There was this sperg on here that kept harping on about "floating cities on Venus" and I along with the rest of /sci/ laughed at him. However after reading this article
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/nasa-study-proposes-airships-cloud-cities-for-venus-exploration
I am starting to believe that it really is a better idea than Mars.
>Shielded from radiation
>Atmospheric pressure is the same as on Earth
>Venus is closer
>Same gravitatonal pull as Earth
>Lots of atmospheric study to be done which can be relevant to Earth
>240x the solar power available
>75 degrees celsius is easier to deal with than -63 degrees celsius
>Travel around the planet is way quicker, just ride the winds as opposed to slow-ass electric rovers
Discuss.
>>7705967
Nobody cares if it's more viable for a colony. We like Mars better because it has a lower gravity (lower escape velocity) and more usable materials. I know that Venus is more suitable for human life, but what's the advantage of going there? What is the human race gaining? Going to Mars allows us to more easily mine from the asteroid belt, and that's what space exploration has always been about. Exploration of new frontiers is fueled by resources; human colonies just provide a bigger customer base.
>>7705967
>I along with the rest of /sci/ laughed at him.
If by "rest of /sci/" you mean that one asshole pushing your confirmation bias sure.
We ain't colonizing shit in our life times anyway, get over it.
>>7705967
>240x the solar power available
lol no, 240 PERCENT
>75 degrees Celsius is easier to deal with
No it isn't. Making something warmer is much easier than making something colder.
Beyond that, not having access to the planet surface makes things a lot harder. On Mars, you don't have to bring most of your building materials with you - just tunnel in. On Venus, it would be more like being on a space station - just much harder to get supplies to, and dealing with hurricane force acid winds. Even without those problems, nobody has ever lived long term on an airship even on Earth - think about the reasons why not!
All l that being said, a Venus atmosphere colony is not totally stupid. But I really don't think it's realistic in the near future.
>people who want to go to other planets
We need to use nuclear pulse propulsion to bring back asteroids to earth orbit
and begin building THERE
>>7706183
Balloons were a thing.
>going to terrestrial planets where you can't even land on the surface
complete waste of time and money
>>7705967
I'm a libra, and I support this message.
>>7706132
Conversely, use plasma generators on Mars.
>>7706052
If additional habitats are made from carbon based materials, Venus has an abundance on-site. Acid at atmospheric concentrations is irrelevant. It isn't anywhere near the same as the highly concentrated stuff used for industrial purposes.
Additional materials could be dredged from the surface. It is far more realistic to think of Venus as an extremely deep Ocean planet with respect to the pressure and where the "surface" would be for colonies. A Venus colony could be an important first step to a Mars colony with respect to studying the long term effects of reduced gravity and being an alternative flight path to Mars wherein colony ships could top up on oxygen.
>>7706706
>If additional habitats are made from carbon based materials, Venus has an abundance on-site.
We don't have the technology to make use of it. The same goes for so many of these other Venus ideas. It's an interesting hypothetical for a distant future. Mars we can pretty much do right now.
>>7705967
So you are a typical faggot huh?
Some guy comes with an atypical and creative idea and you dismiss it with whatever dumbfuck argument your empty shitstain brain comes up with. Then you read the same idea from someone with authority, in this case NASA but it could have black science man or anyoen else you consider important and then it immediately
GOOD IDEA GUISEESS!!
WE SHOULD DO THAT INSTEAD!
LOL LOOK AT ALL THESE POSITIVE POINTS I DIDN'T COME UP WITH!
You disgust me. Please go to /b/, your kind is better suited to stay there.
Mars is better. You can't even land on Venus without the fucking space probes dying.
>>7706494
Its funny how NASA actually took the time to do a study which came to the conclusion that its feasible and not a bad idea yet /sci/ is still trashing it. I am starting to believe that /sci/'s constant dismissal of all new ideas isnt due to any rational analysis but because being a contrarian is an easy way to look smart. Attacking an idea is easy; just throw strawmen at it.
>>7706757
This. 4chan in general's culture is a mental toxin.
>>7706714
Carbon capture is a very real thing, as is various arrangements of carbon (graphene, graphite, diamond, etc)
HOLY FUCK... WHY ARE WE EVEN TRYING TO GO TO MARS FOR RESOURCES ANYWAYS?!?!?!
Just go to the fucking moon!
>>7706183
I could jump 3 1/2 feet easy
what could they not jump in 1900?
>>7706757
You're just now realizing it?
Jesus, that's been the foundation of the entirety of 4chan since it was Something Awful.
>>7707085
No black people in 1900.
>>7705967
It's still a pretty ridiculous idea. It's not impossible or anything, but it'd be REALLY challenging.
For instance, take thermal control. On Mars you have a thin, cold atmosphere. So you'd need a basic layer of insulation and a heater to keep the crew warm.
On Venus you have a thick atmosphere at 75C: you'd need enormous heat pumps and radiators to try and keep the crew from roasting alive.
>>7706757
>Its funny how NASA actually took the time to do a study which came to the conclusion that its feasible and not a bad idea yet /sci/ is still trashing it.
I think you're confused about how NASA works. Planning space missions is fucktons easier and cheaper than actually launching them, so for every thing that NASA actually does the have like a hundred plans. I would be surprised if there's colonization plans for Ganymede somewhere in a drawer at NASA.
>>7706757
And there are studies that show terraforming Mars (and even Venus) is feasible.
But just because something is feasible doesn't mean it's realistic to do so. Exploring Venus is too costly; Mars is better. Fuck off.
>>7707765
See here we go with the strawmen
>NASA's study on terraforming Venus was retarded therefore this completely unrelated NASA study on floating a balloon in the upper atmosphere is also retarded
You are the cancer in science.
>>7706183
>To learn how not to fuck up our own atmosphere
We don't need people floating around in clouds of acid to do that nor do we need Venus. That's like saying we should put a colony on Mars just to understand erosion.
>>7707899
>runaway greenhouse effect
>only ever theorized on earth
>actual real life example on venus
>we should ignore it
>>7705967
Is there a likehood of something goes wrong to the ship and dying on Venus?
>>7708035
Yes, obviously.
But there's also a likelihood of the bus carrying the astronauts crashing on the way to the launch site.
>>7708004
We already understand why Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. What makes you think putting people there will make us understand more about it? If you want to put a colony there to give new perspectives about climate and try to sway Earth politics, what makes you think Venusians will give a fuck about what Earthlings are doing to fuck themselves over?
![historical-median-male-height[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/lTG7GSL.png "historical-median-male-height[1].png")
>>7707085
Gravity was stronger then. That's why people have been getting taller over time too.
>>7708342
Venusians would be our bitch.
>>7705967
All is all well until you realize you need materials. Good luck getting them from the surface.
>>7708459
as the icecaps melt gravity gets weaker cuz there's not as much stuff on earth makes sense.
Contrarianism: the thread
