31–40 of 385 posts
This, my friends, is why we should colonize the upper atmosphere of Venus, where you could chill outside with only a respirator, rather than the inhospitable, irradiated, mangnetosphere free mars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operationa... https://spectrum.ieee.org/nasa-study-proposes-airships-cloud...
And what are we going to do there? Mine sulphuric acid from the clouds?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Venus also does not have a magnetic field: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/in-search-of-an-ancient-g... So baseline humans would still want radiation protection.
It does have plenty of atmosphere, so radiation isn't a problem. (The problem is everything else, as usually is the case on space.)
In case of Earth most of protection comes from our magnetic field. The reason is that magnetic field sweeps ALL charged particles coming from the sun while atmosphere only stops some.
When a particle drops into atmosphere it has a chance to collide with an air molecule, the deeper the higher the chance. But there is always some number of particles that were fortunate enough to reach far enough. Whereas magnetic field is constantly acting on every charged particle and deflects every single one of them.
Only very highly energetic particles can cross magnetic field and these tend to come from outside our solar system and are very low in numbers.
One thing we rely on atmosphere to take care is UV radiation which is photons which is not charged which means our magnetic field does nothing to it. Up to some energies UV is easily caught even by very thing protective layers (for example sunscreen!). It is not like you are going to be showing skin on Venus anyway -- you are going to be always enclosed with material that can stop UV, so this is not an issue. Over certain energies we land in X-ray territory and here our solutions are pretty limited but I do not see a reason why Venerian atmosphere at 1atm should be any more transparent to X-ray than ours.
This, my friends, is why we should colonize the upper atmosphere of Venus, where you could chill outside with only a respirator, rather than the inhospitable, irradiated, mangnetosphere free mars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operationa... https://spectrum.ieee.org/nasa-study-proposes-airships-cloud...
Humans aren't suited for these environments. We evolved to fit this planet. These gasses, radiation levels, terrestrial foods, etc.
The economics of going to Mars, Venus, etc. are iffy, and humans probably won't enjoy being there. It's McMurdo times about 1000. Getting back is hard.
It's probably another hundred years before this is plausible with our technology and willpower.
You know what will do great in these environments? Robots that don't have biological weakness. That don't need cellular respiration or biochemical inputs.
We'll probably have gotten really far with robotics and AGI in those same 100 years.
Basically, space will be inherited by our successors. Artificial intelligences. Humans just aren't fit for these environments. Robots and AIs are perfectly adaptable, though.
Sci-fi sold us a fanciful picture of humans in space, because that's a fiction that is pertinent to our experience and is relatable. That isn't guaranteed.
There's no doubt they'll be big, but will they be practical, economically viable and successful?
> There's no doubt they'll be big, but will they be practical, economically viable and successful? Frankly no. Its like every few years people remember about airships and suddenly start shouting how its the answer to the world's problems. I mean, just search here on HN... 11 years ago there was "Blimpocracy - Is the airship the transportation system of the future?"[1] .... now here we are 11 years later, and, well, y…
Er... what? Just because you can't ship stuff between some countries by land, they're ignoring all cargo shipped by rail and truck internationally? Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater...
Airships have one, tremendous problem: Hydrogen. Helium is too expensive and is running out, and hydrogen, well see the Hindenburg. There's a lot of research into "safe hydrogen" but despite decades of research (and money) there has not been any success. Until you can overcome the fizzy lifting gas issue airships will remain a dream.
I remember in the UK Airship Industries tried to make the things work economically for ages but never did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship_Industries For one thing they struggle a bit when it's windy.
It'd be fascinating if the package tracker of the future says "package delayed, waiting for a north-easterly wind from Los Angeles. Meanwhile those mangoes from Africa are arriving sooner!"
> Second, some modes are missing because a lot of countries are not connected by land. Looking at US import and export data, and excluding Canada and Mexico where US roads, rail, and pipelines connect, water transportation has claimed the majority of both the tonnage and the value. Er... what? Just because you can't ship stuff between some countries by land, they're ignoring all cargo shipped by rail and truck intern…
> International water transportation is also cheaper than domestic, perhaps around 1¢ per ton-km
to:
> Let’s say airships captured half of the 13 trillion ton-km currently served by container ships at a price of 10¢ per ton-km
Having half of the entire market switch to something that is 10x more expensive?