Death on Venus

So lets say you build a flying colony on venus 55 km above the surface and you fall off, how do you die? Assume you are wearing a special acid resistant space suit and have been breathing heliox. Does the wind force kill you before the pressure kills you? Or do you survive the pressure long enough for the heat to cook you?

And just for fun, if you are wearing a magic 150 kg pressure suit, could you survive impact?

Other urls found in this thread:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1970-060A
users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm
selenianboondocks.com/2013/12/venus-isru-condenseables/
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/31jan_sandsofmars/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>solid panels on venus
What would be the point of that lol

A rigid is probably the way to go, not this suspended balloon.

Solar intensity is more than twice that of Earth, plus the clouds are so shiny that you can put solar panels facing down too.

This thread is not about colonizing venus, it's about dying on venus.

you would fall quite a bit slower than on Earth, and the space suit would protect you from heat, but the landing would be too powerful to survive.

>Does the wind force kill you
No. It doesn't. Period. You have 55 fucking kilometers to decelerate from ~60 m/s initial terminal velocity to whatever your impact speed is. The entire descent (except impact, if applicable) is less than 1 g.

>Or do you survive the pressure long enough for the heat to cook you?
Possibly. 55 km is an awful long way to fall even at Earth atmospheric density. And humans have survived pressures of nearly 70 atm with proper gas mix.

>And just for fun, if you are wearing a magic 150 kg pressure suit, could you survive impact?
If you lived that long, sure.

Note, the Venera lander spent a half hour in freefall (that's AFTER reentry) before it reached the surface.

>> fell for 30 minutes
Holy shit that was actually the case and that was after the parachute broke.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1970-060A

Shit, I think you might be able to make it to the surface in the magical pressure suit. At the very least your corpse is probably gonna reach the ground intact.

>Shit, I think you might be able to make it to the surface in the magical pressure suit.
Provided thermal protection is adequate, you might not even need the pressure suit to survive for a little while. Rapid compression can cause debilitating HPNS and compression arthralgia, but as far as I'm aware neither of those are immediately fatal.

>you fall off
wat

Will the pressure not make it impossible to breath at some point? The suit could try to equalize pressure, but I think that's gonna eventually cause problems.

OP here, did some calculations on terminal velocity, looks like you'd hit the ground at speeds around 5.8 m/s wearing a thin suit, 7 m/s wearing something like a spacesuit and 11.9 m/s wearing an atmospheric diving suit.

This is probably survivable, although probably not for the atmospheric diving suit. Skydivers hit the ground at about 7.6 m/s.

Atmospheric diving suits can almost take the pressure, some have been tested(crush depth?) to 900 meters or 91.5 bar (Venus is at 92.10 bar). With a reasonably sized drag plate(2 m^2) one might be able to land at altitudes where the pressure is lower and not get crushed.

Shit we might just be able to skydive on venus

Can we have a good discussion on the future possibilities of colonizing other planets?

No pop sci or anything like that, just good insights and speculation on what may happen. How long until funding is greatly provided? How long can we sustain human life on earth? What technologies may have to be created beforehand? etc.

Life on Venus

You have a special suit on when working outside without a guard rail. The suit will allow you to make it intact to the surface where the underground colonist will promptly rescue you.

Pessimism is a refuge of the incompetent.

And how are you going to make an underground venusian colony?

Now if one wears a parachute about the size and weight of those on Earth, one could fall for a very long time(hours) and get rescued by an aircraft. With a spacesuit and parachute you're gonna have a terminal velocity of around 4.6 m/s at 55 km. Will have to do some calculations to see what the actual fall time will be

Well if you really want to bury your head into it, go play Kerbal Space Program. It'll give you a good idea of the issues inherent in getting things to other planets. Factorio gives a decent idea of how factories work. And Cities Skylines for how cities expand and grow.

But regardless of that, another thing you might want to look at is how the American west was settled. It happened in three steps:

1. expeditions (Lewis and Clarke being the most famous) scouting and identifying fresh water sources. Satelites have accomplished a lot of the mapping part, but the key to colonization will be understanding the local hydrology (if it exists). This requires specialized landers.

2. With that accomplished, the government will setup outposts to stake their claim. In the nineteenth century these were forts, on other planets it would likely be laboratories and landing sites.

3. From there, the #1 local industry will be in mineral extraction (in the west it was coal, lumber, iron and uranium for a short while). Depending on the planet in question, the demand for labor will change depending on what's available. To this end, finding Iron and Nickel (and hopefully Copper) deposits would be priorities so steel frames, magnetic motors, and power cables can be built locally.

The initial industrial operation would be landing bulldozers, excavators and dump trucks to pave dirt roads which would then allow for mines and steel mills to be constructed, which in turn allows the creation of (electric) railroads to happen. Once this happens, then expansion because immensely easier and development would be centered around said railroads. Most habitat complexes would likely be put below ground, since subtracting material is easier than building all-new stuff above ground. Most equipment would also be remotely operated as well, which means the rate of development would be capped until computer chips and cameras can be made locally.

Most of this technology already exists, except for the part where they have to get into orbit. This is why anyone is even bothering with the notion of a space elevator, because the one thing holding space exploration back is the inability to ship in bulk.

users.globalnet.co.uk/~mfogg/zubrin.htm

This is an old NASA research paper about the technical requirements for terraforming Mars. It's out of date but interesting because it'll give you an idea of the possibilities and the raw numbers involved.

colonization in the past has always involved funding by shipping materials back

First thing is finding something worth going there to get

>And how are you going to make an underground venusian colony?

Ground robots will perform most of the heavy construction.
Drones will transport various materials back and forth between the surface and upper atmosphere.

Ok so how are you gonna keep an underground venus colony cool and resist the pressure? The ground on venus will be hot, active cooling is required.

> Ok so how are you gonna keep an underground venus colony cool and resist the pressure?
> The ground on venus will be hot, active cooling is required.

Present your data on subsurface temperatures at around 200 ft BGL and we can calculate the BTU's needed.

How on Venus does the ground resist all that pressure ?

>Pessimism is a refuge of the incompetent.
Blind optimism is a refuge of the idiotic.

We're not going to make an underground colony on Venus anytime soon, what an unbelievably stupid idea. Why?
>Drones will transport various materials back and forth between the surface and upper atmosphere.
>upper atmosphere
Because a colony on Venus would be best suited for that place, given that the pressure and temperature at the ~50km range are perfect for humans. Building a city on a bed of balloons would be far less resource intensive and way, -way- less dangerous than stubbornly trying to build a surface colony.

> stubbornly trying to build a surface colony
a) might not be rescued then
b) more difficult to make use of all the valuable surface resources to support the cloud cities

I'm talking about at 100% equalized pressure the whole way down. Yes, there will be problems, but they aren't immediately fatal.
>Shit we might just be able to skydive on venus
Sure, if you don't mind deliriously convulsing in horrible agony on the way down and becoming people-jerky within a few hours of landing.
>Now if one wears a parachute about the size and weight of those on Earth, one could fall for a very long time(hours) and get rescued by an aircraft.
I wonder if you could make a buoyant rescue balloon small and light enough to wear about like a parachute. Something that pops out and inflates via a hydrogen gas-generator with the tug of a ripcord.
>Will have to do some calculations to see what the actual fall time will be
Well, it'll take over an hour to fall 15 km, that much is for sure.

>a) might not be rescued then
Well considering that if you fall off the real-life Bespin and are in a state of "I am fucking boned" you should be carrying at least some type of balloon system to save yourself. If you don't well I guess that's natural selection at work, only the prepared get to survive in Lando Town.
>b) more difficult to make use of all the valuable surface resources to support the cloud cities
I don't see how, the robotic workforce is still going to have to bring the resources up somehow even under your plan. Instead of having your colony at the worst possible position on the planet you could have it mid-way up in the sky and simply lower down a tether rather than having your drones fly all the way up. Even a ten kilometer long cable would save on travel time, if there's a dead drone or construction robot the city would be in a much better position to repair it as well. Redeploying the repaired robot would be as easy as putting a parachute on it and dropping it.

> I don't see how
heavy heavy stuff extracting rare or trace elements from the Venusian dirt on the scale needed for true habitation of the planet

Trying to form a livable habitat in a high pressure high temperature environment is madness, when at 55km altitude we're living the dream

The only real trick is to make autonomous machines that can operate on the surface.

>heavy heavy stuff extracting rare or trace elements from the Venusian dirt on the scale needed for true habitation of the planet
So you want to make that problem even worse by becoming the Venusian mole people.

Tell you what, work out the basics for a surface habitat and then get back to me with a solid game plan. Maybe you'll find something everyone else didn't, some way for this to work, but until then I'm not going to consider a surface settlement on Venus as a serious possibility.

>present your data on subsurface temperatures
We have no clue, but it will almost certainly be hotter than ground level. Most likely > 462 C.

>How on Venus does the ground resist all that pressure ?
It's rock, rock is incompressible

You would sky dive wearing something like pic related.

>> balloon
Yeah probably, density is like 1 kg/m^3 at 55 km and 1.8 kg/m^3 at 50 km. Now go do the math.

Both subsurface and cloud is best maybe.

Autonomous machines should already be able to do basic excavating.
More elaborate and complex surface operations will likely at some point require humans in the loop.

Oh wait that was from a curve fit. Density is 0.9207 kg/m3 and 1.594 respectively.

>will almost certainly be hotter than ground level
Not everywhere. Another thread discussed this already.

How so?
Why would underground be cooler than above ground?

Here is a temperature map of Venus' south pole, temperatures vary by 20 degrees, aka fuck all.

At best you get a chilly 422 C. Oh wait did I say chilly? What I meant to say was hot enough to melt zinc.

So you gonna calculate those cooling requirements or do I need to do that?

Earth sees 250 deg F variations in temperature.
Mars has both cryogenic and almost room temperature at certain locations at certain times.
A planet's orbital orientation can create freezing north and south pole locations.
Without more study it seems we don't know for sure what the most favorable conditions to be found are at and around the surface of Venus.

> Here is a temperature map of Venus' south pole, temperatures vary by 20 degrees

That data is produced using the basic thermal emission signature of the outer planet, and indicates primarily the temperature of Venus' dense thick atmosphere.
That temperature map will not accurately describe subsurface temperatures that will be found on the planet.

Venus' atmosphere spins very fucking fast relative to venus's rate of rotation. Venus spins around every 243 days, where as the atmosphere spins around every 4 days. This mixes stuff up and helps keep the temperature nearly homogenous

Yeah, but there's no fucking way that venus' subsurface is gonna be colder than the surface. We are pretty damn sure that Venus has a molten core.

> This mixes stuff up and helps keep the temperature nearly homogenous
Fine, in the atmosphere and outer surface.
200 to 1000 ft BGL at a specially chosen location ?
More difficult to estimate.

Earth has a molten core and it's < 150 deg F below at some locations.

How the fuck is the ground gonna get colder than the surface? What process is gonna make the ground cold?

So I did the math, for a cylindrical habitat 4.2 m in diameter, about that of the ISS, covered in half a meter of pyrogel XT-E, a special high temperature aerogel that is actually practical to use, I get heat fluxes of 2.8-3 KW per meter of habitat for outside temperatures of 422-462 C.

3.6 meter of habitat is gonna need as much cooling power as a home. Haven't done any real power estimates yet, but it's certainly gonna require more power than here on earth. A delta T of 400 K is pretty fucking high.

> What process is gonna make the ground cold?
This might have something to do with it:
> Venus spins around every 243 days

Ok so how much cooling power do we need?

Well the max coefficient of performance is given by [eqn]COP = \frac{T_{cold}}{T_{hot}-T_{cold}}[/eqn]

[eqn]T_{cold}[/eqn] = 20 C
[eqn]T_{hot}[/eqn] = 422 , 462 C

so the max COP attainable is around 0.73 - 0.66 or really fucking bad.

So we need at the very least 3.8 - 4.5 KW to cool a meter of habitat.

And how's that gonna cool things down? Because of the greenhouse effect, not much heat escapes from venus at night.

And how the fuck are you gonna power an underground Venus colony?

Bump

w8 there are human beings out there seriously considering a Venus surface colony?

Apparently some people would rather go to hell than heaven. We can probably do it, but it's sort of an ass-tarded thing to do.

Venus isn't hot because of the "Green house effect"
It's hot because it has a thick as shit atmosphere

Venus is perfect for living in floating habitats, stuff on the surface can be done by remote operated machinery

No it really is due to the greenhouse effect, Venus' equilibrium temperature is something like 260 C without it.

Damn straight could surface stuff be done with remotely operated machinery

>So we need at the very least 3.8 - 4.5 KW to cool a meter of habitat.
Jesus woodworking Christ that's worse than I had ever imagined. What a completely stupid idea, you could use all of that power generation to build a city lifted by fans and probably still have power to spare.

>that image
I've always imagined the balloon cities to have the structures built on top, and the balloon supports themselves would have spires dipping into the thicker atmosphere to collect heat to improve efficiency of the lifting gas. Actually I imagined the city would have lower levels as well, extending through the lifting cells/balloons much like Hengsha in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Except the poor people would be clinging to the underside of the big platform(s) rather than down below.

If the city was tethered to the ground below the city could have an airfoil section or have airfoil-shaped lifting cells that used the natural atmosphere rotation to help push the city upward.

What is there to be gained from cloud cities on Venus? How are you supposed to gather resources? Why is this better than Earth? At least with Mars you can mine resources and farm the land (under a dome)

The main benefit to Venus over Mars is that the gravity is very close to that of Earth's. Despite all the time we've spent putting people on the ISS, we still don't really know what effect prolonged low gravity would have on a person, and if they could return to Earth levels of gravity afterwards.

It's also really quite a pleasant environment compared to Mars. Comfortable temperate and pressure, lots of solar energy and the atmosphere at that level is still thick enough to protect you from the worst of the solar and cosmic radiation.

The entire point of colonization is to gain resources and put down farmland. There are no resources or farmland to be gained on Venus. A historical example is French Canada vs British America. The French new their colony was shit from day one, the land was always frozen and there wasn't much resources besides fur. Consequently it fell into neglect and the British captured it. The warmer and more bountiful British colony as we all know got so self sufficient that it rebelled. Applied to Venus this will mean a cloud city will cost more to run than it recovers meaning that one day it will just be abandoned. A Martian surface colony can be self sufficient.

Futurists think that objects such as colonies last forever and require no maintenance costs.

>What is there to be gained from cloud cities on Venus? How are you supposed to gather resources?
What is this shit. Scroll up, there's like seven posts mentioning the how and in addition to that the atmosphere itself can be mined.
>Why is this better than Earth?
It's objectively not better than Earth. Every single planet in the entire solar system is a worse place to live and work compared to Earth for one reason or another, Venus has temperature, pressure, and the corrosive environment as it's downsides.
>At least with Mars you can mine resources and farm the land
First, see above. Second, no you can't "farm the land" because it's missing critical organic compounds and the plants themselves would almost definitely be toxic because of the heavy metals absorbed. Any farming done on Mars is going to be hydroponic, more output per acre (this is absolutely critical) and the environment can be tightly controlled.
>(under a dome)
Try again. Domes are a bitch to build even on our planet with all the advantages we have, that sci-fi domed city is fictional bullshit. Martian cities will be either a collection freestanding structures themselves or entirely underground. Most Martian buildings after the initial settlement will probably look like fat, uninteresting blocks with tiny, tiny windows.

One thing you didn't ask was why Venus and not Mars, and the answer to that is it's far easier to get to Venus than Mars.

>The entire point of colonization is to gain resources
Yes
>and put down farmland
No. We have farms on Earth, better farms. We don't have a shortage of farms.
>There are no resources
No.
>or farmland
Irrelevant.
>Applied to Venus this will mean a cloud city will cost more to run than it recovers
Complete conjecture from somebody who didn't even read the robotic mining conversation above.
>A martian surface colony can be self sufficient.
Just like a Venusian balloon colony, fancy that.

I know right?
>Veeky Forums bitches that the ISS is a money pit
>Veeky Forums thinks their Venus/Europa/Triton fantasy colonies won't be a money pit

I made a thread for that

I wouldn't say it is impossible, just impractical. Vacuum insulation might work better, if we can produce large blocks of silica aerogel it might not require as ridiculous amounts of power. Pyrogel is a practical insulator because is flexible.

I'm not so sure about the fans though...

Putting balloons below the structures would make things unstable. To make it stable you'd have to add more weight. The center of gravity needs to be below the center of buoyancy or it'll flip. To get any significant lift from an increased temperature you'd have to go pretty deep. Deeper does means denser though. I guess you could make something like a spar buoy though, but I'd need to be HUGE, like kilometers long.


>> lifting gas
Again, the thing that makes venusian colonies so cool is that plain ol' air is a lifting gas on venus. Venus' atmosphere is primarily composed of CO2, which is denser than air.

Pressure and gravity are similar to Earth, atmosphere stops the radiation, solar intensity twice that of Earth.
>> farmland
You can mine resources from the air on Venus and make more farmland. The atmosphere contains carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and a bit of fluorine and chlorine. From this we can make plastics, carbon fiber, breathable air, carbon nanotubes for conductors which allows us to make more settlements. And again, air is a lifting gas on Venus, a suffiently large plastic bubble full of air will float on Venus.

Processing air is a lot easier than processing rock. Grinding up regolith to get water is a lot harder than condensing it from the atmosphere. Granular materials are hard to work with. No such scaling laws exist for them and we can't simulate them accurately

The truth is we have yet to come up with a reason for space colonies. There are no resources out there we can't get on Earth.

This is is not supposed to be a thread about colonizing venus, it's about dying on venus.

>Every single planet in the entire solar system is a worse place to live and work compared to Earth
Mars can be made as good as Earth fairly easily. Furthermore we are running out of water and farmland so we kind of have to
>there's like seven posts mentioning the how
Mining on a 400 degree celsius 90 atmosphere landscape is retarded. Not gonna happen. As for mining the atmosphere what are you going to extract? Acid?
>no you can't "farm the land" because it's missing critical organic compounds
What is fertilizer dipshit?
>Any farming done on Mars is going to be hydroponic
Even so the advantage of having millions of acres of land will make Venus unable to compete. When it comes to farming area is king. Cloud city decks will never be able to compete with dry land.
>that sci-fi domed city is fictional bullshit.
And the cloud city isn't?
>Domes are a bitch to build even on our planet
We can build small domes just fine. Link them together for a city.
>Martian cities will be either a collection freestanding structures
This is harder you now have more surface area to make airtight and radiation proof. A couple buildings under a few domes is the best compromise.
>underground.
Nobody is going to spend their lives underground.
>it's far easier to get to Venus than Mars
So what? All the other negatives far outweigh this. All the major space agencies focus on Mars suddenly a few vsauce inspired neckbeards start whining that Venus is the best place to go. Is a) NASA, ESA and SpaceX all retards looking in the wrong direction for 50 years or b) contrarian neckbeards being contrarian as usual?

>farmland is irrelevant
TOP KEK, not even going to reply to this one
>Complete conjecture from somebody who didn't even read the robotic mining conversation above.
Of course it will you dumb shit, it's basically the ISS but in an atmosphere. That actually pushes the maintenance costs up. Something breaks how are you going to mine iron from the atmosphere?

>>Veeky Forums thinks their Venus/Europa/Triton fantasy colonies won't be a money pit
Except they obviously will be, anyone who thinks an extraterrestrial colony is going to be self-sufficient in a few years is a complete dipshit. Meanwhile you're also a dipshit because you assume everyone around you is this short-sighted.

Oh, and on the subject of resources that I mentioned here: Every one and a half years or so Venus is in a position for a transfer orbit to Earth, while Mars takes just over two years. Meanwhile Mars and Venus need just a little under a year to be in a position relative to each other.

Trip time from Earth to Mars is also far longer than a trip to Venus, and that trip from Mars to Venus or vice versa takes about half a year. That's a yearly event (more or less) by the way, compare that to the other orbits. If you want to talk about the economics of colonization then acknowledge that Mars and Venus would enjoy a trade route between them.

>I'm not so sure about the fans though...
Well considering how thick the atmosphere is the fans would produce amazing thrust, and if you plopped down a large, closed-cycle nuclear plant then the energy requirements wouldn't be so daunting.
>Putting balloons below the structures would make things unstable.
I meant the habitat structures, any colony would likely require significant maintenance overhead and that means space for all that, along with farms and power generation and all sorts of other things. I don't see the colony as above or below the balloons, but rather a strata of structures that crosses through them.

>I guess you could make something like a spar buoy though
Yeah I imagined something like that, like the spire that pokes out the bottom of Bespin. I think the nuclear reactor and battery cells (from the solar panels, multiple power sources are good when your city flies) would be better down in the base of that structure.

>Putting balloons below the structures would make things unstable. To make it stable you'd have to add more weight. The center of gravity needs to be below the center of buoyancy or it'll flip.
Pretty sure that's called the pendulum rocket fallacy
>Pressure and gravity are similar to Earth, atmosphere stops the radiation, solar intensity twice that of Earth.
I asked what resources are to be gained all you have replied with is solar power. Great, let's drink solar power. I also asked why is it better than Earth, you listed off conditions that already exist on Earth. At least Mars has the advantage of more land and water. The Venusian atmosphere is just a shitty Earth with no land or water.
>You can mine resources from the air on Venus
HOW DO YOU MINE IRON AND ALUMINIUM FROM THE AIR?
>The truth is we have yet to come up with a reason for space colonies. There are no resources out there we can't get on Earth.
There's a reason for colonizing Mars, more land to live on. Venus doesn't have that.

You need a super-heavy for both, you need to be shielded for both you may as well just go to Mars.

>Mars can be made as good as Earth fairly easily.
Terraforming is stupid and a waste of time until it's extremely economical.
>Furthermore we are running out of water and farmland
Oh, so instead of desalination plants we're going to colonize fucking Mars. Got it.

What a retard.

>Mining on a 400 degree celsius 90 atmosphere landscape is retarded.
"What are robots for $300, Alex."
>As for mining the atmosphere what are you going to extract? Acid?
It's clear that you're actually an idiot as I keep reading.
>What is fertilizer dipshit?
Right, so not only are you solving the lack of arable land on Earth by going to another planet but you're removing the things that make arable land from Earth to that planet. Awesome job, you have less fertilizer available for farms on Earth, your Martian farms are inefficient water hogs (the soil is hydrophilic) and your colonists have brain disorders from heavy metal poisoning.

I'm just going to stop here. For one you have no idea what you're talking about and for two this thread isn't even about Mars. Actually, it's not even about colonization like said.

Wait, one more thing that caught my eye:
>All the major space agencies focus on Mars suddenly a few vsauce inspired neckbeards start whining that Venus is the best place to go.
Oh so that's what this is about. Some irrelevant youtube channel made a video about Venus and it upset you. No, colonization of Venus has been on the minds of science fiction authors for a long, long time; as long as Mars actually. Problem is Venus is just as hard as Mars is, but for different reasons, whatever effort put into either one is going to be immense. Anyone with a firm understanding of how this shit will work knows this, which is why I'm done with your stupid shit.

>You need a super-heavy for both, you need to be shielded for both you may as well just go to Mars.
A super heavy what now? You don't need shielding for Venus, that's one of it's advantages over Mars.

>> fertilizer
How do you obtain nitrogen on Mars? Near term extracting nitrogen from rocks is going to be very difficult.

>>what are you going to extract
For one nitrogen, which you can much more readily attain on venus than you can on Mars. Also water, carbon, hydrogen, chlorine, and fluorine:
selenianboondocks.com/2013/12/venus-isru-condenseables/

Water is a component of Venus'
atmosphere and is readily extractable.

>> Mars has more water
And how do you get that water? In the near term mining water is going to be difficult.

>> martian farms hygroscopic
Being an inefficient water hog is the least of your worries farming anywhere besides Earth.

And why do you think mars colonists would suffer from heavy metal poisoning.


Dammit I just want to talk about dying on Venus not get into a shitty argument about whether Venus or Mars is better in terms of colonization.
Both are really shitty places.

>Being an inefficient water hog is the least of your worries farming anywhere besides Earth.
>And why do you think mars colonists would suffer from heavy metal poisoning.
Well as I said above nobody is going to farm the Martian soil because of heavy metal leeching in the plants. It's like saying, "I want to start a farm, but I want to do it in the most hospitable environment using a completely inappropriate method that is also far less efficient than the alternatives." Even if you had a successful farm on Mars the fruits and vegetables would be loaded with toxic trace metals and metal carbonyls; you might actually just up and die from eating them before you get poisoned.

Martian regolith is for mining, not for growing.

>Dammit I just want to talk about dying on Venus
I think we've exhausted that subject awhile back, there's just so much you can talk about.
>not get into a shitty argument about whether Venus or Mars is better in terms of colonization.
>Both are really shitty places.
Well I'm about done with discussing that here, I think I made my point well enough. Honestly? I think both Mars and Venus need to be colonized simultaneously, if only to artificially create circumstances to necessitate strong interplanetary trade. It's easy to forget about one colony when making policy or balancing a budget, but if you have several it's going to come up more often than not.

I'm gonna do some calcs to see what the fall time really is and if you could survive in a diving suit hooked up to a big tank of coolant.

You can make fertilizer with your shit. Doesn't matter how hard the Martian water is to get the fact is it exist whereas on Venus there is only a trace in the atmosphere. Compare squeezing some mud to extracting carbon dioxide from Earth's atmosphere. That's what we are talking about here. Everything else you listed are also trace gases. You are the worst kind of pop-sci fuckhead, in your faggot minds possiblity always equals the future. it's """""" theoretically"""""" possible therefore "ZOMG we should totally do it!" I bet you're the kind of nigger who believes in warp drives too? Yes there exists water in the Venusian atmosphere but it's infinetly easer to just squeeze the water out of the Martian ground. Yes we can put up a floating platform but it's infinetly fucking easier to just use the already existing land on Mars. This fucking base of yours can never expand without supplies from earth seeing as even your fertile mind couldn't dream up a way of extracting aluminium from the atmosphere yet with Mars eventually it can expand itself through mining of building materials.
> science fiction
Exactly. The space community (the professional one, not the pop-sci kids) is firmly on my side. We are going to Mars so you can scream and cry all you want your dumb ideas will never see the light of day. Sure a small research balloon may be put there but a "cloud city" will NEVER happen because it's fucking dumb.

>You can make fertilizer with your shit.
No. You can't. You don't just shit on some regolith and push in a tomato seed.
>Everything else you listed are also trace gases
I didn't list anything.
>You are the worst kind of pop-sci fuckhead, in your faggot minds possiblity always equals the future. it's """""" theoretically"""""" possible therefore "ZOMG we should totally do it!"
>I bet you're the kind of nigger who believes in warp drives too?
I'm really astonished by the lack of self-awareness in these two quotes, it's really impressive.
>Yes there exists water in the Venusian atmosphere but it's infinetly easer to just squeeze the water out of the Martian ground.
What's interesting is you're replying to two people and your entire post is schizophrenic as a result. No, it isn't "infinetly easer" to use the Sabatier process on Mars than it is on Venus, the mechanism is the exact same. Unless you're talking about ice mining, if so there isn't any "squeeze" involved with that.
>Yes we can put up a floating platform but it's infinetly fucking easier to just use the already existing land on Mars
Actually it's extremely difficult to land on Mars, Venus has atmospheric benefits that are partially offset by being closer to Earth's gravity than Mars is. (8.87 m/s2 compared to 3.71 m/s2)
>This fucking base of yours can never expand without supplies from earth
Wow, it has the exact same problems as a Martian base!

You're probably screaming in rage right now so let me help you: there is no source for rubber, plastic, or fabrics on Mars, three things off the top of my head that you will need to expand a colony.
>seeing as even your fertile mind couldn't dream up a way of extracting aluminium from the atmosphere yet
No, I'm the "mine from the surface using robots" guy, where there is plenty of available aluminum, iron, and other metals to make ferroaluminum alloys.

Oh and
>thinks a Martian colony isn't inspired by science fiction
Oh child, how I weep for your parents.

>>compare squeezing some mud to extracting carbon dioxide
Extracting carbon dioxide is actually easier. Air liquefaction plants often operate unmanned, however, concrete plants do not. This is because air liquefaction plants do not require much maintenance whereas concrete plants break down all the time. We understand and can model gas flow, we do not understand granular materials and cannot model them so we can design stuff so they don't break down.

We cannot afford to do this on Mars. We can't have people continuously fixing stuff on Mars like we do on Earth.

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/31jan_sandsofmars/

Some day we will understand

Now the comparison to CO2 extraction is not really fair for the case of water. A venus colony will be floating in clouds of water and sulfuric acid.

And how many times must we tell you that robots can be used extract material from the surface? Worst case you can dredge up rocks from the ground with a long cable, from which one should be able to attain the iron and aluminum that is so precious to you.

You can obtain plenty materials to expand using just the atmosphere.

Space colonies will need stuff shipped from earth either way.

I honestly don't understand why you are so worked up about this.

>Mars can be made as good as Earth fairly easily
Maybe never. You're way underestimating the gravity problem.

>Doesn't matter how hard the Martian water is to get the fact is it exist whereas on Venus there is only a trace in the atmosphere.
Easier to start off with some machine running that produces a couple gallons a day rather than needing to process regolith/dig ice out of the ground.

>Yes we can put up a floating platform but it's infinetly fucking easier to just use the already existing land on Mars.
Venus has an atmosphere, Mars basically does not
On Venus you are good to go with a large balloon to lift your habitat, on mars you need to build pressurized places to live, shielded from radiation