Mission to Venus

Void · 2015-01-13 17:40:04

Thank you Quaoar. That very generous. May all your days be good.

Last edited by Void (2015-01-13 17:43:37)

Void · 2015-01-14 11:17:24

I am thinking that because it seems it is somewhat hard to keep an object in Venus_L2, that treating Venus_Tail like a wind, and having a collecting device that can tack in the wind like a ship might be possible.

As for the primary collecting device, a rather large reversal of an ion engine, but I have not gotten that far with any of this yet. Supposing that a plasma of Venus_Atmosphere, and Sun_Solar_Wind could be collected, perhaps it would have a rather broad spectrum of elements in it.

It seems to me that due to gravitation of Venus, if the device could be held in Venus_L2, the collected mass may be in part captured by the gravity of Venus. As the device was caused to move to an altered orbit, perhaps to a degree, the gravity of Venus would hold it. Such an action would extract energy of motion from the device, and add it to Venus itself I think.

I am also wondering about running a current through plasma, but not sure about that. It is a conductor, could a magnetic field be developed from a current looping through a plasma? Could you build some kind of a solar wind drive with that?

Last edited by Void (2015-01-14 11:57:31)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-01-15 23:33:41

Impaler wrote:

That's not going to be worth while, if the trip from LVO is chemical then the propellent for that and the whole capsule would likely mass more then the propellent to just have that Ion drive system at SVL2 just come down and pick up and push the whole crew vehicle out again. Splitting up the 'supplies' is not very advantageous, it's ~6 months of food which is like 1-2 ton total. Most of the mass in in the equipment that is part of the a habitat that can keep the air/water pure, your return vessel would be duplicating all of that when you already have a functional copy that came with the crew and already had the capability of lasting 1.5 years so another half a year in that habitat can't be that much more, I wouldn't abandon a habitat that's survived that long for a tiny cramped capsule with very limited endurance to make a life-or-death rendezvous with another habitat that's untested, and that capsule trip is going to take a while SVL2 is probably what a week away for Venus?

Why would it be chemical though. Chemical rockets are useful for getting off a planet, but they are not really appropriate for moving around in space. You just need to move the humans quickly through space, the other things can move more slowly and can be staged. saving rocket propellant reduces the cost.

Lets say we place an interplanetary vessel at Earth's L1 point, we send an Orion Capsule with astronauts from the Earth's surface with an SLS Launch to Earth L1 where the interplanetary spaceship awaits, then using its ion drive, the ship, which previously maintained its position at L1 now pushes away from the Earth, using the Sun's gravity to assist in its acceleration towards Venus, thus saving rocket fuel. That vessel then aerobrakes into Low Venusian Orbit without much chemical rocket burns. The astronauts teleoperate their probes, then launch their Orion capsule from Low Venusian Orbit to the second space ship waiting at Venusian L2 The Venusian L2 ship then pushes away from Venus and the Sun and uses centripetal force to help accelerate toward Earth, the Orion capsule then separates on the approach towards Earth, the former L2 vessel aerobrakes in the Earth's atmosphere just enough to set it in an elliptical orbit around the Earth which takes it to the Earth L1 point where further rocket action establishes it at Earth L1. The Spaceship left in Venusian Low Orbit slowly climbs away from Venus using its Ion drive until it reaches Venusian L2 and now the two space ships are in position once again for another manned mission to Venus. Basically you only use the chemical rockets to accelerate the humans quickly, the two space ships accelerate slowly when unmanned, this is to save the launch mass of all that rocket fuel which would otherwise be required.

Impaler · 2015-01-16 01:33:43

You keep saying that the 'sun pulls us' and 'centripetal acceleration' as if this is free energy, you don't change orbits in space without expelling something out the back of the vehicle and THAT is what changes your orbit. The sun is not doing anything for you other then acting as the central body in a 3 body problem and their are no free lunches.

You seem to reject chemical rockets but if Orion is your vehicle from LVO up to SVL1 then THAT IS CHEMICAL, not only is the service module of Orion chemical, the lifespan of the Orion is so short I'm doubtful any reasonable mass SEP vehicle could make the journey in a reasonable time frame.

This two spaceship architecture your describing has each vehicle capable of making the whole journey with the propellent that it left Earth with. The only thing your saving is that the crew goes 'fast' from LVO up to SVL1, but there's no point to that, Venus doesn't have a Radiation belt like Earth that compels up to go fast in that phase of the journey, a slow spiral out from Venus is fine. The downsides are huge in that I'm using 2 whole vehicles to do the mission AND they have to haul along a capsule when inbound and outbound, so each vehicle now has to leave Earth with more propellent then if the Orion capsule was eliminated entirely.

Ion Engines are great because they allow us to avoid breaking up the vehicle and making elaborate rendezvouses like this. Each time we transfer crew and do a rendezvous we have to add mass in redundant habitat, and habitats are non-linear with respect to mass and endurance. If I need to keep the crew alive for half the journey in one habitat and the other half in another habitat then the sum of the two habitats is MUCH MORE then if I used one habitat for the whole journey. In your scenario the consumables like food/water can only be restocked at Earth so the crew has to leave supplies behind on their inbound vehicle in order that some future crew can use thouse supplies when said vehicle is their return vehicle.

Just use one Ion engine interplanetary vehicle to go from Earth-Moon L1 all the way to Low Venus orbit and back to EML1. No second vehicle, no second habitat, no rendezvous, no docking, much lower total mass and total propellent. For that matter I would leave the silly Orion capsule back at EML1, if I'm reusing an Ion engine vehicle and parking it back at EML1 every time I use it then my ride back into the Earth gravity well should be waiting for me their at EML1, not hauled around with me in deep-space, you only need your reentry vehicle with you if your coming in fast and can't stop. I'm going reusable then that two rendezvous to make a clean separation between my 'in-space-only park-able at Lagrange points' and my 'atmospheric launch/entry, must relaunch to reuse' stuff makes sense, when the 'terrain' is changing and you faced with destruction of your vehicle if you take it across the bad terrain then having a rendezvous and vehicle change makes sense.

But out in deep space around Venus theirs no compelling reason to put in a rendezvous at the location your describing. That trip from LVO up to SVL1 done with Ion drives is probably only 10-15% propellent mass fraction and 2-3 months, really not much compared to the whole journey or even just the rest of the return trip which is 6-8 months.

Last edited by Impaler (2015-01-16 01:39:26)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-01-16 09:20:30

Impaler wrote:

You keep saying that the 'sun pulls us' and 'centripetal acceleration' as if this is free energy, you don't change orbits in space without expelling something out the back of the vehicle and THAT is what changes your orbit. The sun is not doing anything for you other then acting as the central body in a 3 body problem and their are no free lunches.
You seem to reject chemical rockets but if Orion is your vehicle from LVO up to SVL1 then THAT IS CHEMICAL, not only is the service module of Orion chemical, the lifespan of the Orion is so short I'm doubtful any reasonable mass SEP vehicle could make the journey in a reasonable time frame.

Apollo had made the journey from low Earth Orbit to the Moon in three days, the distance from Low Venus orbit to L2 is, not quite 3 times that distance, so lets say it takes 8 days for the Orion Capsule to reach L2 from Low Venus orbit.

To go from low Earth orbit to the Moon, you need one of these:

This is the third stage of the Saturn V rocket. You need to bring one of these to Low Venus Orbit if you want to travel to L2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Stages

The S-IVB was built by the Douglas Aircraft Company at Huntington Beach, California. It had one J-2 engine and used the same fuel as the S-II. The S-IVB used a common bulkhead to insulate the two tanks. It was 58 feet 7 inches (17.86 m) tall with a diameter of 21 feet 8 inches (6.604 m) and was also designed with high mass efficiency, though not quite as aggressively as the S-II. The S-IVB had a dry weight of about 23,000 pounds (10,000 kg) and, fully fueled, weighed about 262,000 pounds (119,000 kg).[20]
The S-IVB-500 model used on the Saturn V differed from the S-IVB-200 used as the second stage of the Saturn IB, in that the engine was restartable once per mission. This was necessary as the stage would be used twice during a lunar mission: first in a 2.5 min burn for the orbit insertion after second stage cutoff, and later for the trans-lunar injection (TLI) burn, lasting about 6 min. Two liquid-fueled Auxiliary Propulsion System (APS) units mounted at the aft end of the stage were used for attitude control during the parking orbit and the trans-lunar phases of the mission. The two APSs were also used as ullage engines to settle the propellants in the aft tank engine feed lines prior to the trans-lunar injection burn.
The S-IVB was the only rocket stage of the Saturn V small enough to be transported by plane, in this case the Pregnant Guppy.

th?&id=HN.608003864435166318&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0
This is the parking Orbit configuration.

This two spaceship architecture your describing has each vehicle capable of making the whole journey with the propellent that it left Earth with. The only thing your saving is that the crew goes 'fast' from LVO up to SVL1, but there's no point to that, Venus doesn't have a Radiation belt like Earth that compels up to go fast in that phase of the journey, a slow spiral out from Venus is fine. The downsides are huge in that I'm using 2 whole vehicles to do the mission AND they have to haul along a capsule when inbound and outbound, so each vehicle now has to leave Earth with more propellent then if the Orion capsule was eliminated entirely.
Ion Engines are great because they allow us to avoid breaking up the vehicle and making elaborate rendezvouses like this. Each time we transfer crew and do a rendezvous we have to add mass in redundant habitat, and habitats are non-linear with respect to mass and endurance. If I need to keep the crew alive for half the journey in one habitat and the other half in another habitat then the sum of the two habitats is MUCH MORE then if I used one habitat for the whole journey. In your scenario the consumables like food/water can only be restocked at Earth so the crew has to leave supplies behind on their inbound vehicle in order that some future crew can use thouse supplies when said vehicle is their return vehicle.
Just use one Ion engine interplanetary vehicle to go from Earth-Moon L1 all the way to Low Venus orbit and back to EML1. No second vehicle, no second habitat, no rendezvous, no docking, much lower total mass and total propellent. For that matter I would leave the silly Orion capsule back at EML1, if I'm reusing an Ion engine vehicle and parking it back at EML1 every time I use it then my ride back into the Earth gravity well should be waiting for me their at EML1, not hauled around with me in deep-space, you only need your reentry vehicle with you if your coming in fast and can't stop. I'm going reusable then that two rendezvous to make a clean separation between my 'in-space-only park-able at Lagrange points' and my 'atmospheric launch/entry, must relaunch to reuse' stuff makes sense, when the 'terrain' is changing and you faced with destruction of your vehicle if you take it across the bad terrain then having a rendezvous and vehicle change makes sense.
But out in deep space around Venus theirs no compelling reason to put in a rendezvous at the location your describing. That trip from LVO up to SVL1 done with Ion drives is probably only 10-15% propellent mass fraction and 2-3 months, really not much compared to the whole journey or even just the rest of the return trip which is 6-8 months.

Antius · 2015-01-16 09:43:53

What would be the point of a manned mission to Venus?

If the mission objective is surface exploration, then I would suggest that the best approach would be to establish a manned space station in Venus orbit and use nuclear/RTG powered telerobotics to explore the surface. You won't need to bring the robots back again and don't need to be concerned with the engineering difficulties of return from the surface or atmosphere, NTRs or floating balloon bases. The telerobots on the surface would consume a large portion of their power supply just keeping cool, but could use a mixture of bouyant and dynamic lift to float just above the surface. Ultimately, a VR type experience may be possible and much easier that trying to put people on the surface.

A Mars Direct hab could suffice as the orbital space habitat. And most transfers to and from the hab from LEO could be achieved by solar/nuclear electric ion propulsion ferry.

Quaoar · 2015-01-16 10:10:29

Antius wrote:

What would be the point of a manned mission to Venus?
If the mission objective is surface exploration, then I would suggest that the best approach would be to establish a manned space station in Venus orbit and use nuclear/RTG powered telerobotics to explore the surface. You won't need to bring the robots back again and don't need to be concerned with the engineering difficulties of return from the surface or atmosphere, NTRs or floating balloon bases. The telerobots on the surface would consume a large portion of their power supply just keeping cool, but could use a mixture of bouyant and dynamic lift to float just above the surface. Ultimately, a VR type experience may be possible and much easier that trying to put people on the surface.
A Mars Direct hab could suffice as the orbital space habitat. And most transfers to and from the hab from LEO could be achieved by solar/nuclear electric ion propulsion ferry.

Here is a lot of hot stuff for a Venus robotic mission

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/meetings/ … logies.pdf

Void · 2015-01-16 11:25:01

Antius and Quaoar Please keep going.

I liked that material just presented. Somewhat off from that topic, but here is some more information about Venus_Tail.

http://www.mpg.de/6885096/venus-tail

The new measurements prove that the night side ionosphere protrudes approximately 15 000 kilometres into space. "But the tail could be much longer. It might measure up to millions of kilometres", says Wei. Since Venus Express' flight route did not lead the spacecraft directly behind the planet however, this question cannot be answered conclusively.
It is also still unclear, whether the ionosphere of Venus can in principle expand far enough to reach Earth. In 1996 researchers from MPS were able to detect plasma from Venus close to our planet. They analysed data obtained by the spacecraft SoHO that circles the Sun in line with the Earth. Perhaps the processes now observed by their colleagues from MPS offer an explanation for such events. "Possibly phases with tenuous solar wind allow particles to travel from planets close to the Sun to those further away", says Wei.

I am obviously hopeful to capture gasses from the Venus_Tail, for analysis, and perhaps even to make mission supportive materials.

I also am wondering if any of the trash that is expelled from space stations and burned in the atmosphere, might be recycled to make a radiation shield that could be deployed to an orbit of Venus, as part of a life support system for humans.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-01-16 14:25:34

Antius wrote:

What would be the point of a manned mission to Venus?
If the mission objective is surface exploration, then I would suggest that the best approach would be to establish a manned space station in Venus orbit and use nuclear/RTG powered telerobotics to explore the surface. You won't need to bring the robots back again and don't need to be concerned with the engineering difficulties of return from the surface or atmosphere, NTRs or floating balloon bases. The telerobots on the surface would consume a large portion of their power supply just keeping cool, but could use a mixture of bouyant and dynamic lift to float just above the surface. Ultimately, a VR type experience may be possible and much easier that trying to put people on the surface.
A Mars Direct hab could suffice as the orbital space habitat. And most transfers to and from the hab from LEO could be achieved by solar/nuclear electric ion propulsion ferry.

You might want to use something to retrieve rock samples picked up by the robots, or at least bring rock samples up to aerostat balloons. What do you suppose is the best way to get Venus rocks into orbit, so it could be picked up by a manned craft for return to Earth?

SpaceNut · 2015-01-16 21:33:55

Quaoar thank you for the venus lander link....

So far it looks like a 2 SLS (130 T) launch to make the station for venus orbit and a return vehicle for a long duration mission. With a possible Bigelow style inflateable Blimp for atmospheric research by man for safe radiational shielding. The tele-robotic control from either location of the lander for exploration of the surface and possible sample collection which depending on mass restriction. That said how do we make a vehicle to get back to orbit to the station needs to be solved.

Void · 2015-01-17 09:39:41

In my opinion that divides into two different objectives.
1) Scouting mission.
2) Habitation mission.

1) For the scouting mission, I have to wonder why people would be placed into the atmosphere at all. It is dangerous, and I don't see that there is much that could be accomplished that could not be done with machines.

From my point of view, retrieval could involve having an orbital device come down rather deep so that it could glide/hover slow, and have the humans similarly get into a powered aircraft, and connect with it. Very hard to do, and very dangerous.

2) For habitation, there are two options, (And a hybrid of them).
a) Drop significant tonnage into the atmosphere and assemble it.
b) Develop a robot presence on the surface and up into the clouds, and manufacture habitat there.

I would think that a multi-layered habitat which had a deck down at the 10 bar level, and decks above to a more habitable level, might allow for a glider to land at the 10 bar level onto an open deck. Then that being brought back up to the highest deck level could be refueled, and launched to orbit. But lots of danger there. I think that it is a better plan that most people going to Venus plan to stay there for a long time, to reduce launches.

This could be modified, if a robot community made resources so abundant that rockets cost very little (Unlike now).

But this is all only my opinion, and can be justly challenged by other minds notions, and by new discoveries in the nature of things, or new technologies.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-01-17 10:29:26

SpaceNut wrote:

Quaoar thank you for the venus lander link....
So far it looks like a 2 SLS (130 T) launch to make the station for venus orbit and a return vehicle for a long duration mission. With a possible Bigelow style inflateable Blimp for atmospheric research by man for safe radiational shielding. The tele-robotic control from either location of the lander for exploration of the surface and possible sample collection which depending on mass restriction. That said how do we make a vehicle to get back to orbit to the station needs to be solved.

How about the Pegasus? remember that?
File:Pegasus_-_GPN-2003-00045.jpg
Think that would be enough to send Venus rocks into orbit?
Mass: 18,500 kg (Pegasus), 23,130 kg (Pegasus XL)
Length: 16.9 m (Pegasus), 17.6 m (Pegasus XL)
Diameter: 1.27 m
Wing span: 6.7 m
Payload: 443 kg (1.18 m diameter, 2.13 m length)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)
Just bring one of those to Venus. that should be able to return some samples.

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-01-17 10:30:57

SpaceNut wrote:

Quaoar thank you for the venus lander link....
So far it looks like a 2 SLS (130 T) launch to make the station for venus orbit and a return vehicle for a long duration mission. With a possible Bigelow style inflateable Blimp for atmospheric research by man for safe radiational shielding. The tele-robotic control from either location of the lander for exploration of the surface and possible sample collection which depending on mass restriction. That said how do we make a vehicle to get back to orbit to the station needs to be solved.

How about the Pegasus? remember that?

Think that would be enough to send Venus rocks into orbit?
Mass: 18,500 kg (Pegasus), 23,130 kg (Pegasus XL)
Length: 16.9 m (Pegasus), 17.6 m (Pegasus XL)
Diameter: 1.27 m
Wing span: 6.7 m
Payload: 443 kg (1.18 m diameter, 2.13 m length)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus_(rocket)
Just bring one of those to Venus. that should be able to return some samples.

SpaceNut · 2015-01-17 20:53:38

I think you are onto the type of design for the cloud city return to orbit vehicle just not sure that the all solids approach is the best means as I would perfer a liquid insitu filled while on the mission in the cloud blimp much like the Mars Mav is but just as a transfer vehicle to the awaiting stations return to earth craft.
The blimp that descends into the atmosphere would be heavy with supplies at the start and lighter at the end of mission so an empty tank that fills as the mission progresses keeps the blimp at the same altitude.

SpaceNut · 2015-01-17 22:42:41

The 51,000-pound, 55-foot-long rocket free-fell for five seconds, dropping 300 feet below the aircraft while traveling at Mach 0.82 . Mach 1 = 761.207051 Miles Per Hour that makes it roughly 624 MPH.

http://www.orbital.com/LaunchSystems/Pu … tsheet.pdf
This has the mass of payload to orbital altitude chart.

Venus has a slow rotation of which Equatorial rotation velocity 6.52 km/h (1.81 m/s) or 4.05 Miles/hour and at the 60 km altitude that changes to just 6.57 km/hr. That said we will need to compensate for the lower take off speed for the return to orbit vehicle taxi form the blimp.

Last edited by SpaceNut (2015-01-17 23:13:23)

Tom Kalbfus · 2015-01-18 09:10:36

SpaceNut wrote:

The 51,000-pound, 55-foot-long rocket free-fell for five seconds, dropping 300 feet below the aircraft while traveling at Mach 0.82 . Mach 1 = 761.207051 Miles Per Hour that makes it roughly 624 MPH.
http://www.orbital.com/LaunchSystems/Pu … tsheet.pdf
This has the mass of payload to orbital altitude chart.
Venus has a slow rotation of which Equatorial rotation velocity 6.52 km/h (1.81 m/s) or 4.05 Miles/hour and at the 60 km altitude that changes to just 6.57 km/hr. That said we will need to compensate for the lower take off speed for the return to orbit vehicle taxi form the blimp.

The Pegasus has plenty of room to drop, Venus' lack or rotation is also compensated by Venus' lower gravity, the speed required to reach orbit is also lower.

The orbital velocity around Venus is 7.151746948 km/sec, and the orbital velocity around Earth is 7.727251215 km/sec. The difference is 570 m/sec. The tangential rotation speed of the Earth is 465.1 m/sec. Seems to me that if Venus was not rotating at all, it would still be easier to reach orbit from Venus' upper atmosphere than some equivalent position slung under a B52 Bomber. The Pegasus does weigh about 24 tons, so it would be a particular challenge just getting it to Venus, and we would have to add heat shielding as well, we'll need a hydrogen tank and a balloon to hold it aloft until needed, then the Pegasus would separate and drop some distance before igniting its rockets and accelerating upwards and forward until it reached the fringes of the atmosphere and an orbital velocity of 7.15 km/sec. That seems doable with current technology, though getting it to Venus would probably require one of our most powerful rockets, probably the SLS, and then we'll need to send the probes, and balloons for them, drop them down to the surface, have they quickly pick up rocks and have them meet up with the Pegasus and unload their rock samples into it.

Void · 2015-01-18 12:22:06

I support your idea Tom, I understand that it is a proposed solution using existing or almost exiting hardware methods. It's pretty good. I am thinking though that sample return would be quite far off, as we have not even done sample return from Mars yet.

Since there is a possibility that insitu (Is that a good acronym?) process could help.

I start with this:
http://www.wickmanspacecraft.com/lsp.html

It is well known how to get LOX into a rocket engine combustion chamber under pressure, but how would it be possible to get any of these fuels into a combustion chamber? Phosphorus and sulfur could actually be the easiest as they both melt and could be fed as liquids. Phosphorus melts at around 111F. It has the advantage of auto-igniting with oxygen. Sulfur melts at 239F, but if heated above 482F, it will also auto-ignite with oxygen. For either fuel, electrical heaters would preheat the propellant tank, feed lines and valves prior to using the engine. Once the engine was operating, heat from the combustion process could be used to continue heating the fuel so that it would stay molten. Regardless of the propellant combination being used, it is envisioned that a small amount of LOX will be kept in a separate tank. This LOX will be circulated through the combustion chamber and nozzle walls to provide cooling before entering the combustion chamber to be burned with the fuel. The use of LOX for cooling liquid rocket engines has been demonstrated by other companies.

I am not proposing a recipe for success yet. Just citing options.

There could have been more, but I think I will leave it there.

Last edited by Void (2015-01-18 12:36:59)

Void · 2015-01-18 20:13:39

So, as I think about it Magnesium dropped from orbit, possibly from the Moon (Or the surface of Venus?), Sulfur.

Mix the Magnesium powder (Aluminum also?) with liquid Sulfur. I was thinking of a slurry paste heated up below the cloud decks, but maybe it makes more sense just to line a solid portion of a hybrid engine. That way the Sulfur would be a smaller component, and would serve as a glue for the Magnesium, Aluminum. I am not all that good at this, and you won't get any numbers out of me, but that's what I currently think. For the hybrid, there could be the possibility of refrigerated Hydrogen Peroxide. Only guessing, but the Hydrogen Peroxide (As a mix with water), should release Oxygen and might burn the Sulfur glue, Getting to the Magnesium, Aluminum particles, Hydrogen Peroxide or water could burn them. And Hydrogen released, might not find Oxygen to burn it, but might have a very serious expansion characteristic, pushing the heavy metal and Sulfur particles out at a rate much better than if the Hydrogen were not present.

And I would see the possibility that this could include an atmosphere breathing option where the CO2 dominant atmosphere could be included to help burn the Magnesium. Until the atmosphere became too thin for it. Feeding liquid CO2 and Hydrogen Peroxide might also be an option, but I bet that would be quite a mechanical mess.

Nothing very unknown about the above. I am not a real rocket man so deal with it. Maybe when I am retired it will amuse me to learn your acronyms, and find your calculation software, and try to do some poodle jumping, hoping to impress you, but only if it amuses me. (Not taking a poke at you GW).

Obviously this is not for a scouting mission. What Tom has proposed would be more suitable for that. But maybe for launching from floating cities.

Last edited by Void (2015-01-18 20:26:36)

Void · 2015-01-19 11:20:28

Inflatable Aircraft Could Cruise Venus Skies
http://www.space.com/24847-venus-explor … craft.html

So, that's pretty good stuff I think.

SpaceNut · 2015-01-19 16:57:16

The particular shape sort of suggests a hard shell and not infleatable especially when in the description are props. and evelons....also it would seem to be unmanned as well. More on the VAMP mission which is not a blimp by any means.

http://inhabitat.com/unmanned-solar-pow … tire-year/

Once airborne, the drone would switch between gliding and self-propelled flight during the day. During the nights, however, which are 70 hours long on Venus, it has to rely on a system that converts heat from the radioactive decay of plutonium-238 into electricity. Between these different systems, the aircraft is able to provide for, and carry, 440 pounds of scientific instrumentation. The drone itself weighs 992 pounds and has an impressive wingspan of 151 feet.

This really deserves it own topic and under the old board controls I could have done so to split it off....

Void · 2015-01-19 18:21:01

Spacenut. I was quite divided anyway. I did not think I should add it anywhere else, but please do as you wish to prosper the cause. I would be pleased.

SpaceNut · 2015-02-01 20:45:02

The original image of the first post...

Looking at the image we have discussed the how to get back to orbit from the blimp ( pegasus style rocket) but not how to get from orbit to the upper atmosphere real well with the complete blimp and return to orbit carrier rocket.

Quaoar · 2015-02-06 10:36:01

As an SF writer I like cloud cities because they are cool. But in reality, before talking about the technical possibility of colonizing Venus atmosphere, we have to find a good reason to do it.
Why have we to go to Venus?

A human mission on surface, if technically possible with atmospheric pressure suits and Stirling coolers, will be only a very short flag and footprints.
If we think to build floating bases to harvest atmospheric CO2 and use it as a source of fuel and plastic materials, we can do the same things still in orbit, without coping with sulfuric acid clouds and risking to fall down in a 400°C/100 bar inferno.

It will be different if we will be able to develop surface mines and factories: in this case a cloud city can be e valuable connection between Venus surface and orbit. Surface mines and factories has to be full automatized, controlled by high temperature resistant machines.
In a future, it will be also conceivable to implant on Venus surface some sort of synthetic life, based on fluorocarbons, especially projected to grow-up at 400°C in a CO2 environment.

Cloud cities will be build by machines (or synthetic beans) using locally mined materials and will serve as a connection with orbital habitats.

Last edited by Quaoar (2015-02-06 15:47:05)

GW Johnson · 2015-02-06 12:56:03

If harvesting CO2 is the goal, you can do this better on Mars (or even from smokestacks here on Earth). On Mars, the environment is nowhere near as harsh, and the gravity well is not as deep. On Earth, the environment is benign, and the gravity well is not an issue. So, I echo Quaoar's question: why go to Venus? What is there to do at Venus that cannot be done elsewhere and easier?

The only answer I currently have is satellites looking outward from about the orbit of Venus, with infrared, to far more efficiently find asteroid threats to Earth. We don't need the planet to do that.

GW

Void · 2015-02-06 13:37:21

I pretty much a ditto on that from both of you.

I would choose Venus last of the terrestrial planets, with the exception of some of it's potential orbital properties. That is perhaps something can be harvested from the tail. Also maybe because of that orbital habitats.

I would think that;
Mars first;
the Moon will happen in spite of the directive to focus on Mars (And capture a little asteroid);
At that point some rare minerals might be running out so the Asteroids and/or Mercury (Mercury with knowledge from Mars and the Moon);
Finally something with Venus:
-Terraform it with metals, maybe from Mercury or
-Learn to make robots that can take the heat, and build a infrastructure that can deliver goods to the Clouds, then perhaps humans.

So Venus last.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2015-01-13 17:40:04

Re: Mission to Venus

#127 2015-01-14 11:17:24

Re: Mission to Venus

#128 2015-01-15 23:33:41

Re: Mission to Venus

#129 2015-01-16 01:33:43

Re: Mission to Venus

#130 2015-01-16 09:20:30

Re: Mission to Venus

#131 2015-01-16 09:43:53

Re: Mission to Venus

#132 2015-01-16 10:10:29

Re: Mission to Venus

#133 2015-01-16 11:25:01

Re: Mission to Venus

#134 2015-01-16 14:25:34

Re: Mission to Venus

#135 2015-01-16 21:33:55

Re: Mission to Venus

#136 2015-01-17 09:39:41

Re: Mission to Venus

#137 2015-01-17 10:29:26

Re: Mission to Venus

#138 2015-01-17 10:30:57

Re: Mission to Venus

#139 2015-01-17 20:53:38

Re: Mission to Venus

#140 2015-01-17 22:42:41

Re: Mission to Venus

#141 2015-01-18 09:10:36

Re: Mission to Venus

#142 2015-01-18 12:22:06

Re: Mission to Venus

#143 2015-01-18 20:13:39

Re: Mission to Venus

#144 2015-01-19 11:20:28

Re: Mission to Venus

#145 2015-01-19 16:57:16

Re: Mission to Venus

#146 2015-01-19 18:21:01

Re: Mission to Venus

#147 2015-02-01 20:45:02

Re: Mission to Venus

#148 2015-02-06 10:36:01

Re: Mission to Venus

#149 2015-02-06 12:56:03

Re: Mission to Venus

#150 2015-02-06 13:37:21

Re: Mission to Venus

Board footer