasting agent is anti-matter or not, its all about the redunkulus amount of energy being released in such a short time to provide the desired propulsive action, any kind of mechanism for distributing that energy will also reduce its effectiveness as a propulsive agent.

And worse sending it inwards towards Saturn or Titan to get gravity assistance will risk its integrity more from gravitation strain... you know what the roche limit is correct?

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?

This thread is not about such an idea, this thread is about Terraforming Venus, if you want to talk about cloud cities on Venus make a thread for that.

you are very possitive about that, but what about all collateral effects than an impact gives you?

I already covered those effects, we would need to impact many small masses that we can dissipate most of the impacting energy into the atmosphere rather then the surface, we would need to build sun shade first so that impactors were all the energy input on Venus.

[SargeRho]

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?

Still wrong.

Let me give you an example. Take a high altitude baloon, say, to 15km up. And then go out without a breathing aparatus. You'll suffocate, but the air is still breathable, right?

No, it isn't. If the air is too thin to breathe it isn't breathable.

And Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, also stop arguing semantics. Let's look at an *actual* example of a dictionary definition of breathable, shall we?

breathable

breath·a·ble

[bree-thuh-buhl]

adjective

1.

able or fit to be breathed

If you open your mouth while in free fall, you are increasing the pressure by ram compression, which makes it breathable again, if that works at all. The air around you remains unbreathable. Why do you think airliners compress the air inside to 2000m altitude level when flying at altitude (usually somewhere above 8km)?

Edited March 4, 2014 by SargeRho

[AngelLestat]

Splitting the threads would require splitting posts as well, and would create quite a mess. Anyone who would like to start a thread about levitating cities should feel free to do so, but that discussion does not belong in this thread, and from this point on, will be considered off-topic here. Please continue discussing terraforming in this thread, and only terraforming.

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?

The point was that in venus's clouds we will still need a closed habitat with a completely different atmosphere made of [insert your name for the air]. Maintaining a closed habitat in the vacuum of space in solar orbit near an asteroid ~1AU from the sun would be easier then maintain a habitat on venus, for the advantages of lower delta-v, easily minable resources (as opposed multi-stationed robotics mines working in conditions of a literal hell) make up for the disadvantages of having to build pressure vessels and shield them from radiation and micro-meteors with asteroid mined waste, and spin them to produce what ever desired gravity one wants.

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?

Appeal to authority... by the way I am a biochemist, does that count?

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.

And what do you mean by Gas Mixture exactly, venus's air is certainly not a gas mixture viable for breathing.

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.

What specifically do you want a source for?

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??

Well that a personal belief, just like the belief that dental plaque is merely a figment of the liberal media and the dental industry to con people into buying toothpaste. Look believe what ever you want but if your not willing to test your beliefs and argue about them with the ability to change your mind, then don't waste everyone time by posting.

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.

I don't know about this 2 km/s part, now its 2 km/s that I supposedly said? Anyways the 16 km/s is the 3.5 km/s required to get from LEO to Venus and the 12.7 km/s required to get off of venus and back to an earth transfer orbit, not including the cost of enter back into LEO (or landing) I believe the calculation is call “addition†The source is the cute delta-v cartoon everyone cites: http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/deltaveemap.html

Ahh, but you are talking about going and back, in that case a very close NEO it has also 8km/s (go and back).

“less destructive†same to me, what exactly is it less destructive to?

That it does not produce the same damage than an equal-power nuclear bomb.

Is not the point the shockwave? I'm really failing to see what your getting at here, blasting a “nozzle†into a KBO or a moon of Saturn is going to require an obscene amount of energy either as fissionable, fusionable or anti-matter material, and getting it to provide enough force to move said body rapidly will risk the structural integrity of that body regardless if the blasting agent is anti-matter or not, its all about the redunkulus amount of energy being released in such a short time to provide the desired propulsive action, any kind of mechanism for distributing that energy will also reduce its effectiveness as a propulsive agent.

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.

And worse sending it inwards towards Saturn or Titan to get gravity assistance will risk its integrity more from gravitation strain... you know what the roche limit is correct?

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.

This thread is not about such an idea, this thread is about Terraforming Venus, if you want to talk about cloud cities on Venus make a thread for that.

Like I already explain and prove, this is an important step and it has everything to do with terraforming.

we would need to build sun shade first so that impactors were all the energy input on Venus.

A sun shade?? I dont understand.

No, it isn't. If the air is too thin to breathe it isn't breathable.

Something breatheable means something that not poison you.. The mixture that your body needs.

And Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, also stop arguing semantics. Let's look at an *actual* example of a dictionary definition of breathable, shall we?

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′thə-bəl)

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.

If you open your mouth while in free fall, you are increasing the pressure by ram compression, which makes it breathable again, if that works at all. The air around you remains unbreathable. Why do you think airliners compress the air inside to 2000m altitude level when flying at altitude (usually somewhere above 8km)?

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?)

Edited March 4, 2014 by AngelLestat

[Rakaydos]

Make another topic. This is not about colonising, which the floating cities do nicely. it is about terrraforming, which is far more difficult.

[SargeRho]

No, all sources are against you. Let me quote the very wikipedia you are quoting.

The essential component for any breathing gas is a partial pressure of oxygen of between roughly 0.16 and 1.60 bar at the ambient pressure."

"Is not about pressure. Is all about mixture." Is thus disproven. It's about mixture and pressure. Regular Earth air becomes toxic above certain pressures. If the pressure is too high, you die, the air isn't breathable. If the air is too thin, your blood boils, you die, the air isn't breathable.

Also, "Air" is the gas environment one is in. Martian Air is different from Earth Air, as is the air on the ISS, and that on Venus, and that on Titan, and every other body with an atmosphere. While it is technically correct that Air reffers to Earth's atmosphere, the word "Air" is used to describe any gas environment one might be in. Just like it's technically incorrect to use kilograms to measure weight, but it's heck of a lot more convenient than Newtons, which nobody without the proper training will know what to do with.

"thefreedictionary

breath·a·ble (brē′thə-bəl)

adj.

1. Suitable or pleasant for breathing:"

I do not think it is suitable or pleasant to breathe a mixture of 21% oxygen and 79% Nitrogen at 0.1 bar. You don't have the .16 to 1.6 bar of oxygen partial pressure there, thus, not breathable.

"And that proves me wrong.. how????"

By showing that the air is not suitable to be breathed.

Do I have to start explaining it in Spanish? Si no puedes respirar el aire porque hará que tu sangre empieze a hervir, no es aire respirable. Respirable es la combinacion de "respirar" y "able", "able" significa "ser capaz de" o "poder". Entonces no puedes decir que aire a 0,1 bar es respirable, porque te asfixiarias.

Also: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/71519-Cloud-cities?p=1003524

Edited March 4, 2014 by SargeRho

[AngelLestat]

Make another topic. This is not about colonising, which the floating cities do nicely. it is about terrraforming, which is far more difficult.

Ok I leave. I am not here to fight.

"The essential component for any breathing gas is a partial pressure of oxygen of between roughly 0.16 and 1.60 bar at the ambient pressure."

Is thus disproven. It's about mixture and pressure. Regular Earth air becomes toxic above certain pressures. If the pressure is too high, you die, the air isn't breathable. If the air is too thin, your blood boils, you die, the air isn't breathable.

Haha, fair enoght. I was betrayed for one of my links. heh. I dont know how I could miss that part. I remember that I did a quick read and I search for the word "pressure" but I dint find nothing, maybe I type wrong.. dunno.

You win then..

Also, "Air" is the gas environment one is in. Martian Air is different from Earth Air, as is the air on the ISS, and that on Venus, and that on Titan, and every other body with an atmosphere. While it is technically correct that Air reffers to Earth's atmosphere, the word "Air" is used to describe any gas environment one might be in. Just like it's technically incorrect to use kilograms to measure weight, but it's heck of a lot more convenient than Newtons, which nobody without the proper training will know what to do with.

That would depend if we took the word latin and grek source and some how we adopt it to other planets.

But what we call air all days is the mixture of oxygen and nitrogen, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air

Or in spanish

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aire

Do I have to start explaining it in Spanish? Si no puedes respirar el aire porque hará que tu sangre empieze a hervir, no es aire respirable. Respirable es la combinacion de "respirar" y "able", "able" significa "ser capaz de" o "poder". Entonces no puedes decir que aire a 0,1 bar es respirable, porque te asfixiarias.

Ok, pero en todo caso, rubisco al preguntar que elegia entre aire respirable, presion y temperatura, no estaba siendo justo, porque en ese caso, estaba eligiendo 2 similitudes, presion y mezcla por el costo de 1.

Edited March 4, 2014 by AngelLestat

[Rakaydos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_%28disambiguation%29

[Vanamonde]

Well, the wheels have come pretty thoroughly off of this thread. Why don't we all take a break and go do something else for a while? Thread closed.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Vanamonde