Venus vs. Mars

[Derc]

The future a few decades from now on will look at quantum computers a similar way we look at 60's/70's classical computers today.
Will it be a breakthrough? Definitely yeah. Will it stop humanity from *** itself up? Definitely no.

[PointOfViewGun]

https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/...ntum-computing

https://cookieandkate.com/classic-tomato-soup-recipe/

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I don't know Morticia, the US prison population is exploding, so a space prison would make sense.

Elon Musk Enterprises :"SpaceXXX - we solve your crime problem"

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Cookiegod]

https://cookieandkate.com/classic-tomato-soup-recipe/

I stand corrected.

[Cyclops]

I don't know Morticia, the US prison population is exploding, so a space prison would make sense.

You could call the prison planet Salusa Secundus...or New Australia.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

You could call the prison planet Salusa Secundus...or New Australia.

Sound like a nice place for ScoMo after retirement.

As director for lifetime without those nasty press or protesting women.^^

[conon394]

Romans could not create or perhaps even envision a flying machine, that is true. But all the materials they would have needed were at their fingertips if they had only figured out how to produce and combine the needed components

Archytas does seem have demonstrated a steam powered 'bird' that had independent lift. And other small steam engines were about. But you right on materials. Steam powers was just beyond inefficient for a Med. based society that was not mining coal in the UK. Let's recall the very steam regions the UK made were absoultly honorably inefficient and only made sense since they were being fired by the coal from the mines they pumping water out of. Set up one of the first ones in Rio Tinto at the huge Roman silver Mines. Nobody (well the educated guys running the mine) would be surprised you could do it but the question would fuel the heat with what exactly.


----


But otherwise as already noted I do believe we should be a little more focused on terraforming our own planet back to the stability we need before chasing technological fantasies. At best I suppose I could some value in seeing the cost draging some asteroids close for exploitation of mineral might be useful, before start raking the sea floor for nodules with rare earths and even more elements indiscriminately.

[swabian]

There is a bunch of moons orbiting Jupiter and perhaps moons of one of the other giants that may be more suitable for colonisation. The Mars atmosphere is simply too thin and it's magnetic field is too weak. Mars is relatively close to the Sun, so the planet is exposed to strong proton radiation, which renders surface installations very hard to maintain. My (very speculative) guess is, that moons like Titan or Europa (and our own of course!) will see some form of colonization first and Mars would be a project for later. Venus is completely out of the question, its atmosphere is too dense and hazardous and it's too close to the sun. There are, like, hyperstorms of boiling acids on it... it's hopeless.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I'd probably pick whichever planet comes out cleaner in budgeting with fewer side effects, based on the advisement of far far far wiser people on the matter put together. But per the shift of conversation to other places (ie, a Jupiter moon), I'd widen the scope to the full solar system and pick the outright easiest option first. Try it, refine it, test it exhaustively and then consider something more tricky. With that kind of background, eventually Venus or Mars would be viable. Or not when it's discovered certain factors are cost prohibitive, which there's no definitive way to assess given the entire conversation is a bit out of reach.

[swabian]

With that kind of background, eventually Venus or Mars would be viable. Or not when it's discovered certain factors are cost prohibitive, which there's no definitive way to assess given the entire conversation is a bit out of reach.

With 93 atmosphere pressures and ~450°C average Temperature, gigantic permanent storms containing acid and rain of liquid heavy metal, the surface will probably never be colonizable aside from small scientific installations where no babies are born. So much I dare to deduce even without expert knowledge. For a larger subsurface installation that can hold a self-sustaining population, it would be required that the raw materials, like metals, minerals, carbon, etc, are present and refinable (so not stuck 100 kilometers deep in the crust or homogenously distributed in the crust) for there can not be a permanent supply chain back to earth, otherwise there is no incentive to colonize in the first place and it would also drain the netto resources of such an Earth-Venus-Economy because of the high energy cost for the transport. So a colony mission would of course have to know exactly what it can work with and be prepared to build and maintain an industry that can do with what can be found on Venus or elsewhere.

Actually there is simply not enough data to speculate about resources on Venus, but if the raw materials are there and if they can be mined, subsurface structures could be thinkable, since Venus has less tectonic activity than earth.

Ideally planetary colony would have to be able to attain self-sufficiency from day 1. Supply chains could only be a temporary solution, I think. This applies of course to Mars as well, but at least on Mars the atmosphere isn't nearly as lethal, so surface installations are thinkable, which makes it a lot easier.

When talking about colonies, I was actually thinking about temporary and purely scientific installations of small size. Not about self-sufficient growing settlements where babies are born.

Oh, btw. I've read some crazy stuff about floating colonies on Venus, taking advantage of the dense atmosphere: https://www.spaceanswers.com/futuret...-dyson-sphere/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCYyog_CD_c

This is circulating since a couple of years, I must have somehow missed it.

Sounds awesome. However, this can only be a solution for the actual living quarters of people. It would still depend on surface industries so on the presence of refinable resources and there might be too high exposure to solar radiation, since Venus is closer to the Sun. But if all those criteria are met and if those things could avoid storms, why not.

Problem of radiation in space travel: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/f...tion_ebook.pdf

This is already a big problem regarding long term space travel. Spending an entire life in high radiation environments would be a harsh lot for colonists. This definitely is a problem on Mars and it might be a problem for floating cities on Venus as well. Somehow I think, subsurface is the right direction, also because of easier access to refinable materials. Diggin' holes n' , you know. It usually works.

[PointOfViewGun]

Pretty much all other moons in our solar system, including Titan, Ganymede or Europa, have lower gravities compared to our Moon.

[swabian]

Pretty much all other moons in our solar system, including Titan, Ganymede or Europa, have lower gravities compared to our Moon.

Our Moon will be (has to be) our first extraterrestrial colonial experiment where we (as humans in general) can learn and gather experience and data. I have read suggestions for Titan and Europa specifically though in some articles, which is of course the reason I came up with them. Moons could be "training areas", so to speak.
Colonizing our moon first is the most obvious thing and leaving it out is foolish (yes, Elon is kind of a fool). There are actual plans on using the moon dust to create surface and subsurface structures, for example. Doing this (studying locally available material) and then actually doing it is exactly what I mean. Colonization will be a very costly but necessary learning experience and we need as many testing grounds as possible.
What is speaking for the two Jupiter moons is that they provide a relatively safe environment for landing and structure building - not least, because they are very far away from the Sun. Yes, they have no atmosphere, but this is not what makes things more difficult for the earliest steps. Extraterrestrial planetary atmospheres are much more deadly and violent most of the time. Earth really is a very unique shelter suitable for the evolution of life, so much is certain (as far as is known, it still could be the only single environment suitable for the evolution of higher forms of life). If human life (and the life that has to come with it) is supposed to be successful elsewhere, we have to pick - in order to learn - the most sensible targets for colonization first, and that is certainly not Mars or Venus. That's why I mentioned those moons.

Edit: Oh, of course: Everyone who would grow up on a low gravity environment (if that is possible at all, which is doubtful) would never be able to visit Earth, of course. At least not with a 'standard' healthy human body. Earth's gravity would shut the heart and blood circulation down, bones would break and impale the own body, etc. This might actually already apply to Mars with it's 38%g surface gravity.
Again moons would be training areas, not future homes. So of course, hypothetical colonists wouldn't be able to stay on those moons for long. As I said, I would consider small and temporary scientific outposts already as first colonies or "proto-colonies", if you will. But that's a kind of pain I think humanity can take... In the very long term, I mean.

[PointOfViewGun]

Our Moon will be (has to be) our first extraterrestrial colonial experiment where we (as humans in general) can learn and gather experience and data. I have read suggestions for Titan and Europa specifically though in some articles, which is of course the reason I came up with them. Moons could be "training areas", so to speak.
Colonizing our moon first is the most obvious thing and leaving it out is foolish (yes, Elon is kind of a fool). There are actual plans on using the moon dust to create surface and subsurface structures, for example. Doing this (studying locally available material) and then actually doing it is exactly what I mean. Colonization will be a very costly but necessary learning experience and we need as many testing grounds as possible.
What is speaking for the two Jupiter moons is that they provide a relatively safe environment for landing and structure building - not least, because they are very far away from the Sun. Yes, they have no atmosphere, but this is not what makes things more difficult for the earliest steps. Extraterrestrial planetary atmospheres are much more deadly and violent most of the time. Earth really is a very unique shelter suitable for the evolution of life, so much is certain (as far as is known, it still could be the only single environment suitable for the evolution of higher forms of life). If human life (and the life that has to come with it) is supposed to be successful elsewhere, we have to pick - in order to learn - the most sensible targets for colonization first, and that is certainly not Mars or Venus. That's why I mentioned those moons.

Edit: Oh, of course: Everyone who would grow up on a low gravity environment (if that is possible at all, which is doubtful) would never be able to visit Earth, of course. At least not with a 'standard' healthy human body. Earth's gravity would shut the heart and blood circulation down, bones would break and impale the own body, etc. This might actually already apply to Mars with it's 38%g surface gravity.
Again moons would be training areas, not future homes. So of course, hypothetical colonists wouldn't be able to stay on those moons for long. As I said, I would consider small and temporary scientific outposts already as first colonies or "proto-colonies", if you will. But that's a kind of pain I think humanity can take... In the very long term, I mean.

A colony on the Moon is harder to build than to build a space colony. It's highly unlikely we can terraform the Moon as well. Both Titan and Europa have very low surface gravities, something we can never change. Our moon is likely to be a transit station that will be suitable for really short term habitation. The only plausible option is Venus.

[Common Soldier]

Unless you come up with better rocket propulsion systems, a better bet may be to make giant, kilometers size space colonies and spin them to provide artificial gravity. Just 2 or 3 meters of rock, dirt will provide thr radiation shielding you need. Asteroids, small moons, comets can provide the resources you need. You might be able to hollow out existing asteroids.

Building anything at the bottom of a gravity well is an expense and the higher the gravity, the more work required. Shuffling around material from space stations would be a lot easier, we could use highly efficient low thrust ion drives to move material around.

[swabian]

A colony on the Moon is harder to build than to build a space colony. It's highly unlikely we can terraform the Moon as well. Both Titan and Europa have very low surface gravities, something we can never change. Our moon is likely to be a transit station that will be suitable for really short term habitation.

Oh well, you didn't read my answer in total. I'm exactly saying this: Moon would be a transitory thing, a learning environment. There can be no permanent settlements on the mon, as I described rather dramatically. But this is where humanity will have to start.

Regardless... I like it, that people here are interested in the topic as well. It's a secret passion of mine come on, let's not be antagonists here.
And I love to just ramble on about it, haha.

The only plausible option is Venus.

You mean the floating cities? Or the subsurface option? Would you care to read my full comments above. I think you find. that I addressed a lot of what pops up in your mind right now.

Gravity is the most important problem, yes. But only if there is supposed to be a supply system with Earth at the core, which is not a sustainable way of space colonization a priori.

[Cookiegod]

Except no one's saying that one should terraform the moon.

Again your technopositivity is completely unwarranted. The reason I see against colonizing the moon is that it'd likely take as much or more effort as doing the mining automated and skipping on all the pesky life support systems.

*EDIT: I'm referring to POVG saying that terraforming the moon isn't possible. Which he's absolutely right in.

[PointOfViewGun]

Oh well, you didn't read my answer in total. I'm exactly saying this: Moon would be a transitory thing, a learning environment. There can be no permanent settlements on the mon, as I described rather dramatically. But this is where humanity will have to start.
Regardless... I like it, that people here are interested in the topic as well. It's a secret passion of mine come on, let's not be antagonists here.
And I love to just ramble on about it, haha.

Not being antagonistic here. Just trying to keep things grounded on topic; terraforming.

You mean the floating cities? Or the subsurface option? Would you care to read my full comments above. I think you find. that I addressed a lot of what pops up in your mind right now.
Gravity is the most important problem, yes. But only if there is supposed to be a supply system with Earth at the core, which is not a sustainable way of space colonization a priori.

I think it would be much better if you actually glanced through the thread. Perhaps, the more important mistake you make is that its not a colony if it can't support long term habitation. Hence, any of your moon options are just transit stations, not colonies.

Except no one's saying that one should terraform the moon.
Again your technopositivity is completely unwarranted. The reason I see against colonizing the moon is that it'd likely take as much or more effort as doing the mining automated and skipping on all the pesky life support systems.
*EDIT: I'm referring to POVG saying that terraforming the moon isn't possible. Which he's absolutely right in.

A successful colony on the Moon requires terraforming; precisely to increase Moon's gravity. That's a virtually impossible task. Any claim of colonizing a celestial body would require a feasible gravity. That's one terraforming task that is highly unlikely to be accomplished. Your criticism of my "technopositivity" have been unfounded so far.

[Cookiegod]

wtf no.
A successful colony needs enough volunteers willing to live horrible lives and to make enough money to offset the cost of maintaining it. That's it. Helium-3 baby!

[PointOfViewGun]

Horrible but livable.

[swabian]

I think it would be much better if you actually glanced through the thread. Perhaps, the more important mistake you make is that its not a colony if it can't support long term habitation. Hence, any of your moon options are just transit stations, not colonies.

I have made it abundantly clear that I was talking about colonies or ("proto-colonies") in the sense of temporary bases as well. Yes, those would be early stages of space colonialism. So no mistake from my side at all, let alone an "important" one. It was exactly the point to highly temporary installations on moons as first steps. Please don't bother with an answer, if it's only on that point. It is a valid first step of colonialism zzZzzZz. As a matter of fact it would be a darn spectacular first step. Well, any first step outside earth would be pretty spectacular, really.

A successful colony on the Moon requires terraforming; precisely to increase Moon's gravity. That's a virtually impossible task. Any claim of colonizing a celestial body would require a feasible gravity. That's one terraforming task that is highly unlikely to be accomplished.

That's true, of course. Regardless, the moon is a likely target for permanent and automated installations. AI run industries would also be valid first steps of colonization and an important way to gather experience for larger installations elsewhere that could permanently harbor humans. In addition, such a colony could be supportet by a rotating space station in orbit that could be a temporary habitat for engineers who would would be tasked with maintenance on the actual moon base once in a while.

wtf no.
A successful colony needs enough volunteers willing to live horrible lives and to make enough money to offset the cost of maintaining it. That's it. Helium-3 baby!

Yes, moon could be attractive because of it's He3 deposit. Furthermore, the lunar dust is suitable as a building material and building (either fully or largely automated) would be much easier in the low gravity environment of the moon and the complete lack of volcanism and tectonics even allows for relatively easy sub-surface construction and mining.

Colonies with permanent human presence are likely not economically feasible and only a goal for humanity, if the latter is under some existential pressure. Nevertheless, temporary (which also means re-visitable) installations are an absolutely necessary step in order to get humans somewhere permanently.

Permanent and reproductive human colonies are even possible on very low-g environments, if some sort of genetically engineered human subspecies is constituting the vast majority or all of the colonists. Maybe it is even possible with natural born standard humans (unlikely imo, but i'm not certain), but it would most likely mean in any case, that the colonists would never be able to visit celestial bodies with substantially higher surface gravity, as that would be too much stress for bodies attuned to low-g.