New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#301 2016-08-05 11:16:51

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 5,091

Re: Venus

I think you indicate domes on Earth?, and perhaps projections of how such structures might work on Mars?

I think that I am not the only one who is here, (I will let such presumed others speak for themselves), who thinks that domes are a bad idea in general for Mars, except perhaps for low pressure farming of some type.

It is a curious matter that our body extensions, (Manufactured dwellings), are composed of solid, liquid, and contained gasses, no matter which world people might try to inhabit.  However for Mars, it is virtually a guarantee that you will deal with a solid for the final interface between the interior and exterior of such habitations.  So, solids are the most important issue on Mars.  On Mars, before you need a drink, of water, you will hope that solids are guaranteeing that you will have something to breath.  So, if you really look at it you must always be underground on Mars, or be dead.  Even if you are in a space suit, you are still underground because solids surround you.

Not much of that problem on Earth, primary concern here is to live near a drink of water, a liquid of course.  You stand on a solid surface, you are surrounded by a gas mixture, and you drink and interact with a liquid on Earth.

On Venus, we would desire to float in the atmosphere, because that is where the greatest mercy to creatures like us is.  So floating in a gas is the most important thing because if you don't, soon you won't care if you have a drink of water or breath of air.

So, Mars and Venus are to some degree a mirror image of each other.  Not completely, since both require physical protection of the human body from the ambient conditions.  (Even on Earth, cloths and housing protect us from hostile conditions).  On Venus, solids will not protect you if you don't float in a gas.

I also can come up with mega visions of what to do with Venus.

1) Atmospheric Shell world.  This can be less that my ideal, but my ideal is that it is a shell composed of linked floating chambers, which entirely isolates the atmosphere below it from the atmosphere above it.  I fear that this concept would be prone to damage from winds, and other natural causes however, and might be a magnet for social organizations who use sabatoge as a method.  If you did do this world, the noxious gasses would be held below, and a Nitrogen and Oxygen atmosphere would be held above.  In light of recent discoveries of loss of Oxygen to space a solution is also required for that.  Moisture in the above atmosphere?  A magnetic field generated in the shell?  So problems to solve.  Perhaps a hall weather machine layer, where the interior of the bubbles has a greater (-) charge than the electrons outside of the atmosphere?

2) Foam world.  This is similar to the shell world, but you would make a foam like construction to contain most of the atmosphere, which would go from conditions suitable for human survival as far as pressure and temperature go, all the way to the surface.  Various chambers would hold various gasses inside of them.  Each chamber would have to be suitably made buoyant by the mix of gasses in them.  At the top level, you might attempt a Nitrogen/Oxygen open sky, scheme, but you then must solve the Oxygen loss problem with Moisture, Hall Weather Machine, Magnetics, or other things.

It is worth mentioning that for both solutions 1 & 2, solving the Oxygen loss problem is not actually required, it is simply desired.  In either case you can have chambers with ambient conditions similar to temperate conditions on Earth.  In such cases perhaps the artificial surface of the shell/foam, would not involve growing plants so much as collecting solar energy (Of which there are many schemes including generating fuels and Oxygen).

I think you can guess that an atmospheric shell world could be the predecessor of a foam world, so they are quite related.

In a both cases, but especially the foam world I am talking about very advanced terraforming, but most likely the atmospheric mass will remain similar, so most of the lower chambers will be unsuitable for normal humans to inhabit without protective equipment, which means they most likely won't be there.  Most likely robots, and robot actuators will be there if there is a task to preform.

Now the question of temperature of the lower layers of atmosphere in either case.  What is useful?  If humans generated liquids such as liquid CO2, and Liquid N2, then down below robots could run off of expanding vapors of those, or they could be electric or all of the above.
But for the expanding vapors you would want at least a overly warm environment.  No problem, at least at first, it is very hot already.

But the atmospheric shell world and the foam are very ambitious, for a people who have never spent on single day floating in the atmosphere of Venus.  So, lets fall back with relative humility.  Perhaps an atmospheric shell world or even a foam world for people who live long after us.

I will try to get more real to the present age.

I did mention a "Hall Weather Machine" which was introduced by Karov.  I will go back to that, as a potential predecessor to a atmospheric shell world, or a foam world.

So, since I do not believe that we are ready to have self replicating weather machines, I will presume a factor floating in the atmosphere of Venus, that produces the bubble machines for at least two layers of a Hall Weather Machine.

So the upper layer, has been suggested by others, a sunshield where tiny floating disk bubbles reflect sunlight out into space, and on the night side turn sideways, and let heat out of the planetary atmosphere.  The schemes I have read about seem to include a lot of Wi-Fi type interaction and complexity for each bubble.  I would like to consider if these bubbles could be made less smart, and simply have a temperature activated pendulum method to tilt vertical on the cold side, and horizontal on the warm/hot side of Venus.

The second layer of bubbles would be made with buoyancy to float at the top layers of the cloud deck, and their outside chemistry should be suitable to endure an acid environment, and they should have and attraction to Sulfuric Acid liquid at their top portions, and a repulsion to such liquids on the bottom portion, so as to be a cloud seeding agent, which does not easily dissipate by chemical reaction or because of buoyancy does not settle out of the clouds.

These can be quite dumb, and without internal mechanisms, except for the internal floatation gas, I presume Nitrogen.

So we would have three potential precipitation methods onto these devices.  Super cooled vapor to ice deposition, simple ice deposition, and liquid deposition.  In any these cases the bubbles weighted down will descend to lower layers where it is warmer.

The ultimate goal is to produce drops of liquid which will depart from the bubbles allowing them to float back up to repeat the process.

I expect this to allow Verga (Rain that does not reach the ground), to increase, and that rain going to hotter lower layers will hopefully decay into water vapor and Sulfur Dioxide.

So the two layers of bubbles might work together to cool the planet, and reduce the acid PH of the atmosphere, making it perhaps more suitable to human use.

So, now for the factory.  I imagine a multi-chambered floating foam of metals, plastics, glasses, and other materials.  It will contain that factory.  It will include many robots to produce excessive material gain beyond their own needs or wants (If they have any), and most likely some humans.  Energy can be solar, wind, etc.  Maybe if their is reduced metals on the surface (I don't think so), batteries that react that with the sulfuric acid in the atmosphere.

Although domed greenhouses are not ruled out, I think they would have limited utility.  I anticipate that solar power that manipulates atmospheric gasses (CO2, H2O, N2), would produce the base of a chemosynthetic food chain.

So, I'm not that much of a fan of domes on Venus either, but they might work better there than on Mars.

I'm done!

Last edited by Void (2016-08-05 12:44:06)


Done.

Offline

#302 2016-08-05 12:35:43

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 5,091

Re: Venus

Just a side note.  I feel that the work of various scientists to promote extended healthspan which will likely extend human lifespan, along with anticipated technologic space propulsion methods suggests that the transit of humans from our star systems will not be entirely impossible.  Having abilities to best utilize worlds like Venus and Mars will be of great value in that case, because I anticipate many terrestrial worlds which are either like Venus or Mars to a great degree.

Last edited by Void (2016-08-05 12:41:52)


Done.

Offline

#303 2016-08-05 15:58:22

karov
Member
From: Bulgaria
Registered: 2004-06-03
Posts: 953

Re: Venus

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/2331 … -habitable

&

http://gizmodo.com/theres-growing-evide … socialflow

---

On "Hall Weather Machine @Venus" - there is more then enough carbon and hydrogen on Venus to SRS (self-replicating automata) for production en situ of all the HWM needed.

@ (say) 100km height - ... all the infalling radiation could be controlled bi-directionally in intensity, color, phase, direction etc.

Offline

#304 2016-08-05 18:25:47

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 5,091

Re: Venus

Karov,

I glad you showed up for your favorite topic.  I am also glad to hear what you have to say about materials.

I am going to argue (In the most friendly way) against self replicating machines however, I prefer a "Queen and Hive" model.

Humans have been farming bees for some time, and the level of intelligence in the bees is sufficient for them to preform the required task.

Robert Heinline (Sci-Fi) in his books had a saying.  "Specialization is for insects".  In this he criticizes cultures which breed specialized persons.  I also criticize this, since by doing that the only means they have to work together is verbal, which is slow.  A generalist (Individualist), communicates with their internal variety of skills by a neural network, which is faster.

Also, I believe that there is a thing I will call the emperors jealousy.  A person specialized to be a ruler, such as a priest or a pharoe, does not fully understand the capabilities of Aquisitioners (Business People), or Warlords, or the Intellectuals who evolve I think more from Warloards.

They fear the power that the other groups have, so they will either kill them out of the gene pool eventually, or appropriate their wealth in order to have greater procreation of person of their type.  This of course also kills out the talented inheritances.  So sadly I believe that "Civilization" which is so adored, is created by generalists, and then the civilization kills out the talent.  They then either grow stagnant with rulers & peasants, or are conquered by another people who have not yet become so civilized.  The resulting stagnant cultures become excessively verbal, and love mass violence.  Unfortunately they can borrow ideas for weapons to do mass killings with from cultures that have not deteriorated as much (Sound familiar?).

So for humans, since I am a human, I prefer that we would seek to modulate this property.  One method is to open new frontiers.  This can help to preserve talent, especially in space, because most or all places in space favor generalists, since if you are stupid you die.

For the weather machine, I see no reason to endow the separate elements with greater intellect than they need to preform their insect tasks.  Why create a hive mind that might become a competitor with the human race?  If we are going to have such a vast swarm of such devices, I feel that they should be at bee level or less, since they really don't have to even be as smart as a bee to be useful to us.

On the bee model, then I do favor creating a queen, which would be the factory to manufacture the bees.  That should incorporate humans in it's process in my opinion.  Robots, process lines, and perhaps 3D printing.

That factory in my opinion could start as an island composed of chambers, some of which could contain environments favorable to humans.
The island would be expanded both sideways, and downwards, so that their might be sufficient strength for it to survive upsets, like wind storms, and I suppose industrial mishaps.  It might expand to continent size, and from there to surround the entire planet.

As far as how far down it might go, that would be up to the inhabitants.  Perhaps they would want it to rotate with the winds, perhaps they would choose to anchor it to the planets surface.

Upon having a planet wide covering, they might choose to implement a Nitrogen/Oxygen mix above it, but that would cause some problems because the "Bees" would then have to be lifted by Hydrogen or Helium.

If they did do this another trick would be for the "Surface" to be entirely covered by a "Mesh" above it.  In this way if the winds were fierce, it would slow them down on the surface where the humans were, and it also might reduce the potential for human injury from strong winds.
Further it would reduce the solar flux in the area where the humans were.  The mesh, perhaps like expanded metals could also incorporate solar cells.  So, perhaps there could even be green vegetation in the area below the mesh.

Now, that's just my 2 cents.  I would wait some time before attempting to endow a hive mind with the ability to self replicate.  I will also say that in specializing the bees/queen, you should produce efficiency (With a sacrifice of capability for the hive mind).





So, as I regard myself as human, I favor generalization for humans.  Capability should always be favored for humans above efficiency, except when efficiency is less than needed for generalist human survival and prosperity.

Last edited by Void (2016-08-05 18:35:53)


Done.

Offline

#305 2016-08-07 03:54:37

karov
Member
From: Bulgaria
Registered: 2004-06-03
Posts: 953

Re: Venus

Void wrote:

Karov,

I glad you showed up for your favorite topic.  I am also glad to hear what you have to say about materials.

Which one of all wink ? ... 'favourite topic'?

---

Hall Weather Machine is doable, simple and VERY efficient OPTIC mechanism of the sub-class of the airbourne OPTICS.

(Sub-class because as a whole its combinatorics contains also orbital and statite and other varieties...)

Optic machinery is SO capable , it is cheap to produce and maintain and resolves a big mass of problems which otherwise require moving , spinning etc. of entire planets.

In fact maintenance could be easily done to actually RELY upon the influx of otherwise destructive energy i.e. the system to be homeostatic or homeoresistant.

Like carbon-water life but with orders of magnitude wider 'habitability domain'.

So, my favorite methods ( not topics ) are: [1] Optics and [2] Kinetics ( kinetic structures ) for provision of human habitable LAND - practically anywhere where there are the enough materials to build the surface. ( less then 100 metric tonnes per square meter of habitable LAND for all - structure, terrain, water, soil, air AND light! ).

Back to optics it is proven mathematically, that given a radiation source like our Sun , a SURFACE of acceptable, tolerable gravity could be illuminated, provided with traditional biospheric level of irradiation on distances between a few solar radii ( 5 mln. km ) and a few light years ( 10 MILLION TIMES "a few solar radii" ) - which renders not just the whole Galaxy, but the whole UNIVERSE illuminable to livable conditions ...

... by mere use of lenses and mirrors!

i.e. practically Archimedian level of sci-tech!

ALSO in the case of Venus, Mercury etc. with 'wrong' natural axial spin rate distributed and smart OPTIC systems like Josh Storrs Hall Weather Machine can finely control the day-night cycles point by point on the surface.

Thus the areas inhabited by humans can have 24h cycle, or any combination of light vs dark timing desired (say eternal night in the local "Las Vegas" or eternal tropical morning on the beaches ... whatever voted and decided ) , while the rest of the planet is kept under different, even under natural diurnal regime.

The aka 'luminosphere' or 'illuminosphere' ( if we use the terminology of Paul Birch ) thus becomes output of super-powerful and super-precise global Optic Machinery with sub-milimeter, sub-milisecond 4D resolution.

Void,

NO. Such machinery is NOT necessary to be too intelligent.

Not more intelligent then a LED TV CPU.

Even less.

===

I'm against using HWM on Earth. Things are ok here. "If it does not malfunction, do not touch it!" wink

BUT, for practically all the bodies in Solar System - the dozens of thousands to millions of planemos in the Solar sphere of gravitational influence ( Sun's Hill Radius ) ... and beyond -- it is almost undisputable for me, that OPTIC systems for managing natural fusor light shall be the healthiest-cheapest-stablemost-reliablemost... etc. etc. etc.  superiority specs ... technology.

( Especially the smaller bodies, where the Luminosphere could be in fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_fog of bubbly machinelets i.e. also to serve as force-filed like mechanical atmospheric retention system. ... )

The major advantage of HWM-like on-planet Optics is that they can utilize on-planet materials for construction.

And replicator style ops to multiply exponentially for less then human lifetime effects / results. In fact a lot less then a human lifetime.

Say, the case for Mars -- few dozens of millions of bubbles production from local atmospheric materials and sunlight would have at least 1000 TIMES better radiation management specs then ANY "greenhouse gases" ... Practically instant effect.

---

[2] on the other of my favourite topics - kinetic structures - it is also fundamentally so logical that I guess it practically can not be suplemented ... the logic is.:

- if the target body is too small to provide for decent natural gravity ( or it does not at all exist )  - then dissasemble it and built a rotating space habitat. ( Which you know could be of giant proportions - thousands of miles wide and zillions of light years long out of mere simple cheap carbon or Si-, Al-oxides ... )

or

- if the target underbody is too big - just overstructure it using 'orbital rings'. ...

- if it is 'good size' - just step onto its atmosphere.

---

Thus Kinetics makes the LAND everywhere in the Universe , and Optics brings the light in everywhere in the Universe.

---

AND these technologies are MORE stable indeed then the natural 'geological' stabilizers because they utilize the fluxes and gradients of nature BETTER!

Offline

#306 2016-08-07 19:47:11

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 5,091

Re: Venus

Well, I like it.

I do think that Venus would be a fine laboratory to test it on because of proximity and because the flotation gas could at least initially be Nitrogen.


Done.

Offline

#307 2016-08-08 15:24:40

karov
Member
From: Bulgaria
Registered: 2004-06-03
Posts: 953

Re: Venus

Void wrote:

Well, I like it.

I do think that Venus would be a fine laboratory to test it on because of proximity and because the flotation gas could at least initially be Nitrogen.

Proximity? It is dozens of solar radii away! It is just fine!

Lifting gas ... what about the best - vacuum?

Offline

#308 2016-08-08 16:04:37

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,343
Website

Re: Venus

karov wrote:

Lifting gas ... what about the best - vacuum?

Requires a very heavy, strong pressure tank. Hydrogen would be better. Since Venus is shrouded in water clouds, that water can be harvested and used to make hydrogen. Atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2, 3.5% N2. No oxygen, not even a trace amount. Mars has a trace amount of oxygen, Venus does not. Hydrogen will not burn without oxygen,

Offline

#309 2016-08-08 16:34:13

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 5,091

Re: Venus

Using Hydrogen, is better lifting, but I fear permeability of the bubble walls.  But maybe that can be solved with some uber material some time.

If so, then I have another question for Karov.

We have two gas giant planets, and two ice giant planets.  I believe that their was a suspicion long ago, that the synchronous orbit of either Uranus or Neptune was in it's atmosphere.

Now the question:  If you could accomplish vacuum bubbles as the multiple elements of a Hall weather machine, without Hydrogen infiltrating the interior of the bubbles at any harmful rate, could you then insulate any of those four planets sufficient to cause their atmospheres to swell large enough where their synchronous orbits would be inside their atmospheres?  Additionally, could you also arrange favorable temperatures at that synchronous orbit (If an atmospheric synchronous orbit was possible)?  Even could the luminosity of the lower layers of the planet "Shine" to the synchronous orbit, without over heating the synchronous orbit (Maybe another hall weather machine below which passes visible light, but insulates against the heat????

Maybe this if fun for you, I hope.


Done.

Offline

#310 2016-08-08 19:16:36

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,343
Website

Re: Venus

Void wrote:

Using Hydrogen, is better lifting, but I fear permeability of the bubble walls.  But maybe that can be solved with some uber material some time.

Aluminized mylar. Or aluminized polymer film. Aluminum slows hydrogen permeability dramatically. The Hindenburg use an aluminum "dope" painted on fabric to contain hydrogen. I'm thinking modern technology.
41HAE3OdQqL._SX425_.jpg

Offline

#311 2016-08-09 08:57:33

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 5,091

Re: Venus

RobertDyke,

That's a good possibility I sense, since each balloon will degrade anyway, due to U.V. and Acid.  There would be a workspan for the devices anyway.  Perhaps the materials could be recaptured over time to a degree, and recycled.

As for Vacuum Balloons, I understand that that is beyond our means at this time, so it can support dreams of speculation, but not a reality so far.  I have also read of schemes involving Plasma, but that is also out of reach at this time.  I have speculated on a balloon containing protons, or electrons, using electrostatic repulsive force to maintain the volume of the balloon, but all of these ideas I think bump up against reality in an unfortunate way.  I still would like to hear what Karov might have to say about the two gas giants, and two ice giants. I also have to say that the gain of lift you might achieve with any of these schemes in a Hydrogen dominated atmosphere would be meger.

So that leaves planets or moons which could retain an atmosphere of heavier gasses as more realistic candidates.

Mercury? No, even if you generated an atmosphere, some of it would have to be above the hall weather machine, so would be subject to intense solar flux, and the solar wind, so no.

Venus? A very best candidate I presume.

Earth? Karov does not want to mess with it.

Mars? Thin atmosphere, and the potential for condensations on the balloons exteriors, causing them to impact or stick to the ground.

Titan?  Maybe, but it is far away, and the solar input is weak.

Pluto? Very thin atmosphere at best, very far away, and full of very light gasses, which I suppose could be expanded to a much thicker atmosphere, but it would be quite an alien world even then.  And of course solar input is very weak.

So, Venus is the beauty queen of the notion, I guess.

So, for Venus, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Methane, and some rare gasses are a possibility.

Hydrogen will try to leak, but maybe your solution of Hydrogen could be considered if that material you suggest is capable of long term durability in the environment.  If leakage is a problem, then perhaps it could be possible to have active devices which pump Hydrogen out of the atmosphere, but then you are adding complications.  I would suggest a graphine pump, where electrical methods could pump Hydrogen into the balloon as needed.  However then additional failure modes and expenses have been introduced.

Nitrogen is readily available, and might be sufficient to hold the altitudes desired, and would be easier to retain in the balloon.

Methane, and perhaps some other hydrocarbons might serve, but they would be prone to chemical alterations, if exposed to U.V. or perhaps the walls of the balloon in some cases.

Helium and other rare gasses are hard to get.

So, in my opinion Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Methane, would be the choices to consider.

And with that the criteria would be can it get the job done sufficiently?  What is the durability of the balloons constructed?  Cost of each device?

And, so what is most useful for the effort expended?

But, I think that Venus is a very exciting place to start the notion with.

Last edited by Void (2016-08-09 09:29:36)


Done.

Offline

#312 2016-08-09 15:06:21

karov
Member
From: Bulgaria
Registered: 2004-06-03
Posts: 953

Re: Venus

RobertDyck wrote:
karov wrote:

Lifting gas ... what about the best - vacuum?

Requires a very heavy, strong pressure tank. Hydrogen would be better. Since Venus is shrouded in water clouds, that water can be harvested and used to make hydrogen. Atmosphere of Venus is 96.5% CO2, 3.5% N2. No oxygen, not even a trace amount. Mars has a trace amount of oxygen, Venus does not. Hydrogen will not burn without oxygen,

Yes, there is enough hydrogen in Venusian atmosphere, but ...

<<< Requires a very heavy, strong pressure tank. >>>

NO!

smile

What are the forces - zero pressure from within, and from without (acting on perfect arch-like structure) -- depends on the altitude.

So, - soap bubble thin vacuum balloons - REALLY high up in the stratosphere.

The different combos of altitude/ambient pressure versus bubble wall thickness is comparatively easy to calculate.

Offline

#313 2016-08-09 15:19:34

karov
Member
From: Bulgaria
Registered: 2004-06-03
Posts: 953

Re: Venus

Void wrote:

Now the question:  If you could accomplish vacuum bubbles as the multiple elements of a Hall weather machine, without Hydrogen infiltrating the interior of the bubbles at any harmful rate, could you then insulate any of those four planets sufficient to cause their atmospheres to swell large enough where their synchronous orbits would be inside their atmospheres?  Additionally, could you also arrange favorable temperatures at that synchronous orbit (If an atmospheric synchronous orbit was possible)?  Even could the luminosity of the lower layers of the planet "Shine" to the synchronous orbit, without over heating the synchronous orbit (Maybe another hall weather machine below which passes visible light, but insulates against the heat????

Well, I could only guestimate, but ... they must be thousands of Celsuis at 'surface' to swell so much.

Why we need this at all?

Gravitational binding energy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitati … ing_energy ) calculation will give you idea about how much solar radiation these bodies must retain in order to 'swell' so much...

Also the rotational energy to reach Roche limit, i.e. the planet to become flattened ...

You'll see the energy requirements would occur to be really massive - like MONTHS and MONTHS of Total Sun's Radiation Output!

---

Neptune and Uranus will need giant forced orbit 'lenses' to focus more light on their habitats.

Few times the planetary radii at least.

Land construction - onto orbital rings cage 'toposphere'.

Given the extensive lunar populations and the proximity of the Neptune trojans ( at least 20 times more massive then Jovian ones and/or the Main belt) - plenty of non-H/He masses to swap in and out for volatiles = the momentum and energy to lower the astronomical 'metals' to the shell habitat construction altitude/ orbit could be leveraged the planetary atmosphere to be mined for CHON etc.

btw, 'surface' gravity of Neptune and Uranus are of the Earth 1 gee-ish range so the LAND could be just interconected tessellae of floating onto the atmosphere aerostatic rafts. I.e. toposphere ( support structure for the land on top) is naturally provided en situ.

As well as = the same for Saturn.

In SolSys only Jupiter (and the Sun) deserve orbital rings structual support, indeed... (And eventual dark not yet discovered gas giant companions, drifting silently in the Sun's Hill radius of almost a parsec.)

Offline

#314 2016-08-09 22:25:11

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 5,091

Re: Venus

Karov,

Glad that you suggest that at least one form of Vacuum Balloon is worth trying.

As for the four planets to swell, I was thinking more of the internal heat, and an insulating weather machine.  I see that you dismiss it fairly strongly, that's OK, but I was also thinking about a very advanced civilization using such methods to mine such worlds.  I just wanted to get a vague notion of the dimensions of the problem.

Now I think if it were to even be possible, it would have to be your soap bubble vacuum balloons, perhaps constructed by nano-technology (Haven't seen a lot about that for a while).  I believe a vacuum balloon would have to be rigid.  But perhaps an electron or proton filled balloon could be flexible (I am not too serious about that one, so don't pull your tail feathers out over it).  Another alternative would be possibly a gas filled balloon which existed much farther down in the atmospheric column.  But I don't know if there is a location on any planets where the reward/problem situation would be favorable to the effort.

Then there is the problem of what happens to the Moons, if you did it.  I suppose they could be mined in that way.

I do think perhaps a vacuum balloon would be easier to implement in the atmosphere of Titan than that of Venus, for a number of reasons.

Last edited by Void (2016-08-09 22:27:47)


Done.

Offline

#315 2016-08-10 02:19:26

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,343
Website

Re: Venus

The altitude that most people have recommended building floating settlement on Venus is the cloud layer. That altitude has clouds, so a source of water. That altitude also has reasonable temperatures, and 1 atmosphere pressure. At 1 atmosphere pressure, the settlement becomes relatively easy to build because there is no pressure stress. However, it means a vacuum balloon must keep out 1 atmosphere pressure. And since Venus has 90% of Earth's gravity, conditions are pretty much the same as Earth. We know how heavy a thermos bottle or Dewar flask must be. I worked with a large Dewar; it was a large bottle of liquid nitrogen used to chill an environmental chamber to test equipment that my employer manufactured. The Dewar certainly didn't float like a balloon. Of course it was a bottle to hold liquid nitrogen, and held air when empty. But still, a stainless steel flask requires substantial strength.

As for a hydrogen balloon, there are fluoropolymer films that can withstand the acid and temperatures of Venus cloud layer without corrosion. I believe some polyimide films could as well.

Of course I could argue for my vision for Venus. I've described it many times. It's quite different.

Offline

#316 2016-08-10 06:01:46

karov
Member
From: Bulgaria
Registered: 2004-06-03
Posts: 953

Re: Venus

RobertDyck wrote:

The altitude that most people have recommended building floating settlement on Venus is the cloud layer. That altitude has clouds, so a source of water. That altitude also has reasonable temperatures, and 1 atmosphere pressure. At 1 atmosphere pressure, the settlement becomes relatively easy to build because there is no pressure stress. However, it means a vacuum balloon must keep out 1 atmosphere pressure. And since Venus has 90% of Earth's gravity, conditions are pretty much the same as Earth. We know how heavy a thermos bottle or Dewar flask must be. I worked with a large Dewar; it was a large bottle of liquid nitrogen used to chill an environmental chamber to test equipment that my employer manufactured. The Dewar certainly didn't float like a balloon. Of course it was a bottle to hold liquid nitrogen, and held air when empty. But still, a stainless steel flask requires substantial strength.

As for a hydrogen balloon, there are fluoropolymer films that can withstand the acid and temperatures of Venus cloud layer without corrosion. I believe some polyimide films could as well.

Of course I could argue for my vision for Venus. I've described it many times. It's quite different.

How thick a plastic bubble ( spherical 'dome') must be to withstant pressure gradient (exactly equal to external pressure due to being 'filled' with vacuum) on say 100+ km heigth over Venus?

What must be the diameter vs wall thickness for it to remain buoyant on such altitude...?

I ask these questions because Dewar vessel example is totally inconsistent and non sequitur at all...

Offline

#317 2016-08-10 09:40:24

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 7,343
Website

Re: Venus

Flotation works by displacement. A boat that weights x pounds will sink into water with that same weight. In this case it is weight, not mass, but on a planet with constant gravity the difference doesn't matter. A helium balloon has weight of the envelope plus the helium inside. It displaces so much air, so the buoyancy is the weight of air displaced minus the weight of the balloon. If you rise the balloon to greater altitude where pressure is lower, then weight of air displaced is low, so therefor buoyancy is also low. If you want substantial lift, such as to hold aloft an entire city, then you want to displace air that's dense. Denser air means more weight displaced per unit volume, but it also means greater pressure.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-08-10 21:14:30)

Offline

#318 2016-08-10 13:59:35

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 5,091

Re: Venus

I would want to see you continue to champion the vacuum balloon Karov, it would be a nice achievement.


Done.

Offline

#319 2016-08-15 13:22:34

karov
Member
From: Bulgaria
Registered: 2004-06-03
Posts: 953

Re: Venus

The Weather Machine, Mark II

The Mark I Weather Machine is something like nanomechanical rod logic—an gedanken experiment existence proof that a given level of technology will have a given capability. We can go a bit farther and talk about what the capability might be like given closer control of light and matter, bearing in mind this is somewhat more speculative.

Take the same aerostat, but inside put an aerogel composed of electronically switchable optical-frequency antennas—these are beginning to be looked at in the labs now under the name of nantennas. We can now tune the aerostat to be an absorber or transmitter of radiation in any desired frequency, in any desired direction (and if we’re really good, with any desired phase). It’s all solid state, with no need to control the aerostat’s physical attitude. Once we have that, the Weather Machine essentially becomes an enormous directional video screen, or with phase control, hologram.

Astronomers hated Weather Machine Mark I, but they love Mark II because it turns the entire earth into a telescope with an aperture of 8,000 miles. Mark I could zap Apophis as it flew by inside the Moon’s orbit; Mark II could zap asteroids at much greater distances, or power laser-propulsion spacecraft.

Mark II, with the ability to shift frequencies and directions independently, is powered at night. Mark I could cool the Earth by shading the sunlight on the dayside, or warm it by reflecting back the infrared that pours into the night sky. The total power going in and out is roughly the same (although more goes out from the dayside for a variety of reasons). Thus there’s plenty of power available for the nightside to do street-lighting, or show ads in the sky, or whatever you’d like. Remember that because it’s a hologram, it can have a completely different effect for each spot on the surface: my night sky can be a giant telescope, and my neighbor’s can be a giant video game.

Offline

#320 2016-08-15 13:27:00

karov
Member
From: Bulgaria
Registered: 2004-06-03
Posts: 953

Re: Venus

"The reason I call it a weather machine instead of a climate machine is that you could change the modulation on a regional or even local basis, and change it in minutes," says Hall, "You could cool Death Valley and warm the Yukon - at the same time." Because winds as well as water evaporation and rainout depend on temperature patterns, he adds, we could strongly affect the other components of weather as well.

Hall also believes that the weather machine could be used to make large portions of the Earth more human-friendly. "There is a huge portion of the Earth's surface that is only marginally habitable and could be made temperate with weather control," he says.

While we don't have all the technologies required to pull-off such a feat, Hall feels we should still get started right now and develop such things as control software, weather modeling, and anything along the pathway to nano-manufacturing capability.

Hall has also devised a second version of this machine that would still utilize balloons, but would instead contain an aerogel with switchable antenna units. This would allow for the transmission of radiation in any desired frequency or direction. By doing this, the entire stratosphere would be converted into an enormous hologram that could take light and change it into any desired wavelength and focus it in any desired direction. This would allow for the near complete control over local weather.

Such a system would be a planet-sized powered machine, powered by 100 petawatts of sunlight. With a transmitting area of 10,000 km in diameter, and violet light for a beam, it would be able to carve graffiti on Phobos by focusing a petawatt beam on a 2.7 mm spot. "In other words", says Hall, "it's one hell of a planetary defense against anything from wayward asteroids to invading aliens."

Offline

#321 2016-08-15 13:49:43

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 5,091

Re: Venus

I think Venus and Titan are the two best candidates for experimentation (While wishing for Mars).

It seems to me that Methane is at a tipping point on Titan, just a little more energy could start a greenhouse effect warming the moon further.  It would be nice if the smog could be converted as raw material into floating "H.W.M." components, that would get rid of the anti-greenhouse effect that the smog induces.  If the ground conditions could reach those of Antarctica, outside work would be a reasonable action by humans, provided they had protective cold gear and breathing apparatus.

From there, if I were doing it I would build an enormous Taurus on stilts, which would partially float in the atmosphere, and would circle the moon Titan.  And that would likely be a reasonably stable setup for some time as it would take a long time for the elevated temperatures on the surface to exhibit effects deep down, below the surface.

But of course life has to be searched for first, and absolutely some kind of fantastic space propulsion has to be created.

I do think that Titan may be a good place to first try to use vacuum bubbles.  Thick atmosphere, low gravity.


Done.

Offline

#322 2016-08-17 12:59:47

karov
Member
From: Bulgaria
Registered: 2004-06-03
Posts: 953

Re: Venus

Void,

Unthawing this oustanding beauty? I mean Titan.

I think no need because it can provide literally thousands of terraformed pockets the size of small countries like Hong Kong, Singapore, Liechtenstein ... and still the marvelous cryonic Outback to be enjoyed...

===

I still accept / believe that 'terraforming' is about formation of LAND. I.e. the literal meaning / etymology of this compound word.

Human habitable land.

Be it.:

- orbital rings supported plate, strip, or full spheroid on top of a massive underbody

- inner surface of a rotating cylinder

- a raft floating on kinda liquid or gas etc. etc.

- microgravity bubble with spinning inside island-carousels ... 

Sustaining land. I.e. humans to be able to live off-it.

That is, 'furnished' with gravity, illumination, flooded with breathable air...

That's all.

Last edited by karov (2016-08-17 13:05:23)

Offline

#323 2016-08-17 14:14:38

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 5,091

Re: Venus

Well whoever is in charge will likely do what they want with Titan.  Maybe what you want.


Done.

Offline

#324 2016-08-18 13:16:12

karov
Member
From: Bulgaria
Registered: 2004-06-03
Posts: 953

Re: Venus

Void wrote:

Well whoever is in charge will likely do what they want with Titan.  Maybe what you want.

Void,

Yeah, you're right.
Most probably will be a form of global Titanian authority, and because people tend to start loving their 'home nature', it is highly probable that almost all of it shall be retained as it is.

Offline

#325 2016-08-19 11:36:05

Antius
Member
From: Cumbria, UK
Registered: 2007-05-22
Posts: 1,003

Re: Venus

Void wrote:

I think Venus and Titan are the two best candidates for experimentation (While wishing for Mars).

It seems to me that Methane is at a tipping point on Titan, just a little more energy could start a greenhouse effect warming the moon further.  It would be nice if the smog could be converted as raw material into floating "H.W.M." components, that would get rid of the anti-greenhouse effect that the smog induces.  If the ground conditions could reach those of Antarctica, outside work would be a reasonable action by humans, provided they had protective cold gear and breathing apparatus.

From there, if I were doing it I would build an enormous Taurus on stilts, which would partially float in the atmosphere, and would circle the moon Titan.  And that would likely be a reasonably stable setup for some time as it would take a long time for the elevated temperatures on the surface to exhibit effects deep down, below the surface.

But of course life has to be searched for first, and absolutely some kind of fantastic space propulsion has to be created.

I do think that Titan may be a good place to first try to use vacuum bubbles.  Thick atmosphere, low gravity.

The methane lakes of Titan would be the heat sink par excellence.  Ultimately what will limit human habitation in this universe is our ability to dump heat.  On airless bodies, the only way we can lose waste heat is by radiating it into space.  This limits the power density and ultimately the population density of human settlements.  If you are dumping heat at 300K, then your radiator can only dump 400W/m2 even if the background temperature is close to absolute zero.  It also means that your nuclear reactors have to rely on big cumbersome radiators or work at very high temperatures.  That is one of the reasons why any big nuclear power plants built on Mars will probably be located at the polar caps, where sublimation can be used to dump heat.  On Titan it is much easier, just pump that liquid methane through a heat exchanger and you can dump heat by boiling it at cryogenic temperatures.  A much more efficient means of cooling.  On icy bodies like Ganymede, cooling could be provided simply by melting or subliming the surface ices.  Losing the methane lakes of Titan or Martian polar caps to terraforming could turn out to be an economic disaster.

Last edited by Antius (2016-08-19 11:37:37)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB