Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 155
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    In the extremophiles thread Rater202 wrote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
    I mean, we woulnd't know till we tried, but if we're gonna terraform something it'd be best to do Mars becuase it's relatively similar to Earth, more or less, just with less liquid water and oxygen and a lot colder.

    There are certain lichens that might be able to handle mars, but honestly tossing those about in various parts of the martian surface would be more of an investment than a...

    Like, I imagine that colonies would be very tight-run ship and stuff with contained buildings and eventually domes. spreading lichens and stuff to photosynthesize is much more a case of "leave this alone to see if it does anything and then maybe in a couple hundred years it will have spread enough that there will be breathable levels of oxygen in the atmosphere."

    I imagine that colonies on venus are a pipedream.

    ...

    But mars colonization is perhaps a topic for another thread.
    It's relatively easy to block sunlight from a planet, we'll probably do it here within a century, because it will be cheaper than stopping polluting, personally I'm very much in favour of stopping polluting, but I don't think it's going to happen.

    Once that's a known technique, applying it to Venus will be relatively trivial. Without the excessive temperature Venus is a much more attractive proposition than Mars is, there is an atmosphere that plants will love. Lack of water may be a thing but there are comets, and most of Earths water is not that useful, not that exporting it would make sense.
    Last edited by halfeye; 2021-02-03 at 02:47 PM.
    The end of what Son? The story? There is no end. There's just the point where the storytellers stop talking.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Moon.

    Unless you have a way to add planetary mass, the amount of atmosphere is just as important as the composition of the atmosphere, and if we're out of luck anyway on that front, may as well try closer to home.
    Spoiler: Avatar by always-awesome Cuthalion
    Show
    Spoiler: Come down with fire
    Show
    Spoiler: Lift my spirit higher
    Show
    Spoiler: Someone's screaming my name
    Show
    If anyone has a crayon drawing they would like to put on the Kickstarter Reward Collection Thread, PM me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rrmcklin View Post
    "Other people also have it bad" is not a good argument for the status quo. It's just an argument that more people need help.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Moon.

    Unless you have a way to add planetary mass, the amount of atmosphere is just as important as the composition of the atmosphere, and if we're out of luck anyway on that front, may as well try closer to home.
    Oh yeah, Moon first for me (though I don't think terraforming is a go at this point), I'm just saying after that, for me it's Venus.
    The end of what Son? The story? There is no end. There's just the point where the storytellers stop talking.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by halfeye View Post
    It's relatively easy to block sunlight from a planet
    It is? How would you go about it, then? I don't think adding stuff into the atmosphere of Venus is going to be productive--the existing clouds already block something like 95% of solar radiation from reaching the ground, the reason it's so ruddy hot is because they block even more of the heat from leaving again. Putting something in between Venus and the Sun to block the sunlight seems like it would be a massive undertaking, because the object would have to be at least as big as the planet to provide a sufficiently large shadow and would also need to be able to manoeuvre to keep it in direct line between planet and star.

    No, I agree with Rater on this--Mars is a far more tempting target for terraforming, because *adding* atmosphere is a lot easier than taking it away. Crash a few ice asteroids onto Mars to provide the source material and you're golden.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tail of the Bellcurve
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    I don't really get the point of terraforming another planet. The expenses are catastrophic, the number of people's lives improved is few to none, and the timescales are way beyond anything we have any reason to think human planning can operate at. I mean hell, we as a species are at best barely capable of not messing up the climate of the planet we live on within the next century because doing so would be somewhat more expensive right now. This does not fill me with confidence that plans with runtimes in the hundreds to thousands of years are remotely in our capacity.

    It seems like a solution in search of a problem, except the solution itself is a giant nest of incredibly hard problems.
    Blood-red were his spurs i' the golden noon; wine-red was his velvet coat,
    When they shot him down on the highway,
    Down like a dog on the highway,
    And he lay in his blood on the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.


    Alfred Noyes, The Highwayman, 1906.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by factotum View Post
    It is? How would you go about it, then? I don't think adding stuff into the atmosphere of Venus is going to be productive--the existing clouds already block something like 95% of solar radiation from reaching the ground, the reason it's so ruddy hot is because they block even more of the heat from leaving again. Putting something in between Venus and the Sun to block the sunlight seems like it would be a massive undertaking, because the object would have to be at least as big as the planet to provide a sufficiently large shadow and would also need to be able to manoeuvre to keep it in direct line between planet and star.
    Not in the atmosphere. The object has to be big in at least two dimensions, but that doesn't mean it has to be big in the third, so it doesn't need to be massive. What I'm thinking of is a solar sail, more or less a parachute. There is a Lagrange point in between any planet and the sun, fly about around that and you are where you need to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by warty goblin View Post
    I don't really get the point of terraforming another planet. The expenses are catastrophic, the number of people's lives improved is few to none, and the timescales are way beyond anything we have any reason to think human planning can operate at. I mean hell, we as a species are at best barely capable of not messing up the climate of the planet we live on within the next century because doing so would be somewhat more expensive right now. This does not fill me with confidence that plans with runtimes in the hundreds to thousands of years are remotely in our capacity.

    It seems like a solution in search of a problem, except the solution itself is a giant nest of incredibly hard problems.
    I think on the whole I agree, once we are up, there's not that much reason to come down again. However, if we are going to do it, then I think Venus is better than Mars.
    Last edited by halfeye; 2021-02-03 at 03:51 PM.
    The end of what Son? The story? There is no end. There's just the point where the storytellers stop talking.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Mine answer is a bit of a smartass answer, but also deals with the more fundamental question: It's neither.

    The only way for humans to permanently live anywhere that isn't Earth is rotating space stations.

    Mars and the Moon have very weak gravity that would cause severe long term health issues in adults, and no halfway ethical researchers would even contemplate the effects on developing children. The Moon will have to play a very important role as an industrial site, but neither place will be able to support a long-term population because of the gravity issue.
    Theoretically, floating cities high in the atmosphere of Venus are thinkable, but since the atmosphere is not breathable, they still would have to be fully sealed. Simply putting them in space would be much easier. There are no practical benefits to make a space station hover in the atmosphere of Venus, except as a research post to study the atmosphere of Venus.

    To make Venus anything that could be tolerable by humans would require removing over 90% of its atmosphere. I don't see any way how that could ever be accomplished.

    If people really have to insist to live in a place that isn't Earth, space stations are better to planetary colonies in every way. You'd need all the same equipment that you'd need on another planet, but if you leave the thing in space instead of setting it down on a surface, you get a lot of benefits.

    Planetary colonization has stopped being science fiction many decades ago. Now it is simply a nostalgic fantasy.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Beneath the Leaves of Kaendor - Writing Sword & Sorcery
    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    The upper atmosphere of Venus is not too hot and not too acidic so a "cloud city" could potentially work. The effort of terraforming Venus is astronomic beyond astronomic. A solar blocker may reduce the sunlight but that just makes it colder, not more habitable. Life needs sunlight to do the photosynthesis that we all depend on. Same is true for Earth. Continue to pollute and the pollutants build up indefinitely, space solar panels or not it inevitably lead to total ecological collapse along with total the end of civilization.

    Some stragglers will remain though, humans are tough.
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    The upper atmosphere of Venus is not too hot and not too acidic so a "cloud city" could potentially work. The effort of terraforming Venus is astronomic beyond astronomic. A solar blocker may reduce the sunlight but that just makes it colder, not more habitable. Life needs sunlight to do the photosynthesis that we all depend on. Same is true for Earth. Continue to pollute and the pollutants build up indefinitely, space solar panels or not it inevitably lead to total ecological collapse along with total the end of civilization.

    Some stragglers will remain though, humans are tough.
    Rats and cockroaches are tougher. Keeping them out of space will be tricky, on Earth they will just win, if it all goes bad.
    The end of what Son? The story? There is no end. There's just the point where the storytellers stop talking.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by halfeye View Post
    Rats and cockroaches are tougher. Keeping them out of space will be tricky, on Earth they will just win, if it all goes bad.
    The distant future will just be rats, crocodiles and cockroaches fighting for control of a dying Earth under a sullen red sun. And a sea full of benthic animals that don't notice anything changing haha.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    For colonisation, Mars. For terraforming, Venus, for one simple reason; you need to. It would be perfectly possible to exploit the resources of Mars without a large scale terraforming effort, so why would we? At some point it may become worthwhile to spend the millennia or more required to terraform Venus (even if you remove all solar heating the ground will take an absurdly long time to cool, and even with artificial assistance weathering is going to take a long time to reabsorb all that CO2), but it is way off even being seriously considered. Sure you can do a cloud city, but why would you? You are severely restricted on what elements you have access to, particularly hydrogen. That makes getting off it again nearly impossible. A major consideration is that any colony will be highly dependent on Earth for a very long time, so needs to have something worth trading. I don't see what that is for Venus until the surface is accessible. Even then, the cost of getting it back from Venus will be prohibitive due to the high gravity and scarcity of hydrogen. Exploitation of Venus needs multiple game changing technologies to be viable.

    I'm getting more convinced by a the viability of a Martian colony, mostly because it once had running water. That means gold deposits should exist that can give investors some return fairly quickly. Asteroids can have as much mineral wealth, but if it is not concentrated then retrieving it will be harder. Additionally an asteroid expedition will probably need almost everything taken with you, while Mars has carbon and nitrogen in abundance, while hydrogen is accessible with some effort. A Martian colony can expand rapidly on it's own, unlike most other places. It then works as a better base for further exploration, having less of a gravity well to escape.

    An alternative worth considering (if you can deal with the radiation levels) is a Jovian colony system. Near the sun you are stuck with either being at the bottom of a giant gravity well, or no hydrogen (or both in the case of Venus). Further out you are typically energy starved. Io is the exception though. Instead of getting energy from the sun, it has massive energy availability because of tidal forces on it, while being close enough to Europa for volatiles to be available relatively easily. The volcanism on Io also probably drives significant fractionalisation of minerals, potentially making exploitation easier than on most moons (though not anywhere that had had running liquid at some point). You would probably still need some nuclear energy on Europa to split water into rocket fuel, but most of the industry can take place on Io. Fancy moving to Hell?

    The Saturn system offers Titan, which has potential. It has good light element access, and good energy availability from strong prevailing winds. Very easy to escape as well, because we can already build jet engines capable of getting within touching distance of orbital speeds there. Fans of space planes should go here first. Lack of metal or rock might prove a problem though, unless you can build everything out of plastic. Life will struggle without additional nutrients. I couldn't find any information on whether there is any exposed rock or not, but I would guess not.

    The ice giants might prove extremely useful if we really need helium. Nuclear powered aircraft bases that supply craft that use nuclear hydrogen engines to escape are probably the easiest* source of helium in the solar system, requiring nothing radical to work. A base on a moon of Uranus for managing the operation is the first option that really offers something that not even earth can offer. Like Saturn, it would need heavily artificially supported, but helium is one of the few elements that has no substitute. It may be justified.

    * It isn't easy by any stretch, particularly docking a vehicle able to enter from orbit to another vehicle optimised for slow flight in an atmosphere. You almost certainly want the base to be a fixed wing aircraft from a reliability standpoint (though a hot air balloon might be doable), so it will probably be moving. I guess you could do a rocket hover with a hook setup. To make matters worse, even with nuclear hydrogen engines the escape system probably needs to be multi staged, so you will need to re-catch the booster every launch too!

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Rooster View Post
    That means gold deposits should exist that can give investors some return fairly quickly.
    Gold is not valuable enough to pay for the rocket fuel to get off Earth to go find it. Diamonds wouldn't be either, rocket fuel is really expensive. We're not going to find anything in space that's worth bringing back to Earth. What is worth having is the room. We can expand forever (or almost) out there.
    The end of what Son? The story? There is no end. There's just the point where the storytellers stop talking.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by halfeye View Post
    Gold is not valuable enough to pay for the rocket fuel to get off Earth to go find it. Diamonds wouldn't be either, rocket fuel is really expensive. We're not going to find anything in space that's worth bringing back to Earth. What is worth having is the room. We can expand forever (or almost) out there.
    Not exactly.

    First rocket fuel is not necessarily expensive, it's rocket propellant that's the problem. Fuel powers the rocket, propellant gets thrown out the back as reaction mass to actually make it move. In a chemical rocket these are the same thing, but in essentially all other forms of rocketry they are separate. Nuclear fuel is in fact quite compact, durable, and potentially inexpensive under the right production conditions (variations on different forms of nuclear fuel and its production gets complicated).

    Propellant is energetically expensive to haul around due to the tyranny of the rocket equation, but there are ways around this, particularly the utilization of in situ resources. In the case of asteroid mining, for instance, most asteroids have a fairly high water content and water - once accelerated by nuclear reactors - makes a fine propellant, so you can potentially construct engines on the asteroid using the asteroid itself to launch material back to wherever you want it to go.

    Consequently there are conditions under which asteroid mining for certain resources does become economically viable, but they depend heavily on the specific constraints and the presence or absence of attendant technologies like space elevators.

    More generally room, in terms of physical space, is probably not necessary. Even leaving aside the possibility of uploaded human existence, the need for space is driven by population growth. While the human population is currently engaged in rapid expansion, the growth rate has been falling since the late 1960s and is in active decline in almost all post demographic transition countries (at least in terms of native births, several nations, such as Canada, continued to experience population growth driven primarily by immigration). Even in a high estimate growth scenario, where the currently population of Earth doubles by some point in the 2100s, physical space would not be the strained resource (food and fresh water probably would be, but going into space doesn't alleviate those issues).

    The real reason for space colonization is based on risk mitigation and extremely long-term habitability projections. the first is centered around the idea that as long as humans are stuck on one planet we remain vulnerable to an extinction level event wiping out the entire species. Settlement of even a small number of other locations would mitigate some of these threats - such as asteroid strike or lethal pandemic - though some of the really big ones require colonizing other solar systems (supernovae, gamma rays bursts etc.). The second is based on the by now fairly well established understanding that ongoing changes in solar luminosity will render the Earth uninhabitable in about a billion years when the oceans boil away. That's awfully far down the road though an honestly not something I feel needs be worried about for the present epoch.
    Resvier: a P6 homebrew setting

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    Mine answer is a bit of a smartass answer, but also deals with the more fundamental question: It's neither.

    The only way for humans to permanently live anywhere that isn't Earth is rotating space stations.

    Mars and the Moon have very weak gravity that would cause severe long term health issues in adults, and no halfway ethical researchers would even contemplate the effects on developing children. The Moon will have to play a very important role as an industrial site, but neither place will be able to support a long-term population because of the gravity issue.
    Theoretically, floating cities high in the atmosphere of Venus are thinkable, but since the atmosphere is not breathable, they still would have to be fully sealed. Simply putting them in space would be much easier. There are no practical benefits to make a space station hover in the atmosphere of Venus, except as a research post to study the atmosphere of Venus.

    To make Venus anything that could be tolerable by humans would require removing over 90% of its atmosphere. I don't see any way how that could ever be accomplished.

    If people really have to insist to live in a place that isn't Earth, space stations are better to planetary colonies in every way. You'd need all the same equipment that you'd need on another planet, but if you leave the thing in space instead of setting it down on a surface, you get a lot of benefits.

    Planetary colonization has stopped being science fiction many decades ago. Now it is simply a nostalgic fantasy.
    Yeah.

    Putting a colony on Mars seems pretty reasonable, as long as it's small enough to not bankrupt its supporters.

    A wonderfully hilarious thing might be that we end up with practical, sustainable space habitats specifically because we need something profitable and productive to support some random madman's Mars colony.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Bohandas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    How about the moon. We haven't even colobized the moon yet. Let's do that before jumping straight to Mars.
    Omegaupdate Forum

    WoTC Forums Archive + Indexing Projext

    PostImage, a free and sensible alternative to Photobucket

    Temple+ Modding Project for Atari's Temple of Elemental Evil

    Morrus' RPG Forum (EN World v2)

    If we shadows have offended, think but this, and all is mended. That you have but slumbered here, while these visions did appear, and this weak and idle theme, no more yielding but a dream. -Midsummer Night's Dream, Act 5, Scene 1

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Bohandas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by halfeye View Post
    Gold is not valuable enough to pay for the rocket fuel to get off Earth to go find it. Diamonds wouldn't be either, rocket fuel is really expensive. We're not going to find anything in space that's worth bringing back to Earth. What is worth having is the room. We can expand forever (or almost) out there.
    Luckily you woukdn't have to get off Earth, you'd just have to get off Mars, which has lighter gravity. You could drop it off without landing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    Mine answer is a bit of a smartass answer, but also deals with the more fundamental question: It's neither.

    The only way for humans to permanently live anywhere that isn't Earth is rotating space stations.

    Mars and the Moon have very weak gravity that would cause severe long term health issues in adults, and no halfway ethical researchers would even contemplate the effects on developing children. The Moon will have to play a very important role as an industrial site, but neither place will be able to support a long-term population because of the gravity issue.
    Theoretically, floating cities high in the atmosphere of Venus are thinkable, but since the atmosphere is not breathable, they still would have to be fully sealed. Simply putting them in space would be much easier. There are no practical benefits to make a space station hover in the atmosphere of Venus, except as a research post to study the atmosphere of Venus.

    To make Venus anything that could be tolerable by humans would require removing over 90% of its atmosphere. I don't see any way how that could ever be accomplished.

    If people really have to insist to live in a place that isn't Earth, space stations are better to planetary colonies in every way. You'd need all the same equipment that you'd need on another planet, but if you leave the thing in space instead of setting it down on a surface, you get a lot of benefits.

    Planetary colonization has stopped being science fiction many decades ago. Now it is simply a nostalgic fantasy.
    Anybody who's willing to live in a space station isn't going to leave Earth in the first place. They're gonna stay on earth and build more and more cramped cities (or maybe live in submarines).

    And where do you intend to get the resources to build and maintain these space stations anyway? You can't mine anything on a space station. You're either gonna have to get the resources from a planet, or you're going to have to go to the asteroid belt, which is basically made out of Kessler syndrome
    Last edited by Bohandas; 2021-02-04 at 01:29 AM.
    Omegaupdate Forum

    WoTC Forums Archive + Indexing Projext

    PostImage, a free and sensible alternative to Photobucket

    Temple+ Modding Project for Atari's Temple of Elemental Evil

    Morrus' RPG Forum (EN World v2)

    If we shadows have offended, think but this, and all is mended. That you have but slumbered here, while these visions did appear, and this weak and idle theme, no more yielding but a dream. -Midsummer Night's Dream, Act 5, Scene 1

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by halfeye View Post
    Rats and cockroaches are tougher. Keeping them out of space will be tricky, on Earth they will just win, if it all goes bad.
    The answer is space cats.

    Spoiler
    Show



    They protect against all manner of pest.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bohandas View Post
    Anybody who's willing to live in a space station isn't going to leave Earth in the first place. They're gonna stay on earth and build more and more cramped cities (or maybe live in submarines).
    I'd live in an orbital habitat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohandas View Post
    And where do you intend to get the resources to build and maintain these space stations anyway? You can't mine anything on a space station. You're either gonna have to get the resources from a planet, or you're going to have to go to the asteroid belt, which is basically made out of Kessler syndrome
    Build them on the moon.

    Then get a big old net and go Kessler fishing.

    This works on Earth satellite debris and planetary rings and asteroid belts.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    Then get a big old net and go Kessler fishing.

    This works on Earth satellite debris and planetary rings and asteroid belts.
    Wouldn't it be safer just to find a couple of asteroids and mine, smelt and build the stuff we need from them rather than create a Kessler Syndrome machine?
    Black text is for sarcasm, also sincerity. You'll just have to read between the lines and infer from context like an animal

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    Wouldn't it be safer just to find a couple of asteroids and mine, smelt and build the stuff we need from them rather than create a Kessler Syndrome machine?
    Who talked about creating a Kessler Syndrome machine?

    The poster I quoted seems to think the asteroid belt is already like that.

    If you disagree with him, quote him (not me).

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    It would be Mars before Venus, because we are much closer to building space stations on Mars then on Venus, and the hold on Mars would gradually increase (If humanity would ever colonize space).

    Quote Originally Posted by halfeye View Post
    It's relatively easy to block sunlight from a planet, we'll probably do it here within a century, because it will be cheaper than stopping polluting, personally I'm very much in favour of stopping polluting, but I don't think it's going to happen.
    It is much cheaper to just have a house with good air conditioners, or moving to a different city. Even from country leaders perspective it is easier to improve current infrastructure, and even more easy to just ignore the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mechalich View Post
    More generally room, in terms of physical space, is probably not necessary. Even leaving aside the possibility of uploaded human existence, the need for space is driven by population growth. While the human population is currently engaged in rapid expansion, the growth rate has been falling since the late 1960s and is in active decline in almost all post demographic transition countries (at least in terms of native births, several nations, such as Canada, continued to experience population growth driven primarily by immigration). Even in a high estimate growth scenario, where the currently population of Earth doubles by some point in the 2100s, physical space would not be the strained resource (food and fresh water probably would be, but going into space doesn't alleviate those issues).
    I don't think population growth would slow down greatly in the long term; some religions and cultures have a strong emphasis on procreation, so they'll just be a bigger percent of the population. Some leave those groups, but I don't think that would compensate for their growth rate.
    Last edited by akma; 2021-02-04 at 07:17 AM.
    A world behind the mirror (stand alone plane)
    (Wall) passer, a rogue variant
    My not realy extanded homebrewer signature

    Quote Originally Posted by Grinner View Post
    In a world ruled by small birds, mankind cannot help but wonder how this state of affairs came about.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Eldan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Two birds one stone: hollow out asteroids, pressurize, use as habitats. REfine asteroid material to build more structures. Use water asteroids to create oxygen and rocket fuel.
    "Après la vie - le mort, après le mort, la vie de noveau.
    Après le monde - le gris; après le gris - le monde de nouveau.
    "

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by halfeye View Post
    Gold is not valuable enough to pay for the rocket fuel to get off Earth to go find it. Diamonds wouldn't be either, rocket fuel is really expensive. We're not going to find anything in space that's worth bringing back to Earth. What is worth having is the room. We can expand forever (or almost) out there.
    I don't know who is selling you rocket fuel, but they are ripping you off! Elon Musk is on the record saying that the most expensive consumable on a falcon 9 is the helium used to back fill the tanks, and I would guess followed by the igniter fluid. Hydrogen can get expensive because it is such a pain to condense, but you don't have to put anything expensive through a rocket. Rocket fuels can get expensive because rockets are typically used in areas where expense is worth it. If a missile costs $100,000 already, paying $10,000 for propellant that gets 10% more performance than the $10 one makes sense.

    The expensive bit of a launch is the disposable rocket, not inherent to the propellant. Most of the propellant is extracted cheaply from air! We would need to be able to bring back ~1/25000th of the mass of gold to pay for methane, and if we get to the point that that is the most expensive part of a launch then we are down to at least 12500kg of methane invested for each single kg of gold return. That is doable on Mars, particularly if the return equipment can be fabricated there.

    Some asteroids do have water, but it is quite rare inside the snow line. Enough for people to a point, but not really enough to harvest propellant usefully. For wet asteroids you really are talking about trojans. At that point you might as well be in the Jovian vicinity, as it has everything. Being able to slingshot around Jupiter even makes getting things home easier. Also, how do you mine in micro gravity? Materials do not naturally collect on a surface. You cannot vacuum materials you break off up. Applying pressure with tools will make you just float away (requiring propellant), and getting an anchor requires is the same problem smaller. Things we take for granted here do not apply when harvesting asteroids. In contrast, Mars has everything earth has (and no oxygen, making welding easier!), just less of it. Mars would not require new techniques like asteroids do.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jan 2019

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohandas View Post
    Anybody who's willing to live in a space station isn't going to leave Earth in the first place. They're gonna stay on earth and build more and more cramped cities (or maybe live in submarines).
    There is precedent for it on earth in the highland clearances. At some point many people are not going to be able to afford to stay on earth (if we put appropriate value on our jewel of a planet), and it will be more economic to ship them off somewhere. They will have little choice in the matter. Once an alternative exists to staying here people will be forced out. Not a pleasant thought, but I think it will happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohandas View Post
    How about the moon. We haven't even colobized the moon yet. Let's do that before jumping straight to Mars.
    No carbon on the moon, or nitrogen. That means that it's growth will always be dependent on imports. A lunar outpost will be a major stepping stone and tech proving ground for a Martian colony, but it will always be an outpost, rather than a true colony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastikator View Post
    Wouldn't it be safer just to find a couple of asteroids and mine, smelt and build the stuff we need from them rather than create a Kessler Syndrome machine?
    Getting between asteroids is hard. Without a planet to abuse the Oberth effect of you are talking about solar orbital speeds in regards to the delta-v requirements, and those make getting off earth look easy. Being able to use ion thrusters helps, but energy requirements to move any sort of bulk get prohibitive, especially if you are out beyond the snow line where solar power is weak.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    warmachine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Reading, England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Mars. Things can survive the lack of melting surface temperature and lack of crushing atmospheric pressure. Plus you get to see the Sun, rather than some depressing twilight. That doesn't apply for floating cities above the clouds for Venus but the view would be nothing but white cloud.
    Matthew Greet
    My purpose in life is to play games.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Rooster View Post
    No carbon on the moon, or nitrogen. That means that it's growth will always be dependent on imports. A lunar outpost will be a major stepping stone and tech proving ground for a Martian colony, but it will always be an outpost, rather than a true colony.
    Psh. There's gobloads of oxygen, which means we can just strip off some protons and make our own carbon and nitrogen. The Sovereign Moon ruled by the Great dragon Peelee says "hi."
    Spoiler: Avatar by always-awesome Cuthalion
    Show
    Spoiler: Come down with fire
    Show
    Spoiler: Lift my spirit higher
    Show
    Spoiler: Someone's screaming my name
    Show
    If anyone has a crayon drawing they would like to put on the Kickstarter Reward Collection Thread, PM me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rrmcklin View Post
    "Other people also have it bad" is not a good argument for the status quo. It's just an argument that more people need help.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2016

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Rooster View Post
    At some point many people are not going to be able to afford to stay on earth (if we put appropriate value on our jewel of a planet), and it will be more economic to ship them off somewhere.
    Don't be ridiculous; even if we're just talking about 0.1% annual population growth that's still upwards of 7 million people to ship off planet every year at present-day population numbers, and if the planetary population keeps growing that's only going to go up. If being able to afford to live on Earth becomes a problem, we'll "solve" it the way humans have always "solved" such things: poverty, homelessness, social unrest, crime, and perhaps war, revolution, and societal collapse.

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Bohandas's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    There's also the enormous ecological appeal of moving everyone off of Earth to consider

    Omegaupdate Forum

    WoTC Forums Archive + Indexing Projext

    PostImage, a free and sensible alternative to Photobucket

    Temple+ Modding Project for Atari's Temple of Elemental Evil

    Morrus' RPG Forum (EN World v2)

    If we shadows have offended, think but this, and all is mended. That you have but slumbered here, while these visions did appear, and this weak and idle theme, no more yielding but a dream. -Midsummer Night's Dream, Act 5, Scene 1

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lord Torath's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sharangar's Revenge
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    In semi-related news:

    Happy Martian New Year!
    Warhammer 40,000 Campaign Skirmish Game: Warpstrike
    My Spelljammer stuff (including an orbit tracker), 2E AD&D spreadsheet, and Vault of the Drow maps are available in my Dropbox. Feel free to use or not use it as you see fit!
    Thri-Kreen Ranger/Psionicist by me, based off of Rich's A Monster for Every Season

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Librarian in the Playground Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    This conversation has me playing TerraGenesis again. Gonna beat Mars, then try to beat Venus, both as the Gaians.
    The Cranky Gamer
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
    *Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
    *Two Tales of Tellene, available from DriveThruFiction
    *The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
    Avatar is from local user Mehangel
    Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
    If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bristol, UK

    Default Re: Venus or Mars for terraforming and colonisation?

    Quote Originally Posted by akma View Post
    It is much cheaper to just have a house with good air conditioners, or moving to a different city. Even from country leaders perspective it is easier to improve current infrastructure, and even more easy to just ignore the issue.
    Some major cities (London, New York, Chicago, Venice, Rome, Rio etc.) are due to go under, that's got to be billions or maybe even trillions of pounds or dollars of property flooded (skyscraper offices rather than housing, though the housing will flood too). I think people will start looking at spending millions before that happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Rooster View Post
    The expensive bit of a launch is the disposable rocket, not inherent to the propellant. Most of the propellant is extracted cheaply from air! We would need to be able to bring back ~1/25000th of the mass of gold to pay for methane, and if we get to the point that that is the most expensive part of a launch then we are down to at least 12500kg of methane invested for each single kg of gold return. That is doable on Mars, particularly if the return equipment can be fabricated there.
    Vetinari was right when he implied that everyone having tons of gold wouldn't mean everyone would be rich. It's pretty, and its resistance to corrosion is useful, but the main cause of its value is its rarity, the more you bring to Earth, the lower its value will fall, the same applies to anything which is mainly valued for rarity.
    Last edited by halfeye; 2021-02-09 at 01:12 PM.
    The end of what Son? The story? There is no end. There's just the point where the storytellers stop talking.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •