Pop culture WI: Venus instead of Mars

Strategos' Risk wrote:
In popular imagination of the sci-fi and speculative fiction variety, Mars is seen as the natural destiny of humanity. To explore, to settle, the possibly find aliens there (or at least, the vestiges of their dead civilizations). Venus has been overshadowed ever since the realization that the entire planet is a ball of Add to dictionary acid and the surface much more difficult to walk upon. But Venus used to be well-known in myth and pop culture, what with being the twin of Earth, the Morning Star, covered in jungles, etc. etc. Apparently Edgar Rice Burroughs has a Carson of Venus series! Some cool stuff here.

I think I first encountered the idea of exploration of Venus in Beer's Revolution, Maple Leafs, Chrysanthemes and the Eagle -A revised 1848 TL. Since then, I've found that there's been proposals to send an expedition and even colonize Venus before Mars. For one thing, Venus is closer to Earth than Mars is, and its gravity is the same, thus preventing the negative effects on the human body of living in a < 1G environment. Charles Stross makes a pretty interesting case here. Here's a summary article.

As far as the AH goes, what would it take to have Venus replace Mars in the popular conception as where humanity should voyage to first, settle on, have colonial tensions with, etc.? What would it take for a billionaire to want to build sky cities there?

Heh, "rehabilitating" Venus as a Human destination? (Stole that from here: http://moonsociety.org/publications/mmm_papers/venus_rehabpaper.htm, and http://www.moonsociety.org/publications/mmm_themes/mmmt_solarsystem.pdf :) ) You have already run into the main 'issues' with doing so; Most people think Venus is hell and that it's either to hard to get to, impossible to 'live' on, or you can't get back once you've gone. All of which makes getting it as 'popular' destination almost impossible despite valid and logical arguments to the contrary. You'll note the assumptions given here :)

Pop-culture wise, well I have a lot of notes and stuff for an RPG/adventure game campaign called "Sky Pirates of Venus!" which takes everything people loved about 20s-and-30s 'aero-punk' like "Crimson Skies" and "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and gives it a light covering of science fiction and credibility in the works :) But the disappointment that it wasn't a swamp-covered world of dinosaurs and naked-cave women seems to have been something humans generally haven't been able to get over. It doesn't help that when people think of Lighter-Than-Air the Hindenburg and other airship disasters is what generally comes to mind.

Getting past the "land-based-bias" for colonization is almost impossible even here on Earth, (see issues/debate over SeaSteading) let alone in space.

Part of the 'problem' seems to be one of perception in any case as neither Mercury or Venus get much attention for what seems to be not much more than the fact they are 'inward' from the sun and not 'outward' from it like Mars. As most of the 'arguments' for going to and colonizing Mars are applicable to Venus the actual 'justification' is of course there but the main argument which boils down to we've 'landed' and survived longer on Mars than we have on Venus, (see land-bias' above) will not be resolved until we actually have 'done' a Venus long-term atmosphere probe.
(I'd originally come up with an idea I called "Green Dragon" before someone else started using it as the basis for an orbital greenhouse project and lately someone else has come up with the same idea but better PR :) Anyway a Dragon capsule with suspended from a balloon deployed from the docking port and filled with science and measurement instruments is quite a do-able concept if anyone were interested)

Getting a 'billionaire' as interested in Venus as Muck is in Mars is really only going to take, well, getting one interested in Venus

Why don't you build a skyhook?

Same reason we haven't built one for Earth, high upfront cost and required infrastructure to get it into space and then add getting it to and in place over Venus. Getting off Venus isn't easy but it isn't as tough as many think since you can use most of the same techniques as you'd use on Mars and since Venus has a thicker atmosphere you can use things like aerodynamic lift and CO2 based combustion where as you can't on Mars.

Randy
 
Getting a 'billionaire' as interested in Venus as Muck is in Mars is really only going to take, well, getting one interested in Venus
Yeah, but suppose reusable rockets, Vasmir, Red Dragon, etc all work as expected, and you're a billionaire able to market vacations across the Solar System to other billionaires.

The trip to Mars includes settling in a Martian orbit, sightseeing the Martian surface, with all its geographical features, landing on it and maybe approaching its two moons.
The trip to Venus includes settlling in a Venusian orbit, sightseeing the clouds... and that's it.
 
Yeah, but suppose reusable rockets, Vasmir, Red Dragon, etc all work as expected, and you're a billionaire able to market vacations across the Solar System to other billionaires.

The trip to Mars includes settling in a Martian orbit, sightseeing the Martian surface, with all its geographical features, landing on it and maybe approaching its two moons.
The trip to Venus includes settlling in a Venusian orbit, sightseeing the clouds... and that's it.

With those assumptions going down into the clouds is part of the package and you CAN in fact land and walk around. It is FAR from easy mind you and you need to stage in the atmosphere through a "cloud-base" type set up but it's possible. You need heavily modified deep sea suits, (such as an ADS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_diving_suit, a program I saw a couple of years ago went into details and showed that you COULD use a modern ADS held up by a metal cylinder pressure balloon to explore the surface of Venus) but getting to and from the surface is actually pretty straight forward with the right equipment. Or you can do it from a specially built aircraft and cover much more territory than you could on Mars so it's not as straight forward as you'd think.

Which is actually the point in that Venus IS really just as accessible and possible as Mars but no one THINKS that way in general because... well it's Venus not Mars :)

Randy
 
With those assumptions going down into the clouds is part of the package and you CAN in fact land and walk around. It is FAR from easy mind you and you need to stage in the atmosphere through a "cloud-base" type set up but it's possible. You need heavily modified deep sea suits, (such as an ADS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_diving_suit, a program I saw a couple of years ago went into details and showed that you COULD use a modern ADS held up by a metal cylinder pressure balloon to explore the surface of Venus) but getting to and from the surface is actually pretty straight forward with the right equipment. Or you can do it from a specially built aircraft and cover much more territory than you could on Mars so it's not as straight forward as you'd think.

Which is actually the point in that Venus IS really just as accessible and possible as Mars but no one THINKS that way in general because... well it's Venus not Mars :)

Randy
But how do you get back? From Mars, your lander has to fight 1/3 of Earth's gravity and a very thin atmosphere. And even then, engineers are planning in shipping a fuel refinery plus all the associated equipment to Mars because it looks cheaper than shipping the fuel for take off.

From Venus, you have 0.9 Earth's gravity and a thick atmosphere. Also, I don't think you can make fuel there. What's the weight of your return ship, compared to Red Dragon? And what's the size and weight of your airships, if they need to keep such a heavy return ship floating?
 
But how do you get back? From Mars, your lander has to fight 1/3 of Earth's gravity and a very thin atmosphere. And even then, engineers are planning in shipping a fuel refinery plus all the associated equipment to Mars because it looks cheaper than shipping the fuel for take off.

From Venus, you have 0.9 Earth's gravity and a thick atmosphere. Also, I don't think you can make fuel there. What's the weight of your return ship, compared to Red Dragon? And what's the size and weight of your airships, if they need to keep such a heavy return ship floating?

You already have reusable spacecraft on Earth so doing the same on Venus is a snap. The thicker atmosphere is actually a bonus as you can use if for lift and for propulsion where as you can't on Mars. In another example of "popular culture/knowledge" being opposite of the facts combining standard ramjets, (not Supersonic combustion ramjets which are still not operational but standard subsonic combustion ramjets which everyone in the world can build using 1950s technology and which were operated by almost every nation in the world at one point or another) can be flow up to speeds between Mach-6 to 8 at which point you want to leave the atmosphere anyway due to heating. Combine them with internal rockets, (proven technology we had in the 1960s called a "Supercharged Ejector Ramjet Engine or SERJ) and you have a viable Single Stage to Orbit vehicle. Heck we've shown you could have a pure rocket powered SSTO spaceplane if you use cryogenic propellants. Liquid Hydrogen and LOX works best but Liquid Methane/LOX is just about as good. Two stage to orbit is better though and operationally a "lifter" stage would make more sense than launching directly from your aerostat habitat. (I call them Habi-stats :) ) The lifter would be a hybrid semi-lifting body shape with some static lift that would transport the upper stage to high altitude before letting it go into orbit.

Alternatively, Matt the czar points out to HASTOL and the skyhook concept (https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...he-cosmos-in-the-twenty-first-century.409216/, http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/391Grant.pdf, http://www.tethers.com/papers/JPC00HASTOL.pdf, https://www.scribd.com/document/238566144/HASTOL) and frankly I'd be surprised if someone doesn't make EXACTLY the pitch Matt talks about at some point :)

Venus has a lot of water as well but it's mostly bound up in the atmosphere rather than in the soil. Scooping air and gathering water isn't as hard as mining or drilling for it just a lot more tedious. More CO2 to convert to propellant with the thicker atmosphere as well. Red Dragon can not in fact take off from Mars to orbit btw, it can LAND but not take off again without a booster so it's not a valid comparison. A better comparison is a Falcon-9 first stage and payload section.

VTOL is overrated with a good atmosphere to work with. You don't have a choice on Mars as it's the only way to do it. It's nice on Earth for some uses but it requires the engines and guidance work EVERY time whereas wings or lifting is much more forgiving. More so on Venus. Also the air you breath (O2/nitrogen) is a lifting gas on Venus almost as good as Helium on Earth is so you can actually live in part of your airship along with a nice thick atmosphere to shield you from radiation which you get on Mars only by burying your habitat.

Lets face it, Mars is never going to be the "manly" place to make a perfect Turkey dinner like Venus; http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/12/venusian-acid-cooked-turkeys-or-why-i-still-read-blog-comments/

Randy
 
In popular imagination of the sci-fi and speculative fiction variety, Mars is seen as the natural destiny of humanity. To explore, to settle, the possibly find aliens there (or at least, the vestiges of their dead civilizations). Venus has been overshadowed ever since the realization that the entire planet is a ball of sulphuric acid and the surface much more difficult to walk upon. But Venus used to be well-known in myth and pop culture, what with being the twin of Earth, the Morning Star, covered in jungles, etc. etc. Apparently Edgar Rice Burroughs has a Carson of Venus series! Some cool stuff here.

I think I first encountered the idea of exploration of Venus in Beer's Revolution, Maple Leafs, Chrysanthemes and the Eagle -A revised 1848 TL. Since then, I've found that there's been proposals to send an expedition and even colonize Venus before Mars. For one thing, Venus is closer to Earth than Mars is, and its gravity is the same, thus preventing the negative effects on the human body of living in a < 1G environment. Charles Stross makes a pretty interesting case here. Here's a summary article.

As far as the AH goes, what would it take to have Venus replace Mars in the popular conception as where humanity should voyage to first, settle on, have colonial tensions with, etc.? What would it take for a billionaire to want to build sky cities there?
back in the golden age of sci fi - venus was quite popular, it wasn't until after people realized as someone else said that it was hell .. then it would obviously be more useful than mars.

lots of early sci fi from astounding, fantastic, amazing, thrilling wonder and others were about the very attractive ladies of Venus and of course monsters and other good stuff ;)
 
You already have reusable spacecraft on Earth so doing the same on Venus is a snap.
What's a reusable Venus spaceship? A transfer stage between the atmosphere and a mothership in Venus orbit? Where are the facilities to carry out maintenance?

The thicker atmosphere is actually a bonus as you can use if for lift and for propulsion where as you can't on Mars.
It will also slow down an ascending spaceship and limit its airspeed due the increased friction induced heat

In another example of "popular culture/knowledge" being opposite of the facts combining standard ramjets, (not Supersonic combustion ramjets which are still not operational but standard subsonic combustion ramjets which everyone in the world can build using 1950s technology and which were operated by almost every nation in the world at one point or another) can be flow up to speeds between Mach-6 to 8 at which point you want to leave the atmosphere anyway due to heating. Combine them with internal rockets, (proven technology we had in the 1960s called a "Supercharged Ejector Ramjet Engine or SERJ) and you have a viable Single Stage to Orbit vehicle.
We'd first need to make such a spaceship for operations on Earth. Also, IIRC there isn't oxygen for the operation of air breathing engines, so this multi engine spaceship would also need to carry the weight of liquid oxygen for the entire flight.

Heck we've shown you could have a pure rocket powered SSTO spaceplane if you use cryogenic propellants.
There are no existing SSTOs
 
What's a reusable Venus spaceship?

Pretty much the same as a "reusable rocket" on Earth though they would tend more towards using the atmosphere, which is hard to do anywhere BUT Earth, Titan, or Venus, rather than brute forcing.

A transfer stage between the atmosphere and a mothership in Venus orbit? Where are the facilities to carry out maintenance?

Between orbit and colonies/bases in the atmosphere and back again. Maintenance would be carried out both in orbit and at the bases just like anywhere else. Again the air we breathe is a lifting gas on Venus and due the atmosphere density you get better lift from hydrogen and helium than on Earth. (And as long as you keep the breathing air separate you have almost no chance of fire using hydrogen) ISRU is quite possible using the Venus atmosphere alone but greatly enhanced by remote mining the surface which is an operational technology here on Earth today.

It will also slow down an ascending spaceship and limit its airspeed due the increased friction induced heat

Actually it helps to gain lift to a higher 'altitude' than on Earth and you can go faster, higher up with less direct waste of energy fighting gravity using lift. Thicker air means you can decelerate higher up with larger lifting surfaces, (wings) than on Earth which allows lighter more robust thermal protection. (Star Raker is a good idea/concept basis: http://www.alternatewars.com/SpaceRace/Star_Raker/Star-Raker_SSD_79-0082.pdf, http://www.astronautix.com/s/star-raker.html)

We'd first need to make such a spaceship for operations on Earth.

That's why I pointed out you had already 'assumed' that step :) The difference is you were assuming something like SpaceX's reusable Falcon series from what you're saying, (btw, Red Dragon is in fact NOT a reusable design it's a one-way probe bus which has been suggested to use as part of a sample return to Mars orbit but we're talking only a couple hundred kilograms if that and it's abandoned in Mars orbit even if it works) where as there's no particular reason to assume that's the only way to do the job. It's in fact far from the only way.

Also, IIRC there isn't oxygen for the operation of air breathing engines, so this multi engine spaceship would also need to carry the weight of liquid oxygen for the entire flight.

CO2 itself is a decent propellant and has been researched and teste on Earth though again it was in the context of using it on Mars but Venus has more to start with. (https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/276324, as an example) Or you can use it the same way nitrogen is used when using Earth air, it's mass-flow rather than propellant. Suck it in, compress it (or ram it in a ramjet) heat it and expel it. It would simply supplement the main rocket flow. Electric fanjets can reach high subsonic speeds with no heating, add heating and you can push through to supersonic speeds. (Add such things as sub-cooling with a cryogenic propellant heat exchanger system such as SABRE or Mass-Injection-Pre-Compressor-Cooling and you get even more efficient flow)

There are no existing SSTOs

Actually there ARE but they've never been used as such because the payload is low and they have no provisions for reuse which makes them far less efficient than multi-stage vehicles :)

The Titan-II missile first stage was capable of SSTO but would only carry a few hundred pounds and that had a very wicked final acceleration and probable aerodynamic issues. The Saturn S-IVB was capable of SSTO operations as was the Shuttle ET using SSMEs for propulsion but again the actual payload wasn't significant enough to warrant doing so. (See: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml) And again no reusability since that would wipe out what payload they did have.

As I pointed out multi-stage, (preferably Two Stage or Stage-and-A-Half) designs are more efficient and if you insist on not using lift as per the Falcon series you can STILL recover your stages after flight to orbit. On Venus they will 'float' in the atmosphere :) (http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/venusian-rocket-floaties/) You can even use 'vertical' landing craft like the "Red Dragon" (Green Dragon in this case, yes it's funny but Venus is the "green" planet while Earth is the "blue" one go figure :) ) by popping a balloon instead of parachutes. Deploy some solar cells and electric fans and cruise to the nearest Habi-Stat for recovery and reuse.

Fun fact; on Venus solar power is wickedly efficient. At a little over 50km altitude you get almost half as much power pointing solar cells at the cloud top reflected sunlight as do pointing at the sun. Double side solar panels are recommended :)

Doing the 'tourist' thing as suggested you spend a bit over 21 months away from Earth in total while enjoying three weeks cavorting around the clouds of Venus and two months on Mars as pointed out in the "Venus" links above. Do you need infrastructure and established bases on Venus for this? Yes but you also need them on Mars because a "tourist" is NOT an explorer, they expect and will demand some basic accommodations and support. Not ones that are actually paying for the trip rather than paying a small portion of the total cost for the prestige. (And not if you're making a profit along the way) Yes you have to deliver the basic infrastructure to Venus and deploy it. You have to do the same to Mars and it's NOT that much different when you get down to details. And as always the devil is in those details. If you don't automatically assume that they ARE vastly different, (mostly because people assume that you have to be on the 'surface' in both cases and so artificially stack the deck against Venus or inflate the easy of going to Mars which is the premise of the thread :) ) details and you don't assume that the choice is binary, (either/or which again is an assumption based on the idea the you can ONLY do one or the other) the "choice" is a lot less clear cut than commonly thought.

Randy
 
Top