Based on the current budget(s) and rate of technological improvements in the space sector (and the stupidity/ignorance...

Mars no, Moon yes.

>above the clouds of venus is the most habitable place for humans in the solar system currently
There's a pretty strong case that having ground you can stand on is a requirement for being habitable. How many people live, long-term, in the sky above Earth?

>humans couldn't even reproduce in mars gravity.
Mars is 38% the gravity of Earth, so no gravity wouldn't be a problem because fluids would still flow naturally.

Even if it was a problem, we know ho to do this thing called Artificial Insemination or Invitro.

>a rupture in an atmospheric container would be explosive.
Sure, if it's made of plastic?

WHy would there be a rupture? wuht
You're watching too many movies.

>pressurized space suits are required.
Being in space without a spacesuit?

:thinking:

>Venus is better
Venus is a hellhole. Mars is just fucking cold desert.

>mars is only focused on now because it's easier than anything other than our moon to drop shit onto without issues.
No shit.
And we've been talking about Mars since the mid 70's now just "now", but the public opinion of NASA had them cut back (especially since the Russians were beat to the moon) and no Mars mission. If the NASA budget remained the same as between '65 and '73, we would've been on Mars by the late 80's or early 90's, and by now in 2017 we'd have more international cooperation on things more important rather than focusing on whether or not there's 35 human genders and sand niggers killing each other.

>an atmospheric container filled with earth-atmosphere would float on the more dense clouds, providing a platform.
this along with discussion in a couple of other threads is making me think that Veeky Forums might have developed among the worst reading comprehension on this website in my absence.

journalofcosmology.com/Mars144.html

not only is the proper development of fetuses almost impossible without yes specialized technology that doesn't currently exist, but we are not evolved to live in such a gravitational environment. physical complications would set in in a matter of years.

>Sure, if it's made of plastic?
this is the problem. it's inherently extremely expensive to build safe living areas on mars compared to the upper venusian atmosphere. a hundred-fold+ more costly in resources.

>Being in space without a spacesuit?
oh my god, this place really does have reading comprehension issues.

how is being in the upper venusian atmosphere being in space? the air pressure is almost the same as earths up there.

>this is the problem. it's inherently extremely expensive to build safe living areas on mars compared to the upper venusian atmosphere. a hundred-fold+ more costly in resources.

You realize they've already solved this by planning on placing early habitats underneath the ground?

Bruh, you're literally saying livig in the sky on fuckign Venus is more feasable than solid ground on Mars.

You can't cultivate fucking clouds and raise livestock there, genius.
You also have the problem of anchors. Your idea exists many hundreds of years in the future for educational purposes and nothing more.

Go ahead and try to convince the public about how living in the sky on Venus is even worth it. You're literally taking out 95% of the scientific data that comes out of the exploration part as well. There's literally no point in even attempting to sustain anything there.
There's no soil samples, cave exploration or any exploration at all in the fucking mile high club, kiddo.

>Bruh, you're literally saying livig in the sky on fuckign Venus is more feasable than solid ground on Mars.
because it literally is, and I've explained how in detail. whereas you have to start a mining operation to even begin to think about living comfortably on mars, you can fly a balloon filled with earth atmosphere with a shed on top of it to venus and it will float on the clouds unassisted.

>You can't cultivate fucking clouds and raise livestock there, genius.
you can't cultivate on mars or raise livestock outside of a pressurized environment. procuring an autonomous situation on either planet is a fantasy at this point. I'm simply telling you that with our current level of technology, it would be significantly cheaper and safer to live on venus than on mars.

>Go ahead and try to convince the public about how living in the sky on Venus is even worth it.
I can't, just as you have proven you guys can't comprehend basic facts.

>hurrr but there are no hobbies on venus!
what

also:
>You also have the problem of anchors.
a counterweight on the bottom of a balloon keeps it upright. there is no need for anchoring as the atmosphere is consistently more dense than earth atmosphere on the entire planet.

>Your idea exists many hundreds of years in the future for educational purposes and nothing more.
ironically what I am describing is feasible with our current technology and mars habitation is not. balloons, breathing masks, duct tape.

>I'm simply telling you that with our current level of technology, it would be significantly cheaper and safer to live on venus than on mars.
Only if you think it's easier to build aircraft than buildings. Holding one bar of air in is a manageable engineering challenge, regardless of what planet you're on. Flying a massive space-fairing airship through a hellstorm of wind and acid is not.

There's no soil, you can't raise livestock, you're cutting out all scientific data, you can't explore, you can't plant vegetation, you can't land / take off ships back into orbit.. Every problem you listed for Mars is an even bigger problem for Venus. I mean, you really think large inflatable balloons that can carry thousands of tons, ships, and people and allow resupply is no big deal and something achievable by 2032 (The point of this thread)?
You're dreaming. Not the good kind of dreaming, either.

I'm not saying what you're saying is impossible in the DISTANT future. I'm saying there's no point to it either way. At all. Because maintaining a civilization in the skies of Venus would be thousands of times more difficult and more expensive than solid ground on Mars. I mean, do you seriously think you can hold a large population on balloons? You can't be serious.

The hard part of Mars is getting started and keeping public interest. Venus would simply fail from difficulties, lack of innovation, lack of interest, lack of data, lack of really any benefit.
Engineers and scientist would have no room to experiment either. Venus simply does not work on extremely space-limited areas for scientific and colonization purposes.

Not only does your idea crumble over the fact that it rains fucking bismuth and lead, but the fact that most of Venus' upper atmosphere suffers from 300-400 km/hr winds and near the equator upwards to 600-800 km/hr. Your balloon paradies would get blown away the second anyone attempted to inflate it, if it didn't instantly combust.

>spacex? maybe
In being behind schedule SpaceX is actually worse than government agencies.

Not unless everyone in the world works together. If China Russia and the US united and the world was governed by the UN we'd have reached further than Mars and likely wouldn't have faced global extinction event in the face of climate change.
But human stupidity and the primitive us-vs-them thinking doesn't seem to be losing it's hold so the hope is slim. As we are currently, I'm not even convinced getting out of the Earth is good idea. Just opens up the can of worms of colonies, space wars, etc.

>the stupidity/ignorance of the average American)

not sure how the average american makes any difference other than paying taxes.