The discussion revolves around NASA's proposal for a "Cloud City" above Venus, focusing on the feasibility, scientific implications, and potential challenges of establishing a floating city in the planet's atmosphere. Participants explore various aspects, including life support systems, temperature conditions, and the logistics of astronaut return from Venus.
Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the feasibility of the Cloud City concept, the accuracy of the initial article, and the practicality of manned missions to Venus.
Participants highlight limitations in the initial article, including potential inaccuracies regarding temperature and gravity conditions. There are also unresolved questions about the technical challenges of astronaut return and the viability of proposed energy solutions.
This discussion may be of interest to those exploring space exploration concepts, the challenges of extraterrestrial habitation, and the scientific implications of missions to Venus.
Floating city occupied by whom, or rather, what?!Hercuflea said:http://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-wants-to-build-a-floating-city-above-the-clouds-of-venus/
This is something I've been hoping they would do for a long time. Let's hope it gets approved. What are your thoughts?
75°C is somewhat more than "hotter than strictly comfortable, i's more like strictly fatal for mammals, and most living terrestrial creatures. Of course, worms living around deep ocean vents might feel a bit cool.While the surface of Venus would destroy a human, hovering above its clouds at an altitude of around 50 kilometres (30 miles) is a set of conditions similar to Earth. Its atmospheric pressure is comparable, and gravity is only slightly lower -- which would allow longer-term stays, effectively eliminating the ailments that occur during long-term stays in zero G. Temperature is about 75 degrees Celsius, which is hotter than is strictly comfortable, but would still be manageable. Finally, the atmosphere at that altitude offers protection from solar radiation comparable to living in Canada.
Yeah, I think the journalist really botched the science in this article. I think he may have meant to say Fahrenheit? The area between 50-55km above Venus' surface is roughly at Earth surface temperature and pressure. Also, he obviously got the zero-g thing wrong.Astronuc said:Floating city occupied by whom, or rather, what?!
75°C is somewhat more than "hotter than strictly comfortable, i's more like strictly fatal for mammals, and most living terrestrial creatures. Of course, worms living around deep ocean vents might feel a bit cool.
Cooling a spacecraft (keeping interior about 21°C) would be problematic.
The High Altitude Venus Operational Concept -- HAVOC
The temperature is correct. See this fuller discussion here:http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/...s-airships-cloud-cities-for-venus-explorationHercuflea said:Yeah, I think the journalist really botched the science in this article. I think he may have meant to say Fahrenheit? The area between 50-55km above Venus' surface is roughly at Earth surface temperature and pressure. Also, he obviously got the zero-g thing wrong..
Ophiolite said:The temperature is correct. See this fuller discussion here:http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/...s-airships-cloud-cities-for-venus-exploration
What did he get wrong about zero-g? He correctly said in a floating airship the astronauts would not be subject to it.
Refer to the link provided in my post #6. The outline concept is dealt with there. Overlooking generalities of that sort is not what happens when outlining a project concept.Ken G said:Um, they kind of forgot to say how the astronauts get back. I think they need to consider a little more about how you get a big enough rocket that can escape Venus gravity to hang from a Zeppelin. In other words, are they kidding?
Helium is about 1/10th the mass of CO2, so it should provide a pretty big buoyant force.Ken G said:Um, they kind of forgot to say how the astronauts get back. I think they need to consider a little more about how you get a big enough rocket that can escape Venus gravity to hang from a Zeppelin. In other words, are they kidding?
It was the article that I was talking about, overlooking those generalities. The other article you link to does describe them, but frankly, that's the part I find completely unconvincing. They seem to claim it would be easier to get to Venus because the mission is shorter, but just blithely ignore all the unproven concepts required to make the return trip. For example, the Orion is only used to get from Earth orbit back to Earth! Go figure-- the spacecraft we're being told is our ticket to the solar system is only being used for the final few hundred kilometers of that whole mission. And the reason given for all this? Nothing is mentioned except exploration of Venus!Ophiolite said:Refer to the link provided in my post #6. The outline concept is dealt with there. Overlooking generalities of that sort is not what happens when outlining a project concept.