feasible near term Venus settlements?

[viperzerofsx]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/12...Cloud-City

I've heard of building cities in the clouds of Venus before, but this is the first time i've heard of a near term mission to Venus. Many of the Challenges of a Mars mission are not present and the possibility of semi permeant human presence of Venus seems really interesting to me.

[radtech497]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/12...Cloud-City

I've heard of building cities in the clouds of Venus before, but this is the first time i've heard of a near term mission to Venus. Many of the Challenges of a Mars mission are not present and the possibility of semi permeant human presence of Venus seems really interesting to me.

While technically feasible at least in concept, the main stumbling block (as always) is funding. At the present time, there is almost no political advantage to be gained from supporting even modest experimentation in any scheme for off-planet settlement, nor do I (IMHO) see this as changing in the immediate future. As long as there are other issues perceived as more pressing needs (energy, the economy, crime, global climate change, etc.), the colonization of Venus or Mars will receive little attention from legislators.

As an example, the U.S. Army studied the feasibility of a permanently manned base on Luna in 1959. The study concluded that such a base was, in fact, both feasible and do-able in the near term, using technologies that either already existed or were then in development (most notably, the Saturn family of heavy-lift rockets); the study projected that the lunar base could be made operational by 1966-67 (less than a decade after the study's completion). However, the study (which predated Project Apollo by a year) lacked the Cold War impetus of competition with the Soviet Union (a much more pressing concern at the time), and was thus doomed to languish in relative obscurity. While the Apollo project cost $25.4 billion (1973) dollars, the earlier Project Horizon was estimated to cost $6 billion (1959) dollars; arguably, Horizon could have provided much more of a return on investment than Apollo did. Further proof that rationality always comes in behind perceived threats.

Don't even get me started on the 1961 NASA decision to adopt a hybrid Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR)-Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR) mode instead of a straight EOR mode (Direct Ascent mode, even though championed by von Braun and others, was clearly a non-starter, considering the timelines involved).

Radtech497

[Rynn]

While the Apollo project cost $25.4 billion (1973) dollars, the earlier Project Horizon was estimated to cost $6 billion (1959) dollars; arguably, Horizon could have provided much more of a return on investment than Apollo did.

I'm always skeptical of claims like this concerning costs of untried space programs. It seems to be taken as gospel that their projected costs are accurate when in reality space programs nearly always run over budget, sometimes so much that they get cancelled. In a similar vein predictions that current or near technology will surffice aren't always right either, it was predicted that a resizable shuttle capable of 60 flights a year was possible with 1970s tech but after decades of trying the space shuttle never achieved anything near its promise. In hindsight it's relatively simple to point out the mistakes made sure, but I have no doubt that untried projects would suffer similar fates.

As for political advantage whilst that is true I think in most countries it reflects public opinion accurately. Projects like this are hugely expensive and I'd wager that if you asked the majority of people if they'd like tens/hundreds of billions of dollars spent on building a base on Venus or spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare or funding of other sciences most would pick the latter. I certainly would. Space exploration is fascinating and inspiring but it doesn't have a great return on investment. I can't see myself supporting large expenditures towards manned space travel until things planetside are more prosperous and comfortable.

[stevebowers]

The place to start would be above the atmosphere altogether. A space station in Venus orbit could be useful as a location for colllecting carbon, oxygen and nitrogen skimmed from the top of Venus' atmosphere, without needing to venture into the clouds. Solar-powered skimmers could extract the atmosphere using sustainable energy, and the result would be a significant reserve of carbon, oxygen and nitrogen in Venus orbit. CNO are three of the four most important elements required for sustaining life. Note that the Moon is deficient in nitrogen and carbon, so Venus' excess could be exported to the Moon using solar-powered freighters.

A strategy like this could benefit from fairly mature assembler technology, since the carbon could be used to construct infrastructure in situ; but of course many projects in space suddenly become both feasible and desirable once this sort of tech is available.

[radtech497]

While the Apollo project cost $25.4 billion (1973) dollars, the earlier Project Horizon was estimated to cost $6 billion (1959) dollars; arguably, Horizon could have provided much more of a return on investment than Apollo did.

I'm always skeptical of claims like this concerning costs of untried space programs. It seems to be taken as gospel that their projected costs are accurate when in reality space programs nearly always run over budget, sometimes so much that they get cancelled.

The original cost estimate for the Apollo Program was $7 billion, so using the same degree of inflation, Horizon might have ended up costing about $21.8 billion; of course, being a military program, getting the necessary funding would have been far easier than for NASA to get funding for Project Apollo, and any additional cost overruns might have been covered by taking funds from other DoD programs (it would be difficult for an outsider to discover the magnitude of any additional overruns, as that information would likely be classified as a matter of national security). The upshot is, while Apollo left behind a half-dozen Descent Modules, various bits of equipment, and six flags (which have since faded due to exposure to solar UV radiation), Horizon would have left behind a functional manned lunar base (with all that implies, such as a continued raison d'etre for maintaining a man-rated Earth-Moon transportation system, much more lunar surface experience, and, possibly, increased interest in researching cheaper/more efficient ways to get to orbit).

In a similar vein predictions that current or near technology will surffice aren't always right either, it was predicted that a resizable shuttle capable of 60 flights a year was possible with 1970s tech but after decades of trying the space shuttle never achieved anything near its promise. In hindsight it's relatively simple to point out the mistakes made sure, but I have no doubt that untried projects would suffer similar fates.

The oft-quoted prediction that the Shuttle could make up to sixty launches a year comes from when the Shuttle fleet was to have seven vehicles (only five were built) and the design used an aircraft-like manned booster that would return to the launch site after boosting the Shuttle into orbit (a design that also fell victim to the budgetary axe). Even then, sixty launches a year would be near the maximum capability of the system to deliver, but NASA was delivering a sales pitch to Congress.

As for political advantage whilst that is true I think in most countries it reflects public opinion accurately. Projects like this are hugely expensive and I'd wager that if you asked the majority of people if they'd like tens/hundreds of billions of dollars spent on building a base on Venus or spent on infrastructure, education, healthcare or funding of other sciences most would pick the latter. I certainly would. Space exploration is fascinating and inspiring but it doesn't have a great return on investment. I can't see myself supporting large expenditures towards manned space travel until things planetside are more prosperous and comfortable.

Actually, while most people probably would say they'd rather spend the money on Earthly concerns, it is almost axiomatic that they would still complain if you actually tried to spend the money on those things. If the money were magically to appear as unallocated funds on the budget, you can imagine the scramble as legislators vied with one another to assign them to one or another pet project, and/or to refund the money (or some part of it) to the taxpayers as a way of generating the good will so necessary for their re-election campaigns. If one were to devote tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to infrastructure, education, health care, etc., it would immediately engender two problems: 1) it would set up an expectation that such levels of funding would constitute a "baseline" that future levels would at least match if not exceed, and 2) it would lessen the importance of the lobbyists for those interests (and thus reduce the amounts said lobbyists are willing to pay for "access"). So, expect such a sudden windfall to be spread out among so many programs that there isn't the slightest danger of the money being used for substantial improvements.

Radtech497

[Rynn]

The original cost estimate for the Apollo Program was $7 billion, so using the same degree of inflation, Horizon might have ended up costing about $21.8 billion; of course, being a military program, getting the necessary funding would have been far easier than for NASA to get funding for Project Apollo, and any additional cost overruns might have been covered by taking funds from other DoD programs (it would be difficult for an outsider to discover the magnitude of any additional overruns, as that information would likely be classified as a matter of national security). The upshot is, while Apollo left behind a half-dozen Descent Modules, various bits of equipment, and six flags (which have since faded due to exposure to solar UV radiation), Horizon would have left behind a functional manned lunar base (with all that implies, such as a continued raison d'etre for maintaining a man-rated Earth-Moon transportation system, much more lunar surface experience, and, possibly, increased interest in researching cheaper/more efficient ways to get to orbit).

I'm still very skeptical, especially of the idea that the inflation in cost would be comparable. Project Horizon was estimated to need 61 Saturn I launches and 88 Saturn II launches just to build the base. In reality only 10 of the former ever launched and none of the latter. The Saturn I cost a billion dollars itself, I don't know how much of that was the launches themselves compared to the R&D but I'd be shocked if four times as many resulted in a negligible increase in cost, same for the Saturn II.

Actually, while most people probably would say they'd rather spend the money on Earthly concerns, it is almost axiomatic that they would still complain if you actually tried to spend the money on those things.

I disagree, I've never heard anyone express an opinion like this unless they were an ardent space enthusiast. The closest I can think of is seeing comments on space news articles where people opine that more funding would be good but many of those fall into the above category of people and/or don't concern the level of expenditure we're discussing.

If the money were magically to appear as unallocated funds on the budget, you can imagine the scramble as legislators vied with one another to assign them to one or another pet project, and/or to refund the money (or some part of it) to the taxpayers as a way of generating the good will so necessary for their re-election campaigns. If one were to devote tens or hundreds of billions of dollars to infrastructure, education, health care, etc., it would immediately engender two problems: 1) it would set up an expectation that such levels of funding would constitute a "baseline" that future levels would at least match if not exceed, and 2) it would lessen the importance of the lobbyists for those interests (and thus reduce the amounts said lobbyists are willing to pay for "access"). So, expect such a sudden windfall to be spread out among so many programs that there isn't the slightest danger of the money being used for substantial improvements.

Your conclusions only work if you assume a magic lump sum of money appearing. In reality that isn't going to happen. Also what makes you think that spreading out the money wouldn't result in substantial improvements? With very few exceptions if $X billion of new funding was announced for science I'd rather see it fund thousands of smaller projects to the tune of $1 million than one large project.

[radtech497]

I draw your attention, if I may, to the ""peace dividend" from the early 1990s, that was supposed to accrue from the end of the Cold War. This dividend was to have been the difference in defense spending permitted by a reduction in tensions. As events showed, whatever the magnitude of the savings (more so in Western Europe and in Russia than in the U.S.), they were not appreciably directed toward infrastructure, education, or health care. Rather, if memory serves, it was used for tax cuts and other uses with little, if any, long-term benefits (at least in the U.S.).

Radtech497

[Rynn]

Your point seems to be that there are examples where budgets haven't been allocated in a useful manner, therefore they can't be, therefore huge expenditures in space travel are a better option? That's a very shaky argument.

[radtech497]

Your point seems to be that there are examples where budgets haven't been allocated in a useful manner, therefore they can't be, therefore huge expenditures in space travel are a better option? That's a very shaky argument.

My point, if there is one to be made, is that (historically, at least), governments prefer not to make huge expenditures unless there is a politically popular need; it is much easier and cheaper to commission and endless number of "studies," nearly all of which end up in the recycling bin. A vast expenditure towards the colonization of Venus (or any other planet, at the current time) simply does not have the constituency to force the issue. As Tom Wolfe put it, in The Right Stuff, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

Radtech497