Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 358 posts

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#241

Post by dredmorbius »

blueflow wrote: post #233
yazantapuz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If i remember right, according to one of Asimov's Foundation sequels, the Earth was unique due to its high level natural radioactivity, which allowed it to develop an ecosystem more vibrant than any other planet in the galaxy.

Wasn't Asimov a science fiction writer?

He was a popular writer of both fiction and nonfiction, had a PhD in chemistry, and wrote on numerous topics, including science, history, Shakespeare, and the Bible.

He and Arthur C. Clarke had a (tongue-in-cheek) agreement:

The feelings of friendship and respect between Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke were demonstrated by the so-called "Clarke–Asimov Treaty of Park Avenue", negotiated as they shared a cab in New York. This stated that Asimov was required to insist that Clarke was the best science fiction writer in the world (reserving second-best for himself), while Clarke was required to insist that Asimov was the best science writer in the world (reserving second-best for himself). Thus, the dedication in Clarke's book Report on Planet Three (1972) reads: "In accordance with the terms of the Clarke–Asimov treaty, the second-best science writer dedicates this book to the second-best science-fiction writer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov#Other_authors>

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#242

Post by robotomir »

HPsquared wrote: post #201
stavros wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's less about the earth being uninhabitable and more about redundancy of species.

Living on a ship at sea, or underground / underwater, should give enough protection against whatever post-apocalyptic situation exists on Earth, it's pretty much always going to be more survivable than Mars or outer space. You might need a protective suit, air filters etc. Still 100x easier than having no atmosphere at all.

What if the threat is not environmental collapse but hostile government?

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#243

Post by Symmetry »

rkagerer wrote: post #124

Venus is arguably the worst place in the solar system From another perspective, its atmosphere is "one of the most Earth-like in the solar system", and scientists long ago postulated the idea of establishing floating cloud cities. Big balloons filled with nitrogen and oxygen would naturally settle at the right altitude, 30 miles above the surface, where gravity, ambient pressure, and radiation aren't far off that of…

The Venusian atmosphere at that altitude is super dry, only a few score ppm of water making it much drier as Earth's Atacama desert. So while that water vapor is extremely acidic in terms of raw ppm its not too far outside the limit of what OSHA allows and is probably fine since you aren't breathing it.

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#244

Post by Symmetry »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #138
rkagerer wrote: post #124

Venus is arguably the worst place in the solar system From another perspective, its atmosphere is "one of the most Earth-like in the solar system", and scientists long ago postulated the idea of establishing floating cloud cities. Big balloons filled with nitrogen and oxygen would naturally settle at the right altitude, 30 miles above the surface, where gravity, ambient pressure, and radiation aren't far off that of…

How do you deorbit Venus is such a way that your inflatable balloon city comes to a gentle stop, 30 miles up, and just floats there? Worse still, when people need to leave and return to Earth, how do you launch a rocket from the balloon city and return to orbit? How do visitors or pioneers deorbit and land at the floating city? If there aren't materials to effect a repair, how long until it sinks down into the hellzo…

Gonathan Goff wrote bunch on what you have to work with in terms of what you can extract from Venus's atmosphere. While metals would need to be imported if you're going to pick some place in outer space to live its hard to do much better.

https://selenianboondocks.com/category/venus/page/2/

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#245

Post by HPsquared »

robotomir wrote: post #242
HPsquared wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living on a ship at sea, or underground / underwater, should give enough protection against whatever post-apocalyptic situation exists on Earth, it's pretty much always going to be more survivable than Mars or outer space. You might need a protective suit, air filters etc. Still 100x easier than having no atmosphere at all.

What if the threat is not environmental collapse but hostile government?

If they can reach your submarine, they can reach your space colony.

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#246

Post by Ray20 »

baq wrote: post #123
eru wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plus, it's nice to split our eggs into multiple planetary baskets. Multiple baskets is good, but why planetary?

Too many dickheads with a bright idea of putting nuclear warheads on submersibles with a dead man’s switch on this planet.

Even in the event of a full-scale nuclear war, Earth would still be a more comfortable and safe place to live than Mars.

It's like going to the gladiator pits to fight because someone was robbed and shot on the next street yesterday and you don't think your street is safe enough.

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#248

Post by sunrunner »

bregma wrote: post #218
o1bf2k25n8g5 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why would we do that at all? This question is one of a whole genre of "why" questions that come from supposed pragmatists, but I can't help but think the existence of the question misses the entire point. Luckily, one of the older questions of this genre was about why anyone would bother to climb Mount Everest, and ol' Mallory had such a good answer that I'll just paste the whole thing here: > People ask me, 'What…

We choose to go to the Moon ... and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win

    And because if we don't beat Russia there we're all going to look less good on the global stage, and we simply can't have that. Wait, can we edit that out in post?

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#249

Post by potato3732842 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #240
potato3732842 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is their buoyancy-management system? Some of y'all have never seen a marina with floating docks and it shows. More of the same. This entire problem is basically ye-olde spaceX barge only with different factors in the equation and running in both directions (instead of just landing). Yes, without a hard cut in buoyancy like you get with something that's way denser than air floating in something way denser than i…

The dock/barge case is addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45330638 > An aerostat doesn't float on a liquid at stable equilibrium through draft displacement, it is suspended in a fluid, with the problems noted previously. Docks and barges (along with general watercraft) may be constructed arbitrarily robustly from strong and resilient materials. Aerostats somewhat less so.

>The dock/barge case is addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45330638>

Addressed naively and wrongly hence the ongoing discussion

>An aerostat doesn't float on a liquid at stable equilibrium through draft displacement, it is suspended in a fluid, with the problems noted previously.

If you let a baloon go will it reach space? No, because the atmosphere is not constant density.

Balloon type objects have the nice side effect of expanding and contracting to reach buoyancy/weight/structural equilibrium. It's not like a submarine "flying" though the water. It's more like a fish expanding/contracting to ascend/descend. More literally, it's like a weather balloon that rides at different attitudes depending on what the weight of your payload is. If you really need to change altitude quickly (or perhaps in response to taking on or losing mass) it wouldn't be all that difficult to inflate/deflate (i.e. change displacement) a subset of whatever device provides buoyancy. Think of it like a heavy lift ship flooding itself (reducing displacement) to change draft.

Like I said, the lack of a "hard cut" between atmosphere and ocean makes the math wonky compared to what we're used to, but the physics DGAF.

>Docks and barges (along with general watercraft) may be constructed arbitrarily robustly from strong and resilient materials. Aerostats somewhat less so.

You could say the same thing about boats vs port facilities.

Yeah, it's an engineering problem but it's a fundamentally well understood one. The way your hand gets forced in terms of material choices might make cost go through the roof, but it the design side of things shouldn't be all that terrible.

Re: Why is Venus hell and Earth an Eden?

#250

Post by ubermonkey »

a3w wrote: post #229
rkagerer wrote: post #124

Venus is arguably the worst place in the solar system From another perspective, its atmosphere is "one of the most Earth-like in the solar system", and scientists long ago postulated the idea of establishing floating cloud cities. Big balloons filled with nitrogen and oxygen would naturally settle at the right altitude, 30 miles above the surface, where gravity, ambient pressure, and radiation aren't far off that of…

Venus is room temperature with low radiation, if you dig in. Living on Venus was floating around as an easier alternative to living on the Mars surface. Room temperature is 21°C, I have no idea how many freedom fries units that is.

A shockingly useful "quick and dirty" estimate for C to F for temps humans are likely to encounter is 2x + 30. It's not precise at all, but for purposes of "what does that feel like outside" or "should I bring a sweater" it works pretty well.

21C would, by this estimate, be 72F. The true conversion is just shy of 70F, so, again, it's not correct but it's close enough for this kind of conversation.

Post reply on HN