Nasa is considering a Manned Mission to Venus before Mars!

[SargeRho]

Why the hell would you aerocapture asteroids, or move them in the first place? You dock with them, mine them, and ship out the materials with ion, fusion or solar sail driven haulers.

[Nibb31]

Typical space cadet thinking:

Solution => Problem.

How things work in reality:

Problem => Solution.

This is the issue I have with most wacky space colonization ideas. People grasp at straws to find justifications for a complicated technical solution that they really want because it looks cool and science-fictionny, even when that technical solution doesn't solve any actual problem.

First start by identifying a problem. Then figure out the various ways to solve that problem and select the easiest/cheapest/most beneficial solution. If the best way to solve that problem is to colonize Venus with cloud cities, then go ahead and figure out ways to do it, but I can't think of a single problem that this solution solves that can't be solved by much easier/cheaper/more beneficial means.

If the problem is access to asteroids, there are easier ways to do it. If the problem is overpopulation, there are easier ways to solve it. If the problem is access to rare ressources, there are easier ways to get them on Earth.

If the problem is to find ways to explore Venus, then I think that repeating and improving on the Venera-Vega mission architecture is probably a good idea. But there is absolutely no viable reason to send people to Venus at this stage.

[Bill Phil]

Venus is a hellish place. Why go there? Asteroids are so much easier to mine, and so is Mars compared to Venus.

Sure, a balloon probe for Venus to study the atmosphere would be invaluable. But not a manned mission. We need to study Venus a lot more before a manner mission. Mars has had so many probes, we know much more about it than Venus. So, let's go to Mars first.

[Impaler]

I'd been discussing the NASA HAVOC mission and the general concepts around habitation of Venus over on the New Mars forums.

Generally I think people highly OVER-RATE the hard-surface of Mars (or elsewhere ware in space), for any kind of initial settlement mission it provides only two thing, normal force and radiation shielding if you can get under it. On Venus the lack of normal force means you need to hang under a buoyant balloon, this is a well established technology and simply means that every habitat must carry some parasitic mass fraction of balloon and lifting gas, it is likely to be less then the parasitic fraction to land things on Mars. The radiation issue is moot for Venus as you have Earth-surface levels of radiation in the clouds due to the atmosphere above, to match that on Mars the habitat has too be buried which requires Regolith moving equipment.

It is not practical initially to mine any body for any kind of raw metal that would be usable for building, that takes enormous equipment, infrastructure that is nearly global in scale and lots of fossil-fuel energy here on Earth utilizing the optimum ore deposits discovered over centuries of prospecting. Rocks are simply not a good feedstock, here on Earth EVERY industrial process benefits from operating on a gas or liquid rather then a solid, given that it is inevitable that atmosphere will be the only effective feedstock for industry on both Mars and Venus until populations are into the tens of thousands.

Both atmospheres are broadly similar in composition and have CHON elements in similar ratios, Venus atmosphere has 2 orders of magnitude higher density and it's Hydrogen is concentrated in a defined layer which will make collecting it somewhat easier. In addition Sulfur and Chlorine can be obtained in the Venus atmosphere at trace levels which have industrial uses. Overall the extraction of water and breathable air, and plastic feed-stocks looks to be broadly similar on both planets.

The presence of acidity is negative for Venus but it is again a highly OVER-RATED, conventional materials on Earth hold acids of the concentrations found on Venus all the time as part of our normal routine industrial processes. Simple Polyethylene plastic is highly resistant and should serve adequately as a skin-coat on every exposed surface. A person exposed to Venus atmosphere at the tops of the cloud layers would need to have a respirator mask both for breathing and to protect the mucus membranes from irritation, but the skin is not immediately burned by such diffuse droplets as some people wildly speculate. A plastic bunny-suit would be desirable for longer term work, this is comparable to the level of protection needed when spray-painting a car here on Earth and it pails in comparison to the equipment needed to go out on to the surface of Mars.

Temperature and Pressure being at life-sustaining, and indeed life-optimum levels at the target altitude on Venus removes HUGE difficulties in the design, construction and maintenance of the habitation spaces being contemplated for Venus as compared to Mars. On Venus in the event of fire it would be practical to sound an alarm don small breathing-masks littered all over the habitat at WWI speed and vent the atmosphere, a move which would kill every person not in a space-suit on a Mars colony.

In all likelyhood the construction of new habitats on Venus by simply building a scaffolding between two existing habitats and tenting it over with plastic and breathable air would be comparable to building suspension bridges or high-rise buildings here on Earth, safety nets and safty lines are all thats needed and the fact that your 55km above Venus matters not a bit.

The high difficulty of Mars Entry-Decent and Landing which promise to eat up large mass fractions even if they can be scaled up to the sizes necessary to get reasonable sized habitats to the surface. Venus with it's higher atmospheric scale height, lower gravity and lack of a solid surface is by far the Easiest EDL in the inner solar system, and that includes Earth. On Venus an inflatable decelerator will bring a vehicle down to sub-sonic speeds well above the target altitude at which point balloon inflation will halt the decent, decelerators can be deployed before entry has been committed too so this leaves only one simple system that is life-critical, Martian EDL requires a half dozen critical systems to work during EDL, up to and including not putting the landing-legs on excessively large rocks at the last second.

The largest detriments for Mars colonization are the long transit times and radiation experienced in transit, this is really the Mars Akilles-heel, we do not have ANY mitigation or control of GCR and the dosages will be too high on a Martian mission. Transit in space is the worst for GRC, but Mars surface continues to expose crea to half the in space dosage. Venus clouds bring dosages down to nearly Earth-surface levels leaving only the transits as windows of radiation exposure. Take these two fairly representative trajectories from NASA

http://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php?NEAs=on&NECs=on&chk_maxMag=on&maxMag=25&chk_maxOCC=on&maxOCC=4&chk_target_list=on&target_list=Venus&mission_class=roundtrip&mission_type=rendezvous&LD1=2015&LD2=2025&maxDT=2&DTunit=yrs&maxDV=9.0&min=DV&wdw_width=-1&submit=Search#a_load_results

http://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php?NEAs=on&NECs=on&chk_maxMag=on&maxMag=25&chk_maxOCC=on&maxOCC=4&chk_target_list=on&target_list=Mars&mission_class=roundtrip&mission_type=rendezvous&LD1=2015&LD2=2030&maxDT=4&DTunit=yrs&maxDV=7.0&min=DV&wdw_width=-1&submit=Search#a_load_results

The Delta-V is nearly identical for purposes of apples-2-apples comparisons so same initial mass of rockets in LEO to get transit vehicles their and back again, we expect to go down to the planets in some other mission-specialized vehicle and return in a small capsule to get back in the transit vehicle and return to Earth. For Venus we have 128 and 96 day outbound and inbound transits, total 224 day. But on Mars the outbound transit is bigger then the whole combined Venus transit at 336, and then the inbound is 320, total 656 days! Worse the 336 day surface stay on Mars will effectively expose crew to 168 days equivalent GRC dosage bringing the total up to 824 days equivalent, a multiple of 3.67 over the Venus mission. In addition the total mission duration for Mars is almost exactly 1 whole year longer at 2.72 vs 1.88 that's a whole years worth of food and supplies needed.

NASA is only now looking to look at do 1 year stays on the ISS now that 6 months has become operationally routine. Outside the radiation belts they are willing to do 6-month flights to things like NEA and that is the edge of the envelope right now. Venus would be the next step after that, as the radiation dosage would be only a modest increase over the Asteroid.

The Biggest downside to missions to Venus is return to orbit from the cloud level. This is not a complex problem though, it is one that is simply concurred with mass as we already know how to do this on Earth and the Venus assent is comparable. Considering that many hard-core Mars advocates now don't even want to bother bringing people back from Mars this would by their own logic not be necessary on Venus either and the largest down-side to Venus would be off the table. Not that I support that kind of one-way silliness mind you.

[Dispatcher]

Some reminders:

Mars' surface gravity is about 1/3 of an Earth G. Its CO2 dominant atmosphere is roughly 1% the density/ pressure of Earth. This means that launching from its surface requires less dV than from Earth's surface, even with weather challenges. But even that relatively small air density allows for some aerobraking and chuting during entry/ landing. The stationary landing target can relatively easily be acquired and landed at. There are pros and cons regarding the dV required for a round trip to and from Mars. A base can be partially or completely buried in order to provide radiation protection and moderate temperatures. Space suits required outside.

Venus' gravity, even at 55 KM high, is roughly 0.9 Earth G. While its air pressure is about the same as Earth sea level, the dominant CO2 makes for denser air than the less dominant nitrogen at Earth. Even with aerodynamic assist (and weather challenges), this means that launching from the clouds would require at least as much dV as from Earth's surface. While aerobraking and chuting would be practical at Venus, even at high altitudes, a problem which presents itself is the ability to target a relatively delicate moving platform and successfully match its speed and actually safely land there. There are pros and cons regarding the dV required for a round trip to and from Venus. A floating base would generally be protected from deadly radiation by the atmosphere. Enclosed hazmat suits required outside.

While resources are available at both Mars and Venus, it would be much easier to exploit surface resources at Mars.

Overall, it would make more sense to establish a base on ... our Moon first.

Its surface gravity is about 0.17 Earth G. No atmosphere in practical terms, so no aerobraking. But at less than 1/5th of an Earth G, landing at a fixed target and launching are relatively trivial, as is the dV for a round trip to and from the Moon. A base can be buried in order to protect from deadly radiation and to moderate temperatures. While there are no atmospheric resources (unlike at Mars and Venus), the logistics of exploiting surface resources on the Moon are more feasible than doing so at Mars. Space suits required outside. Since the Moon is days away (rather than months or years), personnel and animals can be rotated such that any negative effects of low G can be mitigated. We can learn how to extract resources at the Moon and how to live there, which will help us know better in some ways how to live on Mars and even at the clouds of Venus.

I may have erred on making a distinction between air pressure and density. I'm sure that if there are inaccuracies with anything in this post that someone will point those out and supply better information. Thanks.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

...snip...

The major question still remains...why? What would you do there? Who gains, and what do they gain? I love Venus, but, like Mars and Mercury, there is no good reason to put a human there(at this point in time). I'm all for manned spaceflight, but there is just no point in doing this mission when we have much cheaper ways to gather comparable science. Manned spaceflight should take baby steps while we overanalyze every aspect of our tests. There is no rush. The Moon(or a new space station outside of LEO) is the obvious testbed for proving human capabilities on another world. It's much cheaper, much closer, and without the previous two points would be as useless as the other celestial bodies to put humans on. Why get ahead of ourselves with Mars and Venus when we don't even have a presence on our own Moon?

Edited December 31, 2014 by SuperFastJellyfish

[AngelLestat]

I can said without much blush (of such claim) that I can improve the Havoc mission by a considerable margin.

It will require (between many changes) to dock in the atmosphere.

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.

It was in the 70´s (72 to 78).

Of course that was true back then. With some post insulation techniques, even in the 80´s we could fourfold that operation time.

Right now the only limitation in a venus rover would be the amount of free power to make science.

But there is a sail rover cocepts which it will use the low speed (10km/h) but dense winds to move and explore over the flat venus terrain, leaving the extra power of PV to cool some degrees and do science.

Here some electronics that resist those working temperatures without insulation or cooling.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/jan_2007/thursday/glenn230.pdf

https://www.wallenberg.com/kaw/en/research/swedish-electronics-will-overcome-extreme-climate-venus

But not in this century, or the next. Not even with Nuclear Balloons. I mean, come on. Seriously?

By the end of this century, if we start design the havoc mission now and the SITU test seems favorable; years later the first trade attempts doesn´t need to be cost competitive because they will be funded by countries.

What you would said when some mafia guys started to vision a city in the middle of the desert? Or when the cofounder of paypal started its own space launch company?

Those guys are just tiny compared with huge international corporations that transcend time; promoted by power countries interests.

Just take a look in the money invested in the big wars, fighting for some land or by trade privileges.

Why the hell would you aerocapture asteroids, or move them in the first place? You dock with them, mine them, and ship out the materials with ion, fusion or solar sail driven haulers.

If you need to transport all the pieces anyways, why dont move the whole thing to be mined close to home, in a safe enviroment and with extra sun power?

Also it will not be cost effective or recommended to use aerocapture with the small pieces.

This is the issue I have with most wacky space colonization ideas. People grasp at straws to find justifications for a complicated technical solution that they really want because it looks cool and science-fictionny, even when that technical solution doesn't solve any actual problem.

If the problem is access to asteroids, there are easier ways to do it. If the problem is overpopulation, there are easier ways to solve it. If the problem is access to rare ressources, there are easier ways to get them on Earth.

I am working since 1 year in a global web page that will try to find solutions to all the earth problems with the help of their visitors, some kind of wiki structure to ideas.

I scan the web all days to try to find new solutions to our biggest problems. That is why some times is easy for me imagine solutions relative to space, because I combine all the new discoveries or concepts that I read about. I have practice recognizing the most cost/energy-efficient ways to solve problems.

Some problems seems easy to solve in theory, but impossible in practice.

For example overpopulation. Is know that coutries with high level of education does not contribute with the problem, but equalize assets and education world wide (even if this is possible) would only achieve that humanity would need 5 to 10 times more resources.

Try to deal with the problem with international politics and agreement to control the amount of childs by inhabitant is also impossible. I learn that you can not go against the basic survival instincts. You can provide different path or choices to each inhabitant, but you can not force them to follow one. You can try, but it will not work.

The biggest problems are complex, and they dont have a single solution. The best way is provide tons of diferent solutions and let the people choose what of those is best for them.

I can continue talking 10 years about this, but this is OFFTopic.

If the problem is to find ways to explore Venus, then I think that repeating and improving on the Venera-Vega mission architecture is probably a good idea.

If we want to keep updating our oceans current maps maybe we can improve the Colon caravels.

I'd been discussing the NASA HAVOC mission and the general concepts around habitation of Venus over on the New Mars forums..

I was reading some comments in that Mars forum, I was impressed at first to see so many possitive comments about venus. Then I realized that as Mars forum, they may be aware more than me of the difficulties on manned missions to Mars..

The biggest issue of Venus to a long term cost/efficient settlement is H2.

Right now I dont know how cost efficient is to get sulfuric acid there. Maybe some ballon collectors at 45 km height, with static charge to attract some acid doplets, then cool the ballon surface to allow condensation, or just using big mesh. But we dont know yet.

About Venus needed buyancy vs extra mars propellant, you said that is similar.

How much speed you can lose using the new inflatable shields with a payload > than 30 tons?

Of course you can not use by so long because then you have limit time to supersonic retropopulsion, limit time equals to less ISP.

Some reminders:

Venus' gravity, even at 55 KM high, is roughly 0.9 Earth G.

0,874g, so if you will use a roughly number, use 0,85 as the havoc mission mention.

Even with aerodynamic assist (and weather challenges), this means that launching from the clouds would require at least as much dV as from Earth's surface.

Weather challenges?? Even if there is any.... (99% sure there is not) since when supersonic vehicles has any problem with weather??

same dV than earth? That CO2 that you are talking about is at 0.86g so is almost equal dense than air here at earth.

The deltaV is closer to 7.5km/s or 7.7km/s.

But that atmosphere with future methods can help us to push against and reduce a lot the amount of fuel needed.

Also you are ignoring the risk of all systems that needs to work at perfect time and synchronization to land in mars.

About moon first.. dunno. Is a lot easier than mars. But is not for long term settlements due gravity.

Venus is a hellish place. Why go there? Asteroids are so much easier to mine, and so is Mars compared to Venus.

Sure, a balloon probe for Venus to study the atmosphere would be invaluable. But not a manned mission. We need to study Venus a lot more before a manner mission. Mars has had so many probes, we know much more about it than Venus. So, let's go to Mars first.

The major question still remains...why? What would you do there?

It was already discuss with details in previous post.

In brief: because is very important to launch a manned mission to other planet.

Edited January 4, 2015 by AngelLestat

[xcorps]

By the end of this century, if we start design the havoc mission now and the SITU test seems favorable; years later the first trade attempts doesn´t need to be cost competitive because they will be funded by countries.

What you would said when some mafia guys started to vision a city in the middle of the desert? Or when the cofounder of paypal started its own space launch company?

Those guys are just tiny compared with huge international corporations that transcend time; promoted by power countries interests.

Just take a look in the money invested in the big wars, fighting for some land or by trade privileges.

You think that that the economic exploitation of Venus is somehow comparable to founding Las Vegas or Paypal. You think that a few trillion dollars would even begin to scratch the surface of such an endeavor?

Sorry. You keep slipping further and further from reality.

[Bill Phil]

A few trillion?!! That'd be more than NASA has had in its whole existence! That's be enough to do quite a lot.

[xcorps]

A few trillion?!! That'd be more than NASA has had in its whole existence! That's be enough to do quite a lot.

Not enough to make it more energy efficient to exploit Venusion resources compared to Earth, which is what AngelLestat was proposing.

[Impaler]

The major question still remains...why? What would you do there? Who gains, and what do they gain? I love Venus, but, like Mars and Mercury, there is no good reason to put a human there(at this point in time). I'm all for manned spaceflight, but there is just no point in doing this mission when we have much cheaper ways to gather comparable science. Manned spaceflight should take baby steps while we overanalyze every aspect of our tests. There is no rush. The Moon(or a new space station outside of LEO) is the obvious testbed for proving human capabilities on another world. It's much cheaper, much closer, and without the previous two points would be as useless as the other celestial bodies to put humans on. Why get ahead of ourselves with Mars and Venus when we don't even have a presence on our own Moon?

I'm speaking in this thread as an arm-chair engineer giving my opinion of the relative challenge of engineering for two competing destinations, not as an advocate for missions in general or even for a mission to the destination that is in my judgement more feasible.

I never said Venus should be the next destination either, just that it can come before Mars for both an initial visitation mission and for a just about any kind of foreseeable colonization effort. It's difficulty over Mars has been grossly exaggerated by a number of posters here and I'm correcting that. The shorter 6 month asteroid visits would proceed either Venus or Mars and Moon return is likely to proceed even that. I am fully aware of the need to validate and use robotic fore-runners, and generally build up gradually, 2020's is an optimistic date for return to the moon in my opinion with visiting planets decades after that. I am not a Zubrinist who thinks everything can be done in 10 years and spits on every intermediate destination or development effort.

On a broader note I think your a bit inconsistent on manned space-flight, it has never been about science, if it was we would call it 'Manned Science'. If your an advocate of manned space-flight then your an advocate for a goal which is not scientific. THAT IS OK we have a separate budget line for science and I don't believe it is a zero-sum game. The closest thing we have to Manned Science is the ISS, where human labor is used to run a laboratory doing lots of unglamorous research, but manned-space-flight people HATE ISS, I think at some level they know that the point of HSF is to get glory by going higher and farther and anything which is 'routine' lacks glory, even though it may be necessary to do the next glorious mission, fortunately less short-sighted people actually get to make most of the decisions.

Personally I'm rather indifferent to human-space-flight, at least at the current costs, funds should be directed to technology development until the ongoing costs of these missions and campaigns fit within the current budgets for HSF.

[AngelLestat]

Is like explain evolution to someone who believe that earth has only 6000 years old.

You dont need to put all the money from one day to the next..

There is a scale of time of 80 years. But is hard to understand 80 years if you only had 20 years.

this process only start after you have a permanent settlement there of 50 people. Then Huge corporations funded by coutries arrive.

So as I said, imagine those examples and take them to the next level... 100000 times more money than elon musk + country funds, then multiply that by 50 years .

Well never mind.. I wish all a happy new year. cheers!

[xcorps]

Is like

I'm not 20, I'm 45. Pretty sure I've got a good grasp of the flow of time, as well as a good enough grasp on reality to understand that exploiting venutian resources ain't happening in the next 50 or 80 years. No matter how many nuclear blimps you send.

[Bill Phil]

Not enough to make it more energy efficient to exploit Venusion resources compared to Earth, which is what AngelLestat was proposing.

I was simply referring to the enormous sum that is. A few trillion might could do it. Might. Given enough time. And a lot of airships. Although, those trillions would be better spent on Asteroidsand the Moon. Not really mining the Moon, but a base on the moon, telescopes, etc.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

I'm speaking in this thread as an arm-chair engineer giving my opinion of the relative challenge of engineering for two competing destinations, not as an advocate for missions in general or even for a mission to the destination that is in my judgement more feasible.

I never said Venus should be the next destination either, just that it can come before Mars for both an initial visitation mission and for a just about any kind of foreseeable colonization effort. It's difficulty over Mars has been grossly exaggerated by a number of posters here and I'm correcting that. The shorter 6 month asteroid visits would proceed either Venus or Mars and Moon return is likely to proceed even that. I am fully aware of the need to validate and use robotic fore-runners, and generally build up gradually, 2020's is an optimistic date for return to the moon in my opinion with visiting planets decades after that. I am not a Zubrinist who thinks everything can be done in 10 years and spits on every intermediate destination or development effort.

On a broader note I think your a bit inconsistent on manned space-flight, it has never been about science, if it was we would call it 'Manned Science'. If your an advocate of manned space-flight then your an advocate for a goal which is not scientific. THAT IS OK we have a separate budget line for science and I don't believe it is a zero-sum game. The closest thing we have to Manned Science is the ISS, where human labor is used to run a laboratory doing lots of unglamorous research, but manned-space-flight people HATE ISS, I think at some level they know that the point of HSF is to get glory by going higher and farther and anything which is 'routine' lacks glory, even though it may be necessary to do the next glorious mission, fortunately less short-sighted people actually get to make most of the decisions.

Personally I'm rather indifferent to human-space-flight, at least at the current costs, funds should be directed to technology development until the ongoing costs of these missions and campaigns fit within the current budgets for HSF.

I didn't mean to seem to jump on you specifically, but this topic comes up every few weeks and it is tiringly the same thing over and over. I picked your post to quote, but it was just me talking to the thread again(sound familiar? just trying to keep perspective), as it were. I am also indifferent to mannedscienceHSFMSFspaceflight or whatever semantics you want to use. Just because the point of HSF isn't science primarily, doesn't mean it doesn't yield boatloads of science. I'd like to keep receiving that science even if it's the secondary objective, but it should be done efficiently and incrementally like you said.

Edit: Oh, and welcome to the forum(if you haven't been a lurker)!

Edited January 1, 2015 by SuperFastJellyfish
Greetings!

[Impaler]

Venus' gravity, even at 55 KM high, is roughly 0.9 Earth G. While its air pressure is about the same as Earth sea level, the dominant CO2 makes for denser air than the less dominant nitrogen at Earth. Even with aerodynamic assist (and weather challenges), this means that launching from the clouds would require at least as much dV as from Earth's surface. While aerobraking and chuting would be practical at Venus, even at high altitudes, a problem which presents itself is the ability to target a relatively delicate moving platform and successfully match its speed and actually safely land there. There are pros and cons regarding the dV required for a round trip to and from Venus. A floating base would generally be protected from deadly radiation by the atmosphere. Enclosed hazmat suits required outside.

You would never try to land cargo on a platform directly from orbit, we don't do that here on Earth YET because of the precision it requires, rather we land in the ocean. And when and if it becomes practical to do so here on Earth the reason we do it is that salt-water is corrosive to a space capsule and air is not, and we live on land and not in the ocean. But on Venus everywhere is equally corrosive and we would be living in the same cloud layer that is everywhere else. Thus their is no detriment to the capsule or it's cargo to have it enter and float in the air a good distance (100 km) away from the city/crew/delicate-stuff and simply send out a tow-blimp to pick it up, even at slow blimp air speeds this would only take a few hours to tow in while avoiding all the danger and expense of a landing pad.

[BriXman]

Seems legit.

[Technical Ben]

Wait.. we avoid salt water because it's corrosive, but on Venus we would have no worries because it's all corrosive? (spinning and confused eyes smiley)

[Bill Phil]

I don't think it's ALL equally corrosive... Plus, there was a plan to go to the huge mostly CO2 portion of the atmosphere of Venus a while ago.

[Dispatcher]

... Weather challenges?? Even if there is any.... (99% sure there is not) since when supersonic vehicles has any problem with weather?? ... About moon first.. dunno. Is a lot easier than mars. But is not for long term settlements due gravity.

If you think supersonic craft are impervious to weather (winds, crosswinds, lightning, etc.); I differ with that notion. Besides, supersonic craft begin and end flights transitioning with subsonic (relative) speeds.

The very thing you mention about the Moon makes it nearly ideal due to its proximity to Earth. Unlike other permanently crewed bases further away, Lunar bases allow reasonable and regular personnel rotations to and from Earth. This should negate any harmful effects of the 0.17 Earth G Lunar gravity. At just days away, the Moon is ideal for establishing our first "real" base "out there". If we want to keep personnel at the Moon for extended times (or they get stranded), limited centrifuge rides could be used to simulate 1 Earth G periodically. Learning from this, it might still be necessary for any Mars base personnel to use such centrifuges to keep them more fit. We don't yet have enough information on the effects (or lack of effects) of the Martian gravity on human and animal health. As I'm sure you've pointed out, Venusian gravity is likely to be well tolerated by humans.

[Torquemadus]

The video explains how to send humans to Venus and return them safely to Earth.

It doesn't explain why a manned mission is required or desired.

It doesn't make a case for why we would want a permanent base there.

To sell the idea of a permanent settlement at Venus, a case would have to be made for how it would fit into the economics and logistics of a developed inner solar system. If Venus can't provide all of the resources needed to support technical civilization, then the Venusian colonists would have to rely on imported resources. These resources would need to be paid for. Could the Venusians produce an export that is of value to the economy of the inner solar system?

Mars possesses all of the resources needed to support human technical civilization. This includes food production and industry. It is also within easy delta V reach of the main Asteroid Belt, meaning that Mars could export any goods and resources needed by asteroid miners that they can't produce for themselves locally and can't afford to import from Earth. This would allow a "triangle trade" to be set up, where Mars imports high tech goods and skilled workers from Earth, the Asteroid Belt mining colonies import anything that can't be economically produced locally from Mars, and Earth imports rare and precious metals from the Asteroid Belt that aren't in adequate supply on Earth.

A case has also been made for why we would want access to resources from Near Earth Asteroids. The high cost of lifting equipment and consumables from Earth, and the relative ease with which we can transfer between Earth and NEAs makes them attractive sources of in-situ resources. For example, a highly automated process might allow rocket fuel and any other useful resources to be shipped from NEAs to a station in a Highly Eccentric Earth Orbit (HEEO). If such a station could support manufacturing, then potentially most of the hardware and resources needed to get from Earth to anywhere won't have to be lifted from Earth, while the remainder (such as the crew) could be lifted to the station via SSTOs.

Making a case for the settlement of Venus needs to be economically realistic. We need to know how self-sufficient a base at Venus could be made to be, and how it would fit in with the economics of a developed inner solar system. If a colony at Venus can provide a valuable contribution to such an economy, then it should be sold on that basis. Unfortunately, the video does not explain what this contribution might be.

It should also be noted that in the outer solar system, floating "cloud cities" in the atmospheres of the gas giants could offer an incredibly valuable resource. The atmospheres of all four of the gas giants are rich in the insanely valuable isotope helium 3, which is the second highest energy density fuel known to man behind antimatter, and the highest energy density fuel available naturally in our environment. Helium 3 can be used to fuel highly efficient and clean burning fusion reactors, and also as fuel for fusion thermal rockets. Helium 3 offers such high energy density as a fuel that it provides more than adequate delta V for starship propulsion. It will take longer to settle and develop the outer solar system than the inner solar system, but the potential economic value of helium 3 is so ridiculously high that it will be well worth the trouble.

[sal_vager]

So if NASA do this we can expect amazing sunrise and sunset pics

[randomness5555]

So when's somebody going to replicate this with RSS and Hooligan labs?

(Before you say "Why don't you do it?", I will point out that I have tried RSS before. I couldn't even get off the ground! Real rocketry is harrrrd...)

[PakledHostage]

... Snip ...

This all sounds fascinating but, given the time frames involved before any of this is even remotely possible, we're really talking about science fiction. And isn't it reasonable to speculate that, in such a world, robot technology will also have advanced to the point that they would also be far more autonomous? As with current space exploration, we need to ask ourselves how much of this really requires a human presence?

[Papa_Joe]

Wow, what a thread.

I'm not going to take a side one way or another. It is both self defeating and unproductive. I will however make a few observations from the responses I've read here.

From a conceptual point of view, a Venus mission is very possible. There are technical challenges to be sure, but we have some amazing human beings living all over the world today and I've no doubt that the issues could be solved. Mars presents a different set of challenges, and it would also have the talent applied to those challenges as well.

So, if we then consider that all the responses bring up valid points, and we also consider that this thread is actually a microcosm of life on our small planet, then I have this to say:

1. It is a simple fact that EVERY human being on this planet is both unique and inextricably dependent on each other. We simply cannot survive alone. Yes, you can live in the wild, and feed off the land, but in the end, without another human being (more specifically one of the opposite ...), then survival is a guaranteed fail.

2. Given then, that we are all interdependent (especially in today's world), we cannot "ignore" the opinions of others. Wars are fought for precisely that reason. As this thread demonstrates, opinions are as numerous as the number of people living on this planet. How do we resolve this fundamental "conflict" that exists with so many opinions competing for attention? This is the problem we as a people face existentially, as well as a nation, state, city, and family.

3. To do great things is hard. It takes a large number of people coming together for a common goal, and the resolve to "see it through". This is especially difficult to achieve in a democracy, for the very reasons stated in 2, above. In a "totalitarian" state, more "control" is exerted and people are "forced" into a common goal. The reasons may well be altruistic, and "righteous" in the minds of the leaders, but in the end it is a small number dictating to a large number. Even though "great things" can be achieved, there will be a cost in terms of our humanity. So with this said, Who is the boss? Great things require a leader, someone to move the vision forward to completion, and to "motivate" the group to work together to achieve it. Great leaders change the minds and hearts of the people. As we get more and more interconnected, this problem will increase in scope. Even now, we see "mob rules" in our daily lives with twitter and other social media platforms. We see nation states using this same technology to control their populations. Such a dilemma... Who among us is willing to take on the astronomical challenge of "changing the hearts and minds" of the worlds people?

4. NASA is well aware of the "flighty nature" of United States politics. At this moment in our history we have a roughly 50% split between 2 competing ideologies, and this is also present across the word. As we as a species become inevitably more interdependent, we must learn to better coexist, or we will perish of our own hand. NASA has a difficult challenge to address in "igniting" the minds and hearts of the people to "see the vision" of what space exploration can provide man for its benefit and ultimate survival.

5. Whether or not we go to Venus or Mars is not in the hands of the engineers and scientists. They push the boundaries, and explore what is "possible" and have little say in what "humanity" will chose to do. It is my great hope that we can, through dialogs such as this all over the world, come to a consensus on what is "important" to our survival, and work towards realizing those dreams. I dream of a future society where human dignity is respected and revered, and the opinions of those I would spend a lifetime opposing are considered on their merits just as I would hope mine are by those would spend a lifetime opposing me.

6. Finally, all the real science discussed here warms me, as I'm a geek at heart, and I simply cannot understand why anyone would NOT want to learn all there is to learn in the universe. So much to learn and so little time. 1 lifetime is NOT enough, and I hope we solve that problem too

Edited January 1, 2015 by Papa_Joe