ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 22, 2018 14:01:25 GMT
My point by comparing it to Antarctica is that Mars should not have a population nearing 1 billion. As for Venus, will definitely be a problem (flipping the colony around or pushing it off course), I don't see any reason they could cause a puncture. At a height of 50 km there is no massive projectile that could be picked up and propelled into the colony (unless one of the colonies breaks). Carbon Dioxide is not a corrosive gas, If the colony is sufficiently rigid and bottom heavy, all the winds would do is cause turbulence, as the colony size increase the stability would increase (provided the wind effects on the increased surface area do not overtake the stability gained from increasing the mass).
Wind speed of Venus 50 KM up is 355 KMPH more then nearly 7 times that required to lift a human off the ground (60kmph). Because of this the colony will experience extreme turbulence on a good day. They should be built to be a wind-resistant as possible like a teardrop. As far as the two go the atmosphere is a wash, both are high in CO. Mars's atmosphere makes orbital impacts a threat along with solar radiation. Venus with it's strong winds a colony needs to be wind resistant. Venus comes ahead of Mars in two respects. First it could be terra-formed with it's atmosphere unaffected by solar winds and its gravity would not cause significant bone loss.
The population of Venus obviously wouldn't particularly high, maybe several millions (with the potential for billions). I fully expect Mars to have a higher population then Venus for the reasons you stated. I just don't think Venus would be vacant.
EDIT: shoot, again with my late replies. This was directed two posts up. |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 22, 2018 14:15:38 GMT
My point by comparing it to Antarctica is that Mars should not have a population nearing 1 billion. As for Venus, will definitely be a problem (flipping the colony around or pushing it off course), I don't see any reason they could cause a puncture. At a height of 50 km there is no massive projectile that could be picked up and propelled into the colony (unless one of the colonies breaks). Carbon Dioxide is not a corrosive gas, If the colony is sufficiently rigid and bottom heavy, all the winds would do is cause turbulence, as the colony size increase the stability would increase (provided the wind effects on the increased surface area do not overtake the stability gained from increasing the mass).
Wind speed of Venus 50 KM up is 355 KMPH more then nearly 7 times that required to lift a human off the ground (60kmph). Because of this the colony will experience extreme turbulence on a good day. They should be built to be a wind-resistant as possible like a teardrop. As far as the two go the atmosphere is a wash, both are high in CO. Mars's atmosphere makes orbital impacts a threat along with solar radiation. Venus with it's strong winds a colony needs to be wind resistant. Venus comes ahead of Mars in two respects. First it could be terra-formed with it's atmosphere unaffected by solar winds and its gravity would not cause significant bone loss.
The population of Venus obviously wouldn't particularly high, maybe several millions (with the potential for billions). I fully expect Mars to have a higher population then Venus for the reasons you stated. I just don't think Venus would be vacant.
EDIT: shoot, again with my late replies. This was directed two posts up. I'll probably write an article in-game. Of course Venus won't be vacant, but it can't be helped since we can't manually set the population, can we? |
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 22, 2018 14:36:18 GMT
But we CAN tweak the surface temperature to a point that is acceptable. At the top of the troposphere the temp ranges balmy 27C at 1 ATM (50KM) to 167C degrees at 0.5 ATM (55KM). The sulfuric acid should not be an issue unless you are using carbon to construct your shell. You can edit the surface temp to 310 K to simulate this zone. |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 22, 2018 14:48:33 GMT
But we CAN tweak the surface temperature to a point that is acceptable. At the top of the troposphere the temp ranges balmy 27C at 1 ATM (50KM) to 167C degrees at 0.5 ATM (55KM). The sulfuric acid should not be an issue unless you are using carbon to construct your shell. You can edit the surface temp to 310 K to simulate this zone. Basically it saying that you have the habitable temp ground, which would make it overpopulated considering floating cities would be far less roomier than the round itself |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 22, 2018 14:56:12 GMT
But we CAN tweak the surface temperature to a point that is acceptable. At the top of the troposphere the temp ranges balmy 27C at 1 ATM (50KM) to 167C degrees at 0.5 ATM (55KM). The sulfuric acid should not be an issue unless you are using carbon to construct your shell. You can edit the surface temp to 310 K to simulate this zone.
-snip- Basically it saying that you have the habitable temp ground, which would make it overpopulated considering floating cities would be far less roomier than the round itself Giant overpopulated floating arcologies ftw |
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 22, 2018 15:18:00 GMT
That's why you increase the temp to 300 which would limit the pop and present the area of the atmosphere where it would be practical to colonize. Bringing it to 280 gives Venus a pop of 8 BIL. 300 kelvin would simulate the temp at a habitable altitude.
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Aug 22, 2018 16:53:43 GMT
ghgh You know, pretty much everywhere in Solsys is less habitable than Antarctica, with the sole exception being the Venus skies, but most people don't have balls to brave the fierce winds and the thought that you're literally flying in the sky hanging down from a balloon that might pop if you're not being careful. In addition, Mars is very famous, while Venus is infamous. You can expect that. Eh, your Venussian baloons wouldn't need to pop easily - the colony could be composed of multiple balloons (so a single pop wouldn't doom it) and if balloons weren't supported by overpressure, then a penetration wouldn't be particularly disastrous - you'd get a hole through which poisonous carbon dioxide (sulphuric acid would be mostly in the clouds below) would slowly seep in endangering the colonist and slowly degrading buoyancy. An event calling for fast reaction but not necessarily fatal to the whole colony or even any individual colonists. And practical or not you could probably sell the idea of a cloud city to some colonists.
I think the most danger would come from the fact that hell of a lot of essentials would have to be imported and the colony itself would be stuck in fairly deep gravity well - launching and receiving rockets is going to be tricky on a balloon raft. Also, the temperatures would be a bit higher than comfortable at 1bar altitude - you might aim for going as high as people can take. |
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 22, 2018 17:04:48 GMT
ghgh You know, pretty much everywhere in Solsys is less habitable than Antarctica, with the sole exception being the Venus skies, but most people don't have balls to brave the fierce winds and the thought that you're literally flying in the sky hanging down from a balloon that might pop if you're not being careful. In addition, Mars is very famous, while Venus is infamous. You can expect that. Eh, your Venussian baloons wouldn't need to pop easily - the colony could be composed of multiple balloons (so a single pop wouldn't doom it) and if balloons weren't supported by overpressure, then a penetration wouldn't be particularly disastrous - you'd get a hole through which poisonous carbon dioxide (sulphuric acid would be mostly in the clouds below) would slowly seep in endangering the colonist and slowly degrading buoyancy. An event calling for fast reaction but not necessarily fatal to the whole colony or even any individual colonists. And practical or not you could probably sell the idea of a cloud city to some colonists.
I think the most danger would come from the fact that hell of a lot of essentials would have to be imported and the colony itself would be stuck in fairly deep gravity well - launching and receiving rockets is going to be tricky on a balloon raft. Also, the temperatures would be a bit higher than comfortable at 1bar altitude - you might aim for going as high as people can take. Yeah, those are what I am thinking, too. Multiple balloons, and a bunch of robust maintenance robots. I imagine that colonists could come to Venus to escape Earth and Mars or something similar, idk. Want a peaceful, quiet life, maybe? For Venus escape, I’d want to try a balanced combination of nuclear ramjet, nuclear rocket and skyhook. Also, if I design my balloon city in the Venus atmosphere I’d choose its altitude being 55 km above ground, where temperature is Earthlike and pressure is a half Earth’s. Not too bad, I think. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Aug 22, 2018 18:29:58 GMT
For Venus escape, I’d want to try a balanced combination of nuclear ramjet, nuclear rocket and skyhook. Also, if I design my balloon city in the Venus atmosphere I’d choose its altitude being 55 km above ground, where temperature is Earthlike and pressure is a half Earth’s. Not too bad, I think. Venus is pretty close to the sun. If you're above the clouds, solar power should be fairly potent. Perhaps use solar power for energy and laser thermal for propulsion? That way, you aren't dependent on imported fissiles. |
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 22, 2018 20:15:02 GMT
A bit of a tangent here but you would need 4*10^19 kg of hydrogen to convert all of Venus atmosphere into water and graphite. That is after you started reducing the greenhouse effect via photosynthesis. That could be the basis for Venusian industry, filtering Venusian carbon dioxide into glucose and usable oxygen though agriculture. In order to trap the atmospheric carbon into calcium carbonate you would need 8*10^20 of calcium that is to say several Vesta sized asteroids worth of calcium. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus)
That means you would need 6.4*10^23 Gallons of milk (1% milk has 125 mg calcium per 100 grams of milk) in order to accumulate enough calcium to teraform Venus. The Moon has a mass of 7.3*10^22 if the moon was made of cheese you would need to crash 10 moons into Venus (assuming the cheese has the same calcium ratio to milk) in order to filter out the carbon and I spent WAY TOO MUCH TIME FIGURING THAT OUT!
So you would need to balance these two methods out in order to reduce the atmosphere to a physical form. Venus has more nitrogen than earth does in spite of it's low percentage, (you would actually have to remove some of it in order to reduce pressure) so there's no need to import it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Astronomer on Aug 22, 2018 23:46:41 GMT
For Venus escape, I’d want to try a balanced combination of nuclear ramjet, nuclear rocket and skyhook. Also, if I design my balloon city in the Venus atmosphere I’d choose its altitude being 55 km above ground, where temperature is Earthlike and pressure is a half Earth’s. Not too bad, I think. Venus is pretty close to the sun. If you're above the clouds, solar power should be fairly potent. Perhaps use solar power for energy and laser thermal for propulsion? That way, you aren't dependent on imported fissiles. Totally forgot about that. Yeah, maybe it could work, but it sounds like you need to get out of the cloud layer first. A bit of a tangent here but you would need 4*10^19 kg of hydrogen to convert all of Venus atmosphere into water and graphite. That is after you started reducing the greenhouse effect via photosynthesis. That could be the basis for Venusian industry, filtering Venusian carbon dioxide into glucose and usable oxygen though agriculture. In order to trap the atmospheric carbon into calcium carbonate you would need 8*10^20 of calcium that is to say several Vesta sized asteroids worth of calcium. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus) That means you would need 6.4*10^23 Gallons of milk (1% milk has 125 mg calcium per 100 grams of milk) in order to accumulate enough calcium to teraform Venus. The Moon has a mass of 7.3*10^22 if the moon was made of cheese you would need to crash 10 moons into Venus (assuming the cheese has the same calcium ratio to milk) in order to filter out the carbon and I spent WAY TOO MUCH TIME FIGURING THAT OUT! So you would need to balance these two methods out in order to reduce the atmosphere to a physical form. Venus has more nitrogen than earth does in spite of it's low percentage, (you would actually have to remove some of it in order to reduce pressure) so there's no need to import it. I really wish we could bring all the nitrogen out of the atmosphere for use on maybe Mars and other habitats. Venus graphite is fine, we can carry them out later to make the magshield in front of it or something. |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 23, 2018 0:03:00 GMT
Overcoming Veusian gravity well wouldn't be that much hard: the most difficult thing is it's thick and deep atmosphere, not gravity itself. If you're gonna launch your rocket in mid air next to your ur ballonon city it wouldn't be that much harsh. One feasible solution is trimodal NTR SSTO on wings: Atmospheric nuke jet mid air, orbital NTR outta air, power plant mid course. More feasible solution is nuke powered airborne TSTO: just like Space One but much larger nuke powered mothership with much larger nuke powered rocket onboard. Most feasible one is Interplanetary Transportation System consisted of flying mothership, fairly light rocket with high thrust/low dV, saying, chem rocket, and low Venusian orbit NTR/MPDT intetplanetary transportation.
Airborne aircraft carrier has been tried since WW1 so landing and taking off wouldn't be that difficult.
|
|
|
|
Post by gedzilla on Aug 23, 2018 5:00:28 GMT
Overcoming Veusian gravity well wouldn't be that much hard: the most difficult thing is it's thick and deep atmosphere, not gravity itself. If you're gonna launch your rocket in mid air next to your ur ballonon city it wouldn't be that much harsh. One feasible solution is trimodal NTR SSTO on wings: Atmospheric nuke jet mid air, orbital NTR outta air, power plant mid course. More feasible solution is nuke powered airborne TSTO: just like Space One but much larger nuke powered mothership with much larger nuke powered rocket onboard. Most feasible one is Interplanetary Transportation System consisted of flying mothership, fairly light rocket with high thrust/low dV, saying, chem rocket, and low Venusian orbit NTR/MPDT intetplanetary transportation. Airborne aircraft carrier has been tried since WW1 so landing and taking off wouldn't be that difficult. Airborne aircraft carrier ? |
|
|
|
Post by anotherfirefox on Aug 23, 2018 6:01:53 GMT
Overcoming Veusian gravity well wouldn't be that much hard: the most difficult thing is it's thick and deep atmosphere, not gravity itself. If you're gonna launch your rocket in mid air next to your ur ballonon city it wouldn't be that much harsh. One feasible solution is trimodal NTR SSTO on wings: Atmospheric nuke jet mid air, orbital NTR outta air, power plant mid course. More feasible solution is nuke powered airborne TSTO: just like Space One but much larger nuke powered mothership with much larger nuke powered rocket onboard. Most feasible one is Interplanetary Transportation System consisted of flying mothership, fairly light rocket with high thrust/low dV, saying, chem rocket, and low Venusian orbit NTR/MPDT intetplanetary transportation. Airborne aircraft carrier has been tried since WW1 so landing and taking off wouldn't be that difficult. Airborne aircraft carrier ? One of the most recent try AFAIK. Considering Venusian Cities being much larger and much static, things would be much easier. |
|
ghgh
Full Member
Still trying to make kinetics work.
Posts: 136
|
Post by ghgh on Aug 23, 2018 11:59:00 GMT
Eat your heart out Marvel! Boeing got you beat by 50 years. Although, since we are using balloons, the USS Akron might be a better comparison (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)). While we're on the topic of cloud cities.... and this is gonna sound even more far fetched but... what about Uranus? 0.886 g, all the Hydrogen and Methane you could ever need, and ONLY 950 kmph wind speeds (250m/s). Unless you experience heavy crosswinds wouldn't you just go with the flow? You probably wouldn't even notice you were belting around the equator and since Uranus's circumference is 150,000 (give or take) you should only take 150 hrs to go around the planet (again assuming the winds are equatorial and you experience no crosswinds).
|
|
