Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Theodidactus
« on: May 12, 2014, 11:29:31 AM »

I guess technically a high-altitude Venusian dirigible colony could be built that would minimize human-worn equipment, but I'm pretty sure the the increased logistical/installation requirements still leaves Mars with cheaper colonization costs.

"Venusian Dirigible Colony" sounds like a concept album by Brian Eno and David Byrne.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: May 11, 2014, 10:17:26 PM »

Something like that, It's odd that people can barely survive a third atmospheric pressure but 71 Atmospheres is just fine as long as the hydrogen/oxygen mix is correct and the subject/victim is properly acclimatised.
I was shocked actually when I read about Hydra 10 when I saw the pressure was over 7 Mega Pascals, considering that venus is average 9.2 Mega Pascals, I'm assuming that it's likely the extra 20 atmospheres might be survivable.
A hard suit might actually be less safe than constant immersion at extreme pressure, I think it might be safe to keep a Venusian colony at perhaps a third of surface pressure, any less would require much stronger containment against the enviroment.
I know this is a significant derail now from the op, but I might as well finish what I've learned about the definition of 'habitable'.
Of course the most habitable part of Venus is actually around 50-65 km in the atmosphere, where Breathable air becomes a significant lifting gas, however if the floating balloon colony was placed at somewhat higher pressure the colony could be placed lower where the atmosphere is actually within tolerable human temperature limits, while at 50-65 kilometers the air would be below freezing.
Another interesting thing is that while Venus's atmosphere is 96% co2 and a mere 3.5% nitrogen, because there is so much gas there is easily enough nitrogen and oxygen there to allow terraforming Venus itself, Mercury, Mars, Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, The Moon, and Europa to 1 ATM of 78% Nitrogen 21% oxygen, of course the bodies smaller than Mars would lose atmosphere rather fast, especially if they had no active magnetic core, and the Jovian and Saturnian moons would need that shield to avoid the harsh radiation of their parent.
But, if ridiculous quantities of energy and economic power was available to terraform the solar system, than theres no shortage of potential "habitable" planets. Bringing this rant back to it's beginning to close I'll just state that it's probably impossible that we'll find an actual habitable planet by the definition of being earth-life enough to support life on the surface without any life support, but we can always adapt either ourselves or the planet to suit our purpose.
Edit: More of a derail, iI was wondering what the cost would be of shifting atmospheric gas by cannon. A babylon gun was assumed to be able to move 1 kg for 600 dollars, which eqates to $600,000 per ton, shifting 20% of the 400 ppm CO2 from earths atmosphere to bring us below 1970 levels would require moving 600 Gigatonnes and cost, 600,000 trillion dollars. I imagine we could freeze it into 1 meter cubes weighing 1.5 tons and just blast it into space. A misfire would probably sufficate a small town if the projectile landed within it. Just a thought.
Oh and terraforming an entire planet would only require 12,500 times as much gas to be moved, and cost a mere: 4,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 US dollars.(if we were firing our own atmosphere for some reason)
Posted by: sublight
« on: May 11, 2014, 01:24:56 PM »

I mentally equate 'habitable' with 'no pressure or NBC environmental suits required.' A quick review of repeatable scuba records and time at altitude research suggests my definition of habitable has an extreme pressure range of 0.2-25 atmospheres.

The pressure on the highest mountain of venus is roughly 45 atmospheres. While the latest experimental diving suits can handle this, I'm sure the surface infrastructure to hold in an extra fraction of an atmosphere is much simpler than that required to shield against 10s of atmospheres.

I guess technically a high-altitude Venusian dirigible colony could be built that would minimize human-worn equipment, but I'm pretty sure the the increased logistical/installation requirements still leaves Mars with cheaper colonization costs.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: May 11, 2014, 09:01:25 AM »

All this talk of temperature and not a single mention of Pressure.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that pressure wise Venus is more habitable than Mars, I'll see if anyone knows my reasoning.
Though obviously to live on mars all you need is a light pressure suit, I think Yuri Gagarins "space suit" or whatever the Mercury astronauts /X15 or U2 pilots used would be fine. Terraforming Mars should be vastly easier, but anyway....
Posted by: Sotak246
« on: April 23, 2014, 11:27:43 AM »

Habitable can have a broad definition even for one person.  I worked for almost 10 years in the southern Arizona desert.  In the summer it would regularly get above 100F and average 110F for weeks at a time.  At the time as long as I carried plenty of water I was quite comfortable.  Now after living in Washington state for 6 years I feel like it is too hot when it hits 85F for a day or two.
Posted by: Theodidactus
« on: April 22, 2014, 04:42:51 PM »

wanna be asteroid miners beware: this perfectly habitable planet is not going to have any minerals.


Everyone knows the minerals will be found on a distant world orbiting the same sun, something that will take 500 days to reach on a ship moving 5,000 kps.
Posted by: boggo2300
« on: April 22, 2014, 04:25:40 PM »

Woot, Break out the Terraforming stations for Vegas then!!

Matt
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 22, 2014, 02:43:21 PM »

If "Death Valley" is habitable in August, Vegas is habitable in July.  I've done both and agree the "infrastructure" of Vegas is superior....period.   ;D

I was in Death Valley several years ago. Can't remember the month but we had left most of the bags in the hotel in Vegas and had hired a car. We were planning to drive up to Yosemite and we stopped at the ranger station in Death Valley to check on condition in the passes. The high pass was blocked because of snow! Ended up going through Sequoia National Forest (I think) and up the other side of the Sierra Nevada. Highly recommend Yosemite to anyone who hasn't been. Went further south coming back and through the Mojave. Great trip and nice break from the holiday in Vegas.
Posted by: Charlie Beeler
« on: April 22, 2014, 02:26:37 PM »

If "Death Valley" is habitable in August, Vegas is habitable in July.  I've done both and agree the "infrastructure" of Vegas is superior....period.   ;D
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 22, 2014, 02:15:05 PM »

I will be there about two months before you and am nervous about the temperature then.

I've been quite often in May/June but only once in July. I broke out in a sweat just walking across the road from the Venetian to the Mirage at 3am :)

Average daily high in July is about 105F (41C), with the highest recorded at 117F (47C) and its still around 80 (26C) at night.

Actually. that's higher than Aurora has for the top end of human temperature range. I think I'll stay indoors :)

Posted by: Sematary
« on: April 22, 2014, 01:51:09 PM »

I'll be in Las Vegas in July - not sure that is truly habitable without the 'infrastructure' on the Strip :)
I will be there about two months before you and am nervous about the temperature then.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: April 22, 2014, 01:41:22 PM »

I'll be in Las Vegas in July - not sure that is truly habitable without the 'infrastructure' on the Strip :)
Posted by: xeryon
« on: April 22, 2014, 10:23:15 AM »

What I was thinking of is below.  If you live in the USA you will be well acquainted with our wonky temperature measurement system.  If the average temperature of a body falls somewhere on this device I think it is fair to assume that somewhere on that body there is a regional temperature variation that would make the body truly 'habitable'  Just like central AUS has regions that would be difficult to live in there are areas of the landmass that are more favorable.  Hell, Curiosity measured the summer daytime temps on Mars to be about 22c.  It gets a bit cold at night and winter but 22c is certainly workable.

Posted by: MWadwell
« on: April 22, 2014, 10:11:05 AM »

My expectation of habitable was always: can I physically stand on the surface and can the temperature range be measured on a common residential thermometer?

Heh - then there are parts of Australia that are inhabitable.....  ;D

Posted by: xeryon
« on: April 22, 2014, 06:52:43 AM »

My expectation of habitable was always: can I physically stand on the surface and can the temperature range be measured on a common residential thermometer?