Nasa is considering a Manned Mission to Venus before Mars!

[AngelLestat]

Well then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You haven't made a convincing argument. If anything, you've succeeded in supporting my point. The joint ESA/NASA missions to Jupiter's moons and Saturn/Titan that I gave as examples were conceived and later cancelled during the ISS era. The ISS era is one of the two times that you highlight where there was an increase in funding for NASA. If increased funding for manned missions should also result in increased funding for robotic missions then we should have seen the effect during the period of increased funding for the ISS.

And just to be clear, I am all for manned space exploration. However when significant mission opportunities are being cancelled due to lack of funding while the international community continues to spend tens of billions of dollars each year on manned missions to LEO, then I would argue we have to re-consider our priorities.

In what year was cancelled? Can you post some info about that?

But there will always mission which are approved and other that are cancelled. This does not mean that they were cancelled because the ISS

Take a look:

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?Sort=Chron&StartYear=2000&EndYear=2009

Tell me if you find some decrease or increase in the amount of missions over the apollo or ISS construction.

Also the ISS never had the marketing as the apollo, because it was in low orbit and russian had a space station before.

But the ISS must continue, it force countries to always keep it alive with several launchs, this encourage agencies to search a cheap way to launch stuffs. It does not decrease the space exploration in any way. If the ISS will be abandoned, then % fed budget will also decrease.

They've been used for sounding rockets at least, the combination being known as a "rockoon". One problem with simple balloon-based launchers is controlling the launch bearing, which means they need a wide clear area on the ground. With a more sophisticated airship this wouldn't be such an issue.

The problem with is that you lose lift capabilities over height. You will need a ballon with 6 to 10 times more volume to lift the same weight at 10km than venus at 50 km.

And you need to fill that volume with hellium or hydrogen.. Hydrogen is cheap but dangerous here at earth, if you use helium you lost all that helium (which count also as fuel)

A better possibility will be use a variable buoyancy vehicle to rise the rocket.

In this way you just consume the energy to compress the hellium.

By the way.. I present this transport concept 1 year ago, everybody said that it was crazy, that this thing dint have any economic possiblity, etc.

Now there is 22 in production stage, 4 of 66 tons, and 18 of 250 tons, with new orders in hold, until they gather more, to see if is convenient to open a new factory.

Doing these seemingly unrelated steps first will actually give us the experience (and an easier to support funding rationale) necessary to eventually get crewed vehicles to Venus orbit (let alone down into and up out of the atmosphere there). Most of the problems associated with getting TO and FROM Venus are similar to the problems that would be faced at the Moon and at Mars. As for distances; if we can succeed with Mars space missions, we would more likely succeed with Venus space missions.

It does not have sense

What about your wind opinion which was related as the main excuse to not go venus?

-------------------------------------------------

merry christmas for those who follow this tradition.

Edited December 24, 2014 by AngelLestat

[Rakaydos]

The problem with is that you lose lift capabilities over height. You will need a ballon with 6 to 10 times more volume to lift the same weight at 10km than venus at 50 km.

And you need to fill that volume with hellium or hydrogen.. Hydrogen is cheap but dangerous here at earth, if you use helium you lost all that helium (which count also as fuel)

That's not an issue. Assuming you have enough material for the final baloon surface area, as atmospheric pressure drops, the same lifting gas that's carrying the baloon will expand, inflating the excess material as it goes higher. (which is why weather bloons look half-deflated at launch)

Ergo, as the -volume- of lifting gas rises with lowering pressure, lift actually increases with altitude.

[AngelLestat]

But I said 6 to 10 times the volume.. not the amount of helium.

The amount of helium you will need it will be 4 times, i guess. (venus at 50km Vs Earth at 10km)

Example: if we have a blimp with 100000m3 full of hydrogen will lift:

160 tons at 50km altitud in venus.

Amount of hydrogen needed (mass): 7000 kg

The same amount of hydrogen at 10 km on earth will lift:

Volume 263903 m3

Lift 31 tons.

So if I want to lift the same mass I need 4-5 times more hydrogen and 12 times more volume.

Also we can not use hydrogen at earth, we need to use helium and this is too expensive.

If there is an error with my math let me know.

I am sleep, so maybe I wrong.

[xcorps]

I don't know whats more depressing. The idea that NASA wants to spend money sending manned blimps to Venus or the fact that some take it seriously.

[Dispatcher]

...

It does not have sense

What about your wind opinion which was related as the main excuse to not go venus?

-------------------------------------------------

merry christmas for those who follow this tradition.

Actually, since the most significant part of such journeys in space IS travel into, through, out of and back to, through and out of interplanetary space; I think my reasoning makes perfect sense. We need to get good at doing so before we commit personnel to the Venusian atmosphere.

As for some kind of argument about the Venusian wind(s): where are you quoting me on that? I think Venus has a hostile environment, but what is it about winds that you think I'm making a comment about?

Merry Christmas to you as well, and a Happy New Year!

[AbhChallenger]

The launch costs alone will make this a non starter. Try convincing the Taxpayers that floating around Venus is better than walking on Mars.

[AngelLestat]

Thanks Dispatcher, I wish you a happy new year for you too.

About the wind.

These are the reasons why venus does not have vertical winds or turbulence.

1-Thick atmosphere, 92 times ours, this work like a huge capacitor, any source of energy (volcano or sun) that is absorbed is dispersed and attenuated by the thick atmosphere.

2-You dont have random places with shade (because clouds) and no shade. Clouds are very uniform.

3-Very dry, low amount of water/acid sulphure. Here at earth, moist air in the clouds is heavier and falls fast, producing strong vertical winds that when touch the ground they become horizontal.

4-Venus soil is all Supercritical carbon dioxide, which is an almost perfect thermal conductor. That balances any heat difference.

5-parking place at 50 km, is very far for any atmosphere effect due terrain. As montains effect in our atmosphere.

6-you dont have different type of soils.

7-the low planet rotation (almost none) generates a very uniform wind flux to compensate any heat (pressure) difference. This is so efficient and constant that the temperature difference between day at night is none.

The few vertical speeds on venus are at the poles, you can find 2 giant cyclones. But the parking place is at equator. So there is no problem.

The evidence data of all probe-ballons (more than 7 I guess) show no evidence of vertical winds or turbulence (they was floating by several days each one)

Only one probe show that over few minutes a fast change in altitude, it was far from the equator and it dint receive any harm. But scientist was amazed They could not imagine what could cause that, maybe was an instrument error (their words).

------------------------------------------------------------------

Is interesting to see how many (from this forum) seems pesimistic or against this concept.

I am quite sure this is due to the USA - Russia space race which USA became the media winner.

Explanation here, my answer to Jedy master.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104177-Nasa-is-considering-a-Manned-Mission-to-Venus-before-Mars%21?p=1627106&viewfull=1#post1627106

Or is due to the lack of information about venus advantages and mars drawback.

Edited December 28, 2014 by AngelLestat

[Nibb31]

First, we know very little about Venus and its atmosphere. Much less than Mars even. We are pretty good at landing on a hard surface, but the atmosphere of Venus is far more difficult to predict because we simply don't have enough data. Before sending people there, we would need several campaigns of unmanned probes with modern sensors. If you want Venus science to catch up with Mars science, this would take decades.

Second, deploying balloons from a high-speed, high altitude reentry vehicle is far from a trivial problem, and so is relaunching from a balloon. I don't think we even have the technology to do it on Earth, let alone on an alien planet with unpredictable atmospheric conditions. These techniques would require a lot of development and testing, including several campaigns of unmanned precursor missions to validate the deployment and return techniques before we could commit to send people there.

The idea that we could go to Venus before we go to Mars is delusional. It would take much more time to develop the techniques and the knowledge to do it confidently.

[cantab]

These are the reasons why venus does not have vertical winds or turbulence...

Only one probe show that over few minutes a fast change in altitude, it was far from the equator and it dint receive any harm. But scientist was amazed They could not imagine what could cause that, maybe was an instrument error (their words).

A lovely theory probably torpedoed by an ugly fact, as you admit yourself. The balloon result showing noticeable vertical winds may or may not be real, but it certainly can't be ignored.

Of course, the atmosphere of Venus will be far better studied before anyone puts a manned balloon there.

[Dispatcher]

Is interesting to see how many (from this forum) seems pesimistic or against this concept.

I am quite sure this is due to the USA - Russia space race which USA became the media winner.

Explanation here, my answer to Jedy master.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/104177-Nasa-is-considering-a-Manned-Mission-to-Venus-before-Mars%21?p=1627106&viewfull=1#post1627106

Or is due to the lack of information about venus advantages and mars drawback.

I'll clear up a few misconceptions ... with regards to myself anyway. I'm not pessimistic or hostile to the idea of going to the Venusian atmosphere. I however do think we should get good at dealing with other solar system locations first. These would include more learning at the ISS or some later space station, establishing a Moon base, establishing a Mars base and perhaps a few jaunts to the asteroid belt. After that, we would be better equipped to deal with missions to Venus. Achieving the earlier goals would give us a more sound footing, and make it easier to justify spending by the world's various tax payers, for crewed Venusian air missions. To me, its all about the order in which we take on solar system exploration.

As for some kind of competition between the US and Russia in terms of where any of us should direct our resources, I don't accept that as a valid argument; Russia has interests on landing on Martian moons and so has not limited its interests only at Venus. But for the sake of argument, if Russia wants to send Cosmonauts to Venus, I say, let Russia do so (assuming the economics of the project are tenable). Let NASA or ESA or private industry send missions where they will. I, for one, think we can learn much by establishing and maintaining an international base on the Moon before trying to do so at Mars, let alone Venus or any other solar system destination.

[NERVAfan]

First, we know very little about Venus and its atmosphere. Much less than Mars even. We are pretty good at landing on a hard surface, but the atmosphere of Venus is far more difficult to predict because we simply don't have enough data. Before sending people there, we would need several campaigns of unmanned probes with modern sensors. If you want Venus science to catch up with Mars science, this would take decades.

Second, deploying balloons from a high-speed, high altitude reentry vehicle is far from a trivial problem, and so is relaunching from a balloon. I don't think we even have the technology to do it on Earth, let alone on an alien planet with unpredictable atmospheric conditions.

We'd definitely need an unmanned precursor airship mission, possibly more than one, and we'd need to test the deployment of the airship and the launch-from-airship techniques in Earth's atmosphere, but I don't think it requires any fundamentally new tech. Launch of small rockets from balloons has been practiced for 60+ years, and launch of orbital rockets from airplanes is known technology (Pegasus). I don't see why launching from a blimp is so fundamentally different.

(And I doubt the airship would deploy at high speed - I'd imagine it would be packed into a much smaller entry capsule, use heat shield and then parachutes to decelerate to a safe speed, then deploy/inflate the airship.)

The idea that we could go to Venus before we go to Mars is delusional. It would take much more time to develop the techniques and the knowledge to do it confidently.

I think we will almost certainly go to Mars first, since there is much more interest in Mars both inside and outside NASA* - but Mars isn't on the "critical path" to Venus - if someone funded the Venus program and no one funded a Mars one, then it would be possible.

*In my opinion, NASA is too bound to the short term election cycle and too risk averse to do a manned Mars mission themselves. If humans get to Mars, it will most likely be either a largely private mission probably with some NASA and/or ESA participation (the most likely, IMO) or a Chinese (or another non-US/Russia space agency like India or something) mission.

[AngelLestat]

A lovely theory probably torpedoed by an ugly fact, as you admit yourself. The balloon result showing noticeable vertical winds may or may not be real, but it certainly can't be ignored.

I'm not pessimistic or hostile to the idea of going to the Venusian atmosphere. I however do think we should get good at dealing with other solar system locations first. These would include more learning at the ISS or some later space station, establishing a Moon base, establishing a Mars base and perhaps a few jaunts to the asteroid belt. After that, we would be better equipped to deal with missions to Venus.

but the atmosphere of Venus is far more difficult to predict because we simply don't have enough data. Before sending people there, we would need several campaigns of unmanned probes with modern sensors. If you want Venus science to catch up with Mars science, this would take decades.

I did not want to compare, but many still believe that Mars is easier than Venus.

First some details that we may be agree:

The first manned mission will be the asteroid redirect mission already planned by NASA and accepted by the goverment (not in official way).

We would need probe mission to venus before sent any humans, to clarify any lack of information that we still may have, but this is already mentioned in this concept.

About 2 previous unmanned missions, I dont see the need. I will sent 2 if the second probe mission is the one which will try SITU, so you dont need to carry the fuel from here.

Mars Drawbacks:

1- Land in Mars, we dont have the technology to do it. The maximun mass we can land there was the opportunity 0,9 tons (we need 36 tons)

The atmosphere is so thin that not even the new heat shields designs or the new parachutes are enoght to brake.

You need to spent extra fuel to slow down and this is not all, you need to ignite the engine at 24000 km/h and keep it ignite all the time.. This seems super complex, several grade of magnitude beyond SpaceX reusable first stage.

Then we need something as the sky crane to avoid any soil particle to enter in the engines and the turbulance generate by this (this not happen at the moon for the complete lack of atmosphere). Which becomes a high risk to land and takeoff.

But dust can not be avoided due all the sand storms. So even if you can solve that with design, there will be always a risk.

Also we need to place these >25 tons base/supplies near one of the other.. Right now in mars our accuracy is 10 or 20 km.

2- Longer travel times and time windows.

The psychological effect of astronauts pent for 6 months or more, is hard to predict. Also when you arrive, you can not go back right away with low deltaV as in Venus, in a proeblem case. Also to receive supplies.

3- Power-energy

You get almost nothing from solar panels. Get enoght energy in mars to survive is not a easy task. Venus is completly the opposite. You can even collect energy at any PV angle. Keep plants alive is very energy intensive.

4- 100% airtight Space suits and habitats.

This generate a big problem with the life support system. ISS gets provisions every few months.

Here you need to deal with any kind of waste, all life support projects for mars show big errors in their calculations.

Also you need a system to keep the dust out. It can be very dangerous.

Avoid to contaminate mars with our own bacterias.

5- Long term settlements seems almost impossible.

Due the low gravity and high levels of radiation, births are out of the question in mars. They would born death.

6- You can not test these things here. So you waste a lot of money in multiple test to have somef certainty.

On the contrary, you can test mostly all things about the venus mission in earth.

7- etc.. i'm sleepy.

As for some kind of competition between the US and Russia in terms of where any of us should direct our resources, I don't accept that as a valid argument

So you are telling me that all this media about "lets go to mars, mars is our destiny, it has land as we have in earth, we can not land in venus.. venus is a helll planet, all the endless notes about the necesary steps to go mars, movies, etc" did not cause any effect on your opinion?

This is psychology 101, is very unlikely that anyone would face this change of paradigm without give a fight, more if in the past we use these sames arguments to educate anyone else asking for venus.

Use your logic, and tell me if this can not be the cause about why venus sounds so crazy.

[SargeRho]

1: We don't have the technology yet to send humans to Venus and bring them back either. It's actually easier to go from Mars to Earth than it is to go from Venus to Earth. Far easier. An empty Falcon 9 stage weights 27 tons, far more with fuel in it. And guess what: That has landed from orbit. Mars' reduced gravity makes it easier, but the flimsy atmosphere harder of course, but it's nothing that can't be solved. It's thus easier to develop the technology to land on Mars than to "Blimp-land" on Venus.

2: Fusion engines are in development, at least one anyway, and again, it's nothing we can't deal with.

3: Concentrating solar panels, nuclear reactors...

4: We've had those for half a century now.

5: Radiation levels are comparable to Low Earth Orbit, not too hard to shield against.

6: You can test plenty of things needed for Mars here.

Furthermore, Mars used to be somewhat Earth-like, with liquid water on its surface. While it'll be an immensely resource-intensive undertaking, Terraforming Mars is possible. Venus not so much. There isn't a whole lot of water left on Venus, while Mars has subsurface ice pretty much everywhere.

[AngelLestat]

1:

-we launch rockets in our atmosphere from a plane or ballon in horizontal angle? yes.. check.

-we inflate ballons meanwhile they enter in venus atmosphere? yes many times; and a blimp is just a ballon with an aerodynamic shape. We can make this same reentry - parachute - inflate and post launch test here at earth. check.

Your falcon 9 example is far of from mars conditions. And I already mention the falcon 9.

And you still need to solve all the other issues to land and launch.

How many probes failed to land on mars? Many..

How many probes failed to inflate a ballon in venus atmosphere? None.

2- So you need to wait until we have fussion? Even with fussion Venus will be still the shortest travel time. And there is nothing you can do with launch windows.

3- Your only option is nuclear reactors, because there is also had dust storms that last 2 weeks. With 80% of the light blocked by the dust.

4- why all mars projects (even in theory) fail to accomplish that then? And they avoid many of the issues that I mention. But well, who cares.. Venus does not need all these considerations.

5- But you need to deal with that, and there is no way you can solve the gravity problem (that is the biggest problem in fetus deveploment.) and it may be a health problem to those who live there some years.

And you play the terraforming card.. you may be desperate. The day we achieve that, we may have trasgenic humans with wings and able to breath co2, or a similar solution but with just technology.

Edited December 29, 2014 by AngelLestat

[Dispatcher]

. . . So you are telling me that all this media about "lets go to mars, mars is our destiny, it has land as we have in earth, we can not land in venus.. venus is a helll planet, all the endless notes about the necesary steps to go mars, movies, etc" did not cause any effect on your opinion?

This is psychology 101, is very unlikely that anyone would face this change of paradigm without give a fight, more if in the past we use these sames arguments to educate anyone else asking for venus.

Use your logic, and tell me if this can not be the cause about why venus sounds so crazy.

I think that most of the "mainstream media" caters more to emotions and less to facts and logic. The media sells "the sizzle, not the steak". Going to Mars seems more doable and desirable to most people; there is a romantic element of seeing the sun rise or set from the surface of a new world. I don't believe that the Russian masses are beating the doors down to exodus to the Venusian skies. In fact, having perused the Mars One site, I've noticed plenty of Russian volunteers who want to go to ... Mars. It didn't take "the media" to convince me that we should explore the solar system; I figured that out myself. Also, "the media" (perhaps you really mean the "non-Russian media") does not appear to be promoting a return to the Moon; most of the hype is about Mars. It sells more ad time and space than the moon does, apparently. If you are aware of "Russian media" which constantly promotes going to Venus, please provide us with links to such sites as those would be interesting to see.

Angel, I know you must have a strong desire to go to Venus and you are doing all that you can to promote the idea. I think its commendable. I personally don't think our choice is "either Mars or Venus; pick one". I think our choice should be "let's go to the Moon, then Mars, then other solar system locations; including the skies of Venus". Its not an either/ or situation. It is however my belief that we have much to learn by going to other places before we send people to Venus.

[SargeRho]

1: We've never inflated a manned blimp with a rocket stuck to it while in a free fall on Venus before. Every step of that will have to be developed, there is less precedent for that than for landing large payloads on Mars.

2: Of course not, but 15 days to Mars would be nice.

3: Solar cells remain viable most of the time. Of course, during dust storms, the nukes will have to take over.

4: Such as? We have 100% air tight space suits. What do you think they wear during EVAs on the ISS? Or what they had on the Moon in 1969? Neopren diving suits?

5: Yes, but it's pretty easy to deal with.

No, I didn't play the terraforming card. I played the what-does-it-have-in-store-for-the-future card. Venus: Not much. There is little use in colonizing it, as a colony there will never be fully self-sufficient, much less economical. Air pressure and gravity is all it's got going for itself. Mars has a solid, easily accessible surface full of all the elements our technology needs. Venus' surface is underneath a supercritical CO2 ocean at 450°C that has the tendency to crush and bake everything we send there. On Mars you can pick up Iron Ore with nothing but a shovel, a bucket and a space suit.

So in the end: Mars has a low-gravity Earth in store. Venus has clouds, clouds, more clouds, and lots of imports and nothing worth exporting in store.

[AngelLestat]

Going to Mars seems more doable and desirable to most people

Most people doesn´t know nothing about venus because never was in the media. Even us " the space geeks" only realize 3 or 1 year ago that venus has such a good place in their clouds.

So dont tell me that the media does not play a rol.

I don't believe that the Russian masses are beating the doors down to exodus to the Venusian skies. In fact, having perused the Mars One site, I've noticed plenty of Russian volunteers who want to go to ... Mars.

First as I said, Russia is not the best in media, no even inside its own country, and all these discoveries are from 1975, so I can not tell you how much their promote this or not.

Of course now they dont want this media, because the people may push them to make it real.. And we know that Putin is not very interested in space. Tell me the last missions from Russia? The only thing they do now is sell seats to the ISS (to which contributes little) and launch commercial satellites.

Angel, I know you must have a strong desire to go to Venus and you are doing all that you can to promote the idea. I think its commendable. I personally don't think our choice is "either Mars or Venus; pick one". I think our choice should be "let's go to the Moon, then Mars, then other solar system locations; including the skies of Venus".

Not promoting, I am just telling some facts, I am a logic person who follow evidence and reason. It does not matter much my desire. If someone shows me that Mars has more sense due to X reasons. Then I will take only 5 seconds to recognize my mistake and support that idea.

So I will understand if you tell me that you like Mars just because you can see some feets in the surface. But not tell me that Mars is easier, because all the evidence suggests otherwise.

About feets on the surface, that is a concept that we need to leave behind when we think in other worlds. We can float in liquids or air, we can be many meters deep under land or in oceans. It does not matter, what matters is whether we can live in that world or not.

----------------------------------------------------------

@SargeRho

1- haha, what matter if we have a rocket or elephants as payload. Maybe you want to said "we never test it at those scales" True.. But as I said.. We can test it here in our atmosphere.

4- You are ignoring all the main reasons that I detail and explain, it seems like you just reading the tittle.

5- Pretty easy to deal with gravity in mars?? Tell me how.

There is little use in colonizing it, as a colony there will never be fully self-sufficient, much less economical. Air pressure and gravity is all it's got going for itself. Mars has a solid, easily accessible surface full of all the elements our technology needs. Venus' surface is underneath a supercritical CO2 ocean at 450°C that has the tendency to crush and bake everything we send there. On Mars you can pick up Iron Ore with nothing but a shovel, a bucket and a space suit.

We are not sure yet how easy will be to get the sulphure acid in venus. In case is easy enoght.

Then Venus would crush mars in economy, population growth and life style.

Venus is the perfect place to mine the asteroid belt or any asteroid close to venus. You can use that thick atmosphere to aerocapture any asteroid.

You can mine the surface without much complications using to day technology and spending low energy in the process.

The elements in the atmosphere are like gold, you have all you need there.

Even here at earth, the sulphure acid production or use is the best measure about that country power.

And you have power.. THe planet is full of it just because is closest to the source..

Winds, temperatures, light and all kind of heavy elements (much more than mars) with many active volcano who bring them to the surface.

[SargeRho]

How is Venus in any way perfect to mine the asteroid belt? It's the second innermost planet. Mars is "perfect" to mine the asteroid belt, and even Earth is better. Venus? Not really. Many NEOs are easier to reach than the Moon or Venus, those are far more easy to mine than Venus. And there is no shortage of sulphuric acid. There is nothing Venus could produce that we don't already have readily available.

[Nibb31]

Most people doesn´t know nothing about venus because never was in the media. Even us " the space geeks" only realize 3 or 1 year ago that venus has such a good place in their clouds.

So dont tell me that the media does not play a rol.

Irrelevant. The media does not choose science missions. NASA is not an entertainment agency. Science missions are decided by science committees based on funding that is attributed to each agency by Congress.

And we know that Putin is not very interested in space. Tell me the last missions from Russia? The only thing they do now is sell seats to the ISS (to which contributes little) and launch commercial satellites.

Russia is massively investing in Angara and the Vostochny cosmodrome. That is a huge investment in infrastructure that opens many doors for future missions.

Not promoting, I am just telling some facts, I am a logic person who follow evidence and reason. It does not matter much my desire. If someone shows me that Mars has more sense due to X reasons. Then I will take only 5 seconds to recognize my mistake and support that idea.

We've already given you X reasons why Mars is closer than Venus in terms of an exploration roadmap. You're just ignoring them because you are biased.

So I will understand if you tell me that you like Mars just because you can see some feets in the surface. But not tell me that Mars is easier, because all the evidence suggests otherwise.

All evidence suggest that it is easier to land on a solid surface than on an ocean of clouds. We simply haven't done that sort of thing before and it simply can't be tested on Earth, because the atmospheric chemical, density, pressure, temperature and wind conditions are totally alien.

About feets on the surface, that is a concept that we need to leave behind when we think in other worlds. We can float in liquids or air, we can be many meters deep under land or in oceans. It does not matter, what matters is whether we can live in that world or not.

We can "survive" in just about any environment, as long as we can maintain livable conditions inside a pressure vessel. We can survive on the Moon, at the bottom of the ocean, or inside a nuclear reactor if we have big enough shielding and life support. But does it make sense to actually want to "live" in those places? Not really.

We are not sure yet how easy will be to get the sulphure acid in venus. In case is easy enoght.

Then Venus would crush mars in economy, population growth and life style.

Colonies on Venus make no more sense than colonies on Mars. The rest of your post about mining thriving colonies is just science fiction with no economical basis. Exploitation of resources on Venus is only meaningful if you are exporting those resources somehow, which is only possible if it's cheaper to get those resources from Venus than it is to get them from Earth. I don't think that the current demand of sulphuric acid is enough to jumpstart a Venus colony.

[Aghanim]

Colonies on Venus make no more sense than colonies on Mars. The rest of your post about mining thriving colonies is just science fiction with no economical basis. Exploitation of resources on Venus is only meaningful if you are exporting those resources somehow, which is only possible if it's cheaper to get those resources from Venus than it is to get them from Earth. I don't think that the current demand of sulphuric acid is enough to jumpstart a Venus colony.

Is there any uses for sulfuric acid in space? As far as I know most of space metal extraction doesn't involve sulfuric acid at all. Space manufacturing might need sulfuric acid, but probably it isn't the limiting factor. And importing sulfuric acid to Earth doesn't make sense

If you really want space manufacturing than I think asteroid is the best choice, because it doesn't have any significant gravity well. But colonizing it is hard

So, in conclusion, Venus is a no-go for resource exploitation

[PakledHostage]

If you really want space manufacturing than I think asteroid is the best choice, because it doesn't have any significant gravity well. But colonizing it is hard

So, in conclusion, Venus is a no-go for resource exploitation

This introduces a new elephant into the room: Ceres. If the motivation for building a base is resource extraction, why not just ignore Venus and Mars and focus on Ceres? As has already been pointed out, the Moon is probably the most suitable candidate for our first permanent outpost on another celestial body, but maybe the next logical destination is Ceres after we've cut our teeth there? It has low gravity and at most a tenuous atmosphere, making it easy to launch from and land upon. It also likely has a 100 km thick mantle of water ice totaling over 200 million cubic kilometers of water. Its location in the asteroid belt and ready access to water for making rocket fuel would seem to make it a far better candidate as a base for mining asteroids than Mars or Venus. A downside is the low gravity.

[NERVAfan]

All evidence suggest that it is easier to land on a solid surface than on an ocean of clouds. We simply haven't done that sort of thing before and it simply can't be tested on Earth, because the atmospheric chemical, density, pressure, temperature and wind conditions are totally alien.

Not really. At the altitudes we are talking about, the pressure, density, and temperature are extremely Earthlike.

The chemical composition is different, but it's pretty well understood.

Everything involved can be tested just fine on Earth; it wouldn't be hard to expose the envelope, etc. materials to a replicated Venus atmosphere.

Exploitation of resources on Venus is only meaningful if you are exporting those resources somehow, which is only possible if it's cheaper to get those resources from Venus than it is to get them from Earth. I don't think that the current demand of sulphuric acid is enough to jumpstart a Venus colony.

I don't think planet-to-planet transport of physical resources makes sense. The availability of resources is important to support a base/colony locally, not to export to Earth. The export of such a colony (whether Moon, Mars, Venus atmosphere, asteroids etc.) would be information - it would probably create a highly-innovative culture producing all kinds of advancements.

[AngelLestat]

Let's make something clear.

If someone said that Venus is not a good place because A,B,C and D, later they add that Mars is better because E, F, G and H. Then in a logic world, if someone prove with reason and evidence that all those concept were wrong. He will need to admit that Venus makes a good case.

But this never happen because the change of paradigm is too big and they will try to keep their opinion as if nothing important was mentioned.

So lets try to keep some decency and logic. Lets open the mind to the new possibilities and reasons.. There is not point to talk or discuss if we cant.

How is Venus in any way perfect to mine the asteroid belt? It's the second innermost planet. Mars is "perfect" to mine the asteroid belt, and even Earth is better. Venus? Not really. Many NEOs are easier to reach than the Moon or Venus, those are far more easy to mine than Venus. And there is no shortage of sulphuric acid. There is nothing Venus could produce that we don't already have readily available.

If you really want space manufacturing than I think asteroid is the best choice, because it doesn't have any significant gravity well. But colonizing it is hard

So, in conclusion, Venus is a no-go for resource exploitation

Ceres after we've cut our teeth there? It has low gravity and at most a tenuous atmosphere, making it easy to launch from and land upon. It also likely has a 100 km thick mantle of water ice totaling over 200 million cubic kilometers of water. Its location in the asteroid belt and ready access to water for making rocket fuel would seem to make it a far better candidate as a base for mining asteroids than Mars or Venus. A downside is the low gravity.

The asteroid belt (or places close to) are the worst places to mine the asteroid belt, some facts:

-Despite illustrations, asteroids are very far from each other.

-One base inside the asteroid belt has a lot more chances to be destroyed by debris.

-Far from the sun = less power, this reduce the amount of extracted material and the possibility of being transported using solar sails.

-Ceres is not a good target, it needs to be an small asteroid with a huge % of the material that we most want, a type M for example. It does not need to be in the asteroid belt either.

-Workers would be far from their families without chance of a quick go back in case something happens (in the asteroid belt or at home).

-The higher orbital velocity of Venus actually makes transfer orbits somewhat faster, as well as increasing the number of transfer opportunities.

Venus is closer in time travel than Mars and Earth using the minimum-energy trajectory to the asteroid belt or any other place.

-You can aerocapture asteroids with Venus, you can not do that with Earth due the risk and any effect on our atmosphere it will be hundreds of times more notorious.

Of course we would not export Sulfuric acid being in Venus.. We would use it to manufacture anything we want.

In case you want to manufacture something in other place than at earth, you need to carry that.

A fleet of Solar Sails of 400mts*400mts can transport 5 tons each with a travel time of 5 to 8 months (best to worst case in launch window), they will take payloads at Earth low orbit or Venus low orbit, then drop the payload to aerocapture, dodge the planet and brake, then take the next payload and go back.

If you have something like skylon at earth and something similar but less efficient in Venus, you get a self sustain economic system.´

Round trip of each sail will be from 11 to 13 month (≈1 year, it does not matter much the time window).

Irrelevant. The media does not choose science missions. NASA is not an entertainment agency. Science missions are decided by science committees based on funding that is attributed to each agency by Congress.

I will not repeat my self. Read my previous answers.

Russia is massively investing in Angara and the Vostochny cosmodrome. That is a huge investment in infrastructure that opens many doors for future missions.

Explore-scientific missions?? noo XD

The main use is for commercial purposes.

http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/768709

We've already given you X reasons why Mars is closer than Venus in terms of an exploration roadmap. You're just ignoring them because you are biased.

What? the fact that we were thinking in travel to mars since years it doesn´t make it closer to its accomplishment.

In fact all the new things we know about mars indicate that is a lot harder than we thought before, some have issues without solution so far.

Something that venus does not have. If we later find that venus has micro tornadoes at that height and extra design issues with the deployment not predicted before.

Then mars can become closer again.. but that is very unlikely.

All evidence suggest that it is easier to land on a solid surface than on an ocean of clouds. We simply haven't done that sort of thing before and it simply can't be tested on Earth, because the atmospheric chemical, density, pressure, temperature and wind conditions are totally alien.

Really? I need to ask again.. Really the evidence suggest that?

One question, in what surface all our space ships "land"? WATER!

There is no most difficult surface than solid to land. If you dont have the perfect angle and speed.. You crash!

And the most easier place to "park" is air.. When you float, because you can have any angle, you have km to adjust your altitud, etc. (also you can not "land" in the atmosphere or in oceans)

I cant believe that I am the only one pointing you this... this Mars alliance is ridiculous.

We can "survive" in just about any environment, as long as we can maintain livable conditions inside a pressure vessel. We can survive on the Moon, at the bottom of the ocean, or inside a nuclear reactor if we have big enough shielding and life support. But does it make sense to actually want to "live" in those places? Not really.

This has common sense.

But you need to force those conditions to be prepared the day you will need them.

40 years ago we did not need solar cells in those places where we could have alternative energy.

However there was always people using them and factories making them. Even when they had a cost/benefic ratio 30 times lower than now.

But thanks to those times we have now a way to counter our energy pollution problems in a way that makes economic sence.

Colonies on Venus make no more sense than colonies on Mars. The rest of your post about mining thriving colonies is just science fiction with no economical basis. Exploitation of resources on Venus is only meaningful if you are exporting those resources somehow, which is only possible if it's cheaper to get those resources from Venus than it is to get them from Earth. I don't think that the current demand of sulphuric acid is enough to jumpstart a Venus colony.

Is not about the sulfuric acid.

As the solar cell tale, there is needs on earth that would have economic sense in the future, but you need to make the road before you reach it. Or you will have a collapse.

Earth has a problem with population and resources. Each time cost more money extract any raw material. Each time we need to go more deep. It reach a point (which is not far) where you need to move thousands of m3 of soil to get few kg of some heavy element.

Then you need to add the pollution you create trying to get those last accessible elements.

You need to count with the need for an extra home in case something happen with earth.

If you gather heavy elements from the venus surface, you transport them with a nuclear hot air ballon to the clouds, then you launch it to earth. It will reach the day when that would need less amount of energy than extract it from earth.

In the first human ages, we spike the soil, and we found an oil geyser, we found kgs of gold just walking over a river, we enter in a cave and we found tons of diamonds.

Those ages wait us in other words or asteroids.

Edited December 31, 2014 by AngelLestat

[shynung]

If you gather heavy elements from the venus surface, you transport them with a nuclear hot air ballon to the clouds, then you launch it to earth. It will reach the day when that would need less amount of energy than extract it from earth.

That's if there is such a machine that can do such a feat. The Venera 13 and 14 surface landers, sent by the late Soviet Union in the 80's, survived at most a little over 2 hours, despite being massively overbuilt.

[xcorps]

It will reach the day when that would need less amount of energy than extract it from earth.

But not in this century, or the next. Not even with Nuclear Balloons.

I mean, come on. Seriously?