It would be a colony constantly depending on Earth supplies and you would be constantly rebuilding it. Just like every other planet, nothing can permanently survive in upper atmosphere. It would be easier to have a massive ISS-style station in orbit, with a tethered cable elevator for research.
At 50 km altitude above Venus (where pressure is about 1 bar) you are not really in the "upper atmosphere" as there is still about as much atmosphere above you as on ground level on Earth. So UV radiation is not a problem.
The atmosphere of Venus is just very thick. Also it contains many useful elements, C, O and H, which can be used to build basically anything if you have enough solar energy. The problem is the (comparatively small) amounts of other elements.
From the point of view of exploitable resources, Venus is the opposite of Mars.
On Mars, metals are very abundant and easy to extract, and also minerals suitable for making glass or ceramic materials are abundant, but the raw materials for making food and organic materials, like plastics, are very scarce and expensive to concentrate.
On Venus, there are abundant resources for making organic materials and food (except for a few metallic bioelements required in small quantities, i.e. Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu, Mo, Co), but there are no resources for making metallic, vitreous or ceramic materials.
However, the materials that are missing on Venus are easier to transport from elsewhere, because they are required in smaller quantities and they are dense solids that occupy little volume. If not enough water would be found underground on Mars, that would be really difficult to transport from elsewhere.
> If not enough water would be found underground on Mars, that would be really difficult to transport from elsewhere.
I was under the (uneducated) impression that there was a fair amount of water ice locked up in asteroids that are fairly easy to redirect into a Mars capture orbit.
> would be a colony constantly depending on Earth supplies and you would be constantly rebuilding it
To be fair, this is true for all planets with known science and engineering. I'm not sure it's obvious that Venus (with its higher pressure and better radiation shielding) has fewer fundamental problems than Mars (with its surface that doesn't melt metal).
Untrue. You can actually mine the Venusian surface for metals. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen (the vast majority of the elements used by life) can be extracted from the atmosphere, as well as sulfur. So from an elemental standpoint, it actually could be self-sufficient. Not that you’d WANT to avoid trade with other planets, but it is possible.
It is also possible to terraform Venus, although much more difficult than for Mars.
Yes, but! It's very hard. But you are a million percent right that the Venusian surface has lots of fantastic metals, largely tied up in basalt and volcanic ash. The bad news to my understanding is that they're kind of pulverized and evenly spread out and requires lots of refining/processing, and not necessarily so much in the way of veins/ore deposits ripe for harvesting (though I could be mistaken).
But back to how hard it is. There's mid-atmosphere winds that are effectively persistent hurricanes. It's hotter than a pizza oven, and the thick co2 air might as well be an ocean, because it has that much crushing force.
In my opinion, people should get excited about the thick atmosphere, because it's also the secret superpower that unlocks all the near term possibilities. Floating in the upper atmosphere is more like being a ship in an ocean, and if we ever got materials strong enough (graphite-carbon composites?) we could do some really cool passive dragnet + air balloon lift kinds of things to recover surface resources and lift them to a hypothetical settlement.
The one need-to-have resource that, as far as I know, there's none of on Venus whatsoever, is iodine. So even in the best case you'd have to import that. Oh, and water. You can get some out of the sulfuric acid rain but probably not as much as you want.
Granted, these are all assuming technology advances and big time scales, but trying to practice a golden rule here and be as charitable to the exercise as possible and not bean soup the discussion to death, which is a pet peeve of mine.
> It is also possible to terraform Venus, although much more difficult than for Mars.
We are facing an existential crisis in the form of climate warming on Earth that we are unable to address properly. The thing is, terraforming Earth is the easiest thing to do: we already live on it, it's already liveable. Mars, Venus or any other body in the solar system is magnitudes harder to transform on almost every aspect.
So unless humanity demonstrates it can tackle the easiest terraforming endeavour that be, anything else is firmly in the science fiction realm.
Geoengineering of Earth is remarkably easy. The reason it’s not already being done is political, not technical or even necessarily economic. For less than NASA’s budget, it’s possible to do things like stratospheric solar radiation management. See: Mount Pinatubo. Some places (Florida, etc) have already made laws prohibiting it.
As far as being science fiction… obviously? Terraforming Venus is a very long term project. It’s scientifically possible but hasn’t already been done. I guess I don’t understand what “science fiction” is supposed to mean. Like, Jules Verne writing about long distance underwater submarines? Trips to the Moon launched from Florida?
Exactly. I used to be a lifelong fan of anything space. But right now it is limited to people conducting actual science to get a better understanding of our universe. All the dick-swinging billionaires and geopolitical vanity projects of going to the Moon and Mars are utter follies. Every billion spent there, a waste of money that could be better spent. And I am not even talking about outer atmosphere ultra-rich people tourism in literal penis rockets. Utter pollution and waste. Let's wait to colonize other planets until after we get our own house in order.
I really doubt your veracity about this. It’s literally illegal for billionaires to geoengineer the Earth to stop global warming (at least in several states). Doubtless you would also object to that as well. In which case it’s not actually about solving Earth’s problems but about not liking those who are doing it.
Terraforming is so conceptual at this point that I wouldn't take a hard stance on either being easier or harder. You never know what a few generations of studies will teach us; and what misconceptions we hold dearly that our descendants will laugh at us for.
At this point we're so deep into the science fiction that it might be easier to just hop into a time machine and colonize Mars before its atmosphere boiled off.
From my experience there is a correlation between people who think science is nonsense while also believing in terraforming. I don’t think anybody can even remotely predict the outcomes of a terraforming project.
Terraforming is possible but colonizing worlds hostile to humans has always meant genetic engineering to me. We need to drop the Star Trek idea that we can explore space in the sacks of water we call bodies.
Let's take the idea further, and borrow cstross's belief that canned apes will never colonize or explore anything, and only digital uploads into mechanical bodies will be destined for space.
The issue with Venus and Mars is that there is no magnetosphere. Over geological time periods the hydrogen is slowly lost into space. All that CO2 in the atmosphere could become H20 given enough introduced hydrogen, and photosynthesis.
Yes, geologic times, so like 100 million years or more, not relevant to human life timescales. But even Venus has substantial atmosphere still, including substantial amounts of hydrogen still (with enhanced deuterium concentration due to the atmospheric loss… which could actually be worth mining for nuclear power export).
Making a magnetic field on those timescales is easy, tho, compared to the other challenges. If you cool Venus down, you can place superconducting wires around the equator to generate a magnetic field. This is much easier than the terraforming you had to do.
Venus has a lot of atmosphere but very little water, maybe 1/1,000,000 as much in the atmosphere as we have in the atmosphere + ocean.
If you are interested in hyperlarge structures you could maybe spread out a really big foil to catch hydrogen from the solar wind and react it with oxygen in one form or another to make a large ocean.
My understanding is, insofar as we're talking about protection from radiation, Venus compensates for its lack of a magnetosphere with incredibly thick atmospheric cover that does the same work, in fact does it better than here on Earth. That's not to say we would say no to a magnetosphere if such a thing could ever be achievable.
Every time I read about colonizing another planet, I think about how we correctly don't want to colonize the bottom of the ocean or the Sahara desert because it would be completely uneconomical, and yet either would be much easier than this.
It would be akin to a city floating on Earth's open ocean. With all food, household items etc, and even construction materials produced via extraction from the surrounding ocean.
For Earthlings, the open ocean is harder to survive on long-term than deserts like the Sahara. Maybe on par with living off the land on Antarctic. Never mind all that corrosive stuff in Venus' atmosphere.
Doable in theory, yes. But HARD (and then some). That's ignoring the economics of such an enterprise.
On the upside: still easier than interstellar travel.
I think atmospheric extraction is very important and valuable but we'd be missing heavy metals and some critical elements. You do have carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, a little bit of hydrogen, a little bit of chlorine and flourine, and you can do a lot with those. Not as much hydrogen as you would want or need.
But potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, silica, iron oxides, nickel, titanium etc. are available on the surface.
> It would be akin to a city floating on Earth's open ocean. With all food, household items etc, and even construction materials produced via extraction from the surrounding ocean.
Akin in some senses, but let's not omit that another planet would be far, far more difficult. Humans do live on boats and islands in oceans; we can breathe the air, drink the water (if desalinated), eat the fish, swim, build boats from resources, etc.
That and we'd soon do the same things to a new planet that we're doing to this planet. The more time humanity has to mature from a cooperation-over-conflict perspective (both with each other and other beings/the environment) before it starts spreading to other planets, the better.
I agree. And how all of our meager steps towards trying to learn the pre-requisites of sustainable colonies (eg. closed cycle ecology) have failed miserably. For example Biosphere program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 ).
And the only working ecological system we can study is being destroyed by humanity and capital on record pace.
Biosphere 2 had the problem, not least, that it didn't have enough of an atmosphere to buffer swings of CO2 concentration between day and night. It's like "what did they think would happen?"
Yeah, and the fact that no one is doing "practice runs" on them is telling how serious any colonization effort really is. Zero chance of a successful mars city if we can't even colonize the trivial in comparison ocean.
I still think humanity's far future is in orbitals in space, not on planets and certainly not on planets as hostile as Venus is. I'm not sure how well living at 50km above the surface would work. You still need a lot of buoyance to float large structures.
The atmosphere is also a solvable problem. One idea I've heard is using so-called "fusion candles". That is a fusion-powered device in the atmosphere that sends waste gas into space and waste matter to the ground in an equilibrium that keeps them airborne, all powered by fusion. You could extract carbon and/or oxygen this way from the plentiful atmospheric CO2.
Still, if you ever got the atmosphere down to a non-hellish level at surface, the surface would still be covered with all sorts of exotics and metals, many of them toxic. You'd probably be looking at geologic timescales to rehabilitate it.
But whenever these terraforming questions come up (often with respect to Mars), people really don't appreciate the scale and the energy budget required. The energy budget is many orders of magntidue what our civilization currently uses. If you have access to that much energy, there are far better options.
space colonization, even if there were habitable planets within our reach, is not possible anymore.
you could, for example, send a million settlers to Kepler-69420, and with the TFR of 1.5 - an unrealistically high number - the colony would be extinct in just a few centuries. 1m becomes 100k in 200 years and 10k in 400 years.
I bet the colonists would be highly (self-)selected for many traits not common in the majority of the population, likely including the willingness to have many children.
I suppose that colonists on other planets, like colonists on other Earth continents, would largely consist of people who are unhappy with the status quo at their origin, and would have some strongly-held ideas about a different way of living.
It would be a colony constantly depending on Earth supplies and you would be constantly rebuilding it. Just like every other planet, nothing can permanently survive in upper atmosphere. It would be easier to have a massive ISS-style station in orbit, with a tethered cable elevator for research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_Microorganisms_in_the...
At 50 km altitude above Venus (where pressure is about 1 bar) you are not really in the "upper atmosphere" as there is still about as much atmosphere above you as on ground level on Earth. So UV radiation is not a problem.
The atmosphere of Venus is just very thick. Also it contains many useful elements, C, O and H, which can be used to build basically anything if you have enough solar energy. The problem is the (comparatively small) amounts of other elements.
From the point of view of exploitable resources, Venus is the opposite of Mars.
On Mars, metals are very abundant and easy to extract, and also minerals suitable for making glass or ceramic materials are abundant, but the raw materials for making food and organic materials, like plastics, are very scarce and expensive to concentrate.
On Venus, there are abundant resources for making organic materials and food (except for a few metallic bioelements required in small quantities, i.e. Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu, Mo, Co), but there are no resources for making metallic, vitreous or ceramic materials.
However, the materials that are missing on Venus are easier to transport from elsewhere, because they are required in smaller quantities and they are dense solids that occupy little volume. If not enough water would be found underground on Mars, that would be really difficult to transport from elsewhere.
> If not enough water would be found underground on Mars, that would be really difficult to transport from elsewhere.
I was under the (uneducated) impression that there was a fair amount of water ice locked up in asteroids that are fairly easy to redirect into a Mars capture orbit.
"Fairly Easy" Is doing a lot of work there. Theoretically possible yes.
> would be a colony constantly depending on Earth supplies and you would be constantly rebuilding it
To be fair, this is true for all planets with known science and engineering. I'm not sure it's obvious that Venus (with its higher pressure and better radiation shielding) has fewer fundamental problems than Mars (with its surface that doesn't melt metal).
True fact, but not by much, as plans are already in-progress with Artemis V and a lunar colony.
Untrue. You can actually mine the Venusian surface for metals. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen (the vast majority of the elements used by life) can be extracted from the atmosphere, as well as sulfur. So from an elemental standpoint, it actually could be self-sufficient. Not that you’d WANT to avoid trade with other planets, but it is possible.
It is also possible to terraform Venus, although much more difficult than for Mars.
Yes, but! It's very hard. But you are a million percent right that the Venusian surface has lots of fantastic metals, largely tied up in basalt and volcanic ash. The bad news to my understanding is that they're kind of pulverized and evenly spread out and requires lots of refining/processing, and not necessarily so much in the way of veins/ore deposits ripe for harvesting (though I could be mistaken).
But back to how hard it is. There's mid-atmosphere winds that are effectively persistent hurricanes. It's hotter than a pizza oven, and the thick co2 air might as well be an ocean, because it has that much crushing force.
In my opinion, people should get excited about the thick atmosphere, because it's also the secret superpower that unlocks all the near term possibilities. Floating in the upper atmosphere is more like being a ship in an ocean, and if we ever got materials strong enough (graphite-carbon composites?) we could do some really cool passive dragnet + air balloon lift kinds of things to recover surface resources and lift them to a hypothetical settlement.
The one need-to-have resource that, as far as I know, there's none of on Venus whatsoever, is iodine. So even in the best case you'd have to import that. Oh, and water. You can get some out of the sulfuric acid rain but probably not as much as you want.
Granted, these are all assuming technology advances and big time scales, but trying to practice a golden rule here and be as charitable to the exercise as possible and not bean soup the discussion to death, which is a pet peeve of mine.
How high does the ocean-like CO2 extend? Usually the idea for a base is ~50 km altitude.
> It is also possible to terraform Venus, although much more difficult than for Mars.
We are facing an existential crisis in the form of climate warming on Earth that we are unable to address properly. The thing is, terraforming Earth is the easiest thing to do: we already live on it, it's already liveable. Mars, Venus or any other body in the solar system is magnitudes harder to transform on almost every aspect.
So unless humanity demonstrates it can tackle the easiest terraforming endeavour that be, anything else is firmly in the science fiction realm.
Geoengineering of Earth is remarkably easy. The reason it’s not already being done is political, not technical or even necessarily economic. For less than NASA’s budget, it’s possible to do things like stratospheric solar radiation management. See: Mount Pinatubo. Some places (Florida, etc) have already made laws prohibiting it.
As far as being science fiction… obviously? Terraforming Venus is a very long term project. It’s scientifically possible but hasn’t already been done. I guess I don’t understand what “science fiction” is supposed to mean. Like, Jules Verne writing about long distance underwater submarines? Trips to the Moon launched from Florida?
Exactly. I used to be a lifelong fan of anything space. But right now it is limited to people conducting actual science to get a better understanding of our universe. All the dick-swinging billionaires and geopolitical vanity projects of going to the Moon and Mars are utter follies. Every billion spent there, a waste of money that could be better spent. And I am not even talking about outer atmosphere ultra-rich people tourism in literal penis rockets. Utter pollution and waste. Let's wait to colonize other planets until after we get our own house in order.
I really doubt your veracity about this. It’s literally illegal for billionaires to geoengineer the Earth to stop global warming (at least in several states). Doubtless you would also object to that as well. In which case it’s not actually about solving Earth’s problems but about not liking those who are doing it.
But it is legal for them to fund politicians who believe greenhouse gasses should be limited. Strangely they don't do that, mostly.
> although much more difficult than
Terraforming is so conceptual at this point that I wouldn't take a hard stance on either being easier or harder. You never know what a few generations of studies will teach us; and what misconceptions we hold dearly that our descendants will laugh at us for.
At this point we're so deep into the science fiction that it might be easier to just hop into a time machine and colonize Mars before its atmosphere boiled off.
Some infinities are bigger than others.
From my experience there is a correlation between people who think science is nonsense while also believing in terraforming. I don’t think anybody can even remotely predict the outcomes of a terraforming project.
Terraforming is possible but colonizing worlds hostile to humans has always meant genetic engineering to me. We need to drop the Star Trek idea that we can explore space in the sacks of water we call bodies.
Let's take the idea further, and borrow cstross's belief that canned apes will never colonize or explore anything, and only digital uploads into mechanical bodies will be destined for space.
> It is also possible to terraform Venus
We can't even properly terraform inhospitable places within Earth.
Hell, if anything we are very quickly un-terraforming Earth into a place inhospitable to human life.
If we could send all the terraformers from earth to mars we would so solve both problems at the same time
Sounds like a plan.
What do you call Phoenix?
We would have to work really hard to make Earth as inhospitable as other planets or moons in the solar system.
But we are giving it a shot!
No shit! We are probably dead even before we can build a habitat on our own orbit.
We are failing the great filter very hard.
They are all impossible without supplies from Earth.
But wonder if a floating balloon contraption isn't more likely than a base on Mars. Which is more deadly?
Venus seems to have more potentially useful compounds in the atmosphere.
Mars is more deadly. Easily so.
Venus atmosphere has the right amounts of radiation, temperature, and pressure. And close to the right gravity.
The issue with Venus and Mars is that there is no magnetosphere. Over geological time periods the hydrogen is slowly lost into space. All that CO2 in the atmosphere could become H20 given enough introduced hydrogen, and photosynthesis.
Yes, geologic times, so like 100 million years or more, not relevant to human life timescales. But even Venus has substantial atmosphere still, including substantial amounts of hydrogen still (with enhanced deuterium concentration due to the atmospheric loss… which could actually be worth mining for nuclear power export).
Making a magnetic field on those timescales is easy, tho, compared to the other challenges. If you cool Venus down, you can place superconducting wires around the equator to generate a magnetic field. This is much easier than the terraforming you had to do.
Would it be possible to have the wires floating in space, instead of placed down on the surface?
So parallel inward orbiting solar sails?
Venus has a lot of atmosphere but very little water, maybe 1/1,000,000 as much in the atmosphere as we have in the atmosphere + ocean.
If you are interested in hyperlarge structures you could maybe spread out a really big foil to catch hydrogen from the solar wind and react it with oxygen in one form or another to make a large ocean.
My understanding is, insofar as we're talking about protection from radiation, Venus compensates for its lack of a magnetosphere with incredibly thick atmospheric cover that does the same work, in fact does it better than here on Earth. That's not to say we would say no to a magnetosphere if such a thing could ever be achievable.
Does no one read Gerard K. O'Neill anymore?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_K._O%27Neill#Space_colo...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47885739
Every time I read about colonizing another planet, I think about how we correctly don't want to colonize the bottom of the ocean or the Sahara desert because it would be completely uneconomical, and yet either would be much easier than this.
It would be akin to a city floating on Earth's open ocean. With all food, household items etc, and even construction materials produced via extraction from the surrounding ocean.
For Earthlings, the open ocean is harder to survive on long-term than deserts like the Sahara. Maybe on par with living off the land on Antarctic. Never mind all that corrosive stuff in Venus' atmosphere.
Doable in theory, yes. But HARD (and then some). That's ignoring the economics of such an enterprise.
On the upside: still easier than interstellar travel.
I think atmospheric extraction is very important and valuable but we'd be missing heavy metals and some critical elements. You do have carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, a little bit of hydrogen, a little bit of chlorine and flourine, and you can do a lot with those. Not as much hydrogen as you would want or need.
But potassium, sodium, calcium, magnesium, silica, iron oxides, nickel, titanium etc. are available on the surface.
I get your point, but ...
> It would be akin to a city floating on Earth's open ocean. With all food, household items etc, and even construction materials produced via extraction from the surrounding ocean.
Akin in some senses, but let's not omit that another planet would be far, far more difficult. Humans do live on boats and islands in oceans; we can breathe the air, drink the water (if desalinated), eat the fish, swim, build boats from resources, etc.
That and we'd soon do the same things to a new planet that we're doing to this planet. The more time humanity has to mature from a cooperation-over-conflict perspective (both with each other and other beings/the environment) before it starts spreading to other planets, the better.
I agree. And how all of our meager steps towards trying to learn the pre-requisites of sustainable colonies (eg. closed cycle ecology) have failed miserably. For example Biosphere program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 ).
And the only working ecological system we can study is being destroyed by humanity and capital on record pace.
Biosphere 2 had the problem, not least, that it didn't have enough of an atmosphere to buffer swings of CO2 concentration between day and night. It's like "what did they think would happen?"
We’d have a settlement in the Sahara desert if it took six months to get there and there were something interesting there. We have one in Antarctica.
Yeah, and the fact that no one is doing "practice runs" on them is telling how serious any colonization effort really is. Zero chance of a successful mars city if we can't even colonize the trivial in comparison ocean.
What it would be much cooler
I know you're probably joking, but there is definitely a romanticism around "other planets." The "cool" factor is definitely a power variable.
colonizers gonna colonize
If only Venus had a moon like ours to encourage rotation.
Moon actually slows down Earth's rotation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Effects_of_...
One shudders to think of the difficulties of launching and landing space vehicles on these balloon-supported platforms.
Obligatory Isaac Arthur reference [1].
I still think humanity's far future is in orbitals in space, not on planets and certainly not on planets as hostile as Venus is. I'm not sure how well living at 50km above the surface would work. You still need a lot of buoyance to float large structures.
The atmosphere is also a solvable problem. One idea I've heard is using so-called "fusion candles". That is a fusion-powered device in the atmosphere that sends waste gas into space and waste matter to the ground in an equilibrium that keeps them airborne, all powered by fusion. You could extract carbon and/or oxygen this way from the plentiful atmospheric CO2.
Still, if you ever got the atmosphere down to a non-hellish level at surface, the surface would still be covered with all sorts of exotics and metals, many of them toxic. You'd probably be looking at geologic timescales to rehabilitate it.
But whenever these terraforming questions come up (often with respect to Mars), people really don't appreciate the scale and the energy budget required. The energy budget is many orders of magntidue what our civilization currently uses. If you have access to that much energy, there are far better options.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI-old7YI4I
clouds cannot be eaten yet to my knowledge.
space colonization, even if there were habitable planets within our reach, is not possible anymore.
you could, for example, send a million settlers to Kepler-69420, and with the TFR of 1.5 - an unrealistically high number - the colony would be extinct in just a few centuries. 1m becomes 100k in 200 years and 10k in 400 years.
I bet the colonists would be highly (self-)selected for many traits not common in the majority of the population, likely including the willingness to have many children.
I suppose that colonists on other planets, like colonists on other Earth continents, would largely consist of people who are unhappy with the status quo at their origin, and would have some strongly-held ideas about a different way of living.