Dec 28, 17 / Cap 26, 01 17:04 UTC

Venus, rather than orbit or moon  

Not sure where the best place to post this is so i'm just gonna put it here.

There are many problems that we can't currently solve if we were to put a station in orbit or on the moon, the engineering challenges can be overcome but there are also many medical problems that we would be faced with. The human body is made to operate most efficiently under earth's gravity, and we know that there are many health problems associated with short term stays in low gravity and there could be other problems from long term stay in low gravity. There is also the issue of exposure to elevated amounts of radiation both in orbit and on the moon.

However Venus has about 90% earth's gravity, so that would help prevent some health issues associated with low gravity, I would think. Also the thick atmosphere would help protect us from at least some of the radiation from the sun. Obviously we couldn't live on the surface of the planet, however we could create a series of blimps that could float safely above the surface, similar to NASA's plan for a Havoc mission.  Venus would come with its own challenges, but the engineering challenges and health benefits could be worth it as a first step to colonizing space. I do think that we should eventually have a space station orbiting earth, but we should be able to get people to venus faster, and thus have a better chance of being recognized as a real country.

Jan 7, 18 / Aqu 07, 02 07:18 UTC

Venus definitely has its challenges!  Even if a floating habitat is possible, the winds are very powerful.  While low gravity is a concern, there are ways to simulate 1 g.  For instance, research indicates humans can tolerate spinning at speeds up to 4 rpm.  If the diameter of rotation is 120 m, then the edge experiences 1 g of acceleration.

It would be really interesting to have teams representing each of the possible locations to construct both outposts and long term terraforming possibilities.  Moon, Near-Earth orbits (L1, L2, L4, L5, Deep Space Gateway, etc), Venus, Mars, Ceres, Callisto, and Titan all have possibilities to discuss.  The teams could debate the pros and cons of each, and some may have relationships that strengthen the case for each other (Deep Space Gateway + Ceres + Callisto, as a possible example). 

If this sounds fun, I can volunteer reviewing the pros and cons of Callisto.  If anyone wants to help me with research, please let me know.

Jan 10, 18 / Aqu 10, 02 06:42 UTC

I'm for moon or an orbital location near the earth and moon . I think orbiting the moon might be better

Jan 10, 18 / Aqu 10, 02 18:27 UTC

Tom I would be very interested in researching and discussing the pros and cons of each possible location. 

When it comes to a spinning station that simulates gravity I do think that is a good idea. However we need to keep in mind that no technology like that has been tested before. The international space station is our only space station and it has cost $150 billion usd. We also need to discuss which option is the safest and most cost effective option, and I'm not sure an orbital station is very cost effective or the moon is very safe. 

Jan 11, 18 / Aqu 11, 02 09:30 UTC

This sounds like fun! I'll be team earth moon system so any thing LEO to just outside the moons apogee of 405,000km so will say 420,000 km. who else wants to play Tim William anyone else wanna pick a spot/ join a team? 

Jan 17, 18 / Aqu 17, 02 00:53 UTC

Nobody else wanna do this fun little exercise as well?

Jan 17, 18 / Aqu 17, 02 07:17 UTC

@Johnathan T.C. I think many would like this, but they are simply not informed about the presence of the forum and this topic)

Jan 17, 18 / Aqu 17, 02 09:14 UTC

Aleksandr Melnikov Do you have a place you would pick to plop down a base or space station? 


Jan 18, 18 / Aqu 18, 02 19:15 UTC

For a moon base I think the Mare Imbrium "Sea of Rains" located at 32.8N 15.6 W Is one of the best locations. It has one of the strongest gravity wells on the moon. 

Feb 18, 18 / Pis 21, 02 14:22 UTC

Venus has a surface temperature of 462ºC, atmosphere is not compatible, no water, methane oceans and more.

I believe Venus would be the last place for a first space settlement.

For Asgardia,

Feb 19, 18 / Pis 22, 02 00:36 UTC

I think that it's illogical we search other planets to create our first city being that we don't have any in our natural Satellite. So first we should create a base at the moon with domos and O2 farms, this would be just the beginning because there are a lot of problems in living at the moon but this would be just a base to we launch a rocket to Europa ( The Jupiter's moon ) I think that the only problem to live there is the temperature. 

Apr 12, 18 / Tau 18, 02 07:08 UTC

Just a question: why putting a colony on Venus?
In other words, what would be the goal of such a project?
For the moon, the main goal is, as you all know, to mine resources and to deliver them to the Earth, which is feasable thanks to proximity between the Moon and our planet.

To be honest I don't think it is worth to set up a colony in space for the only purpose of sending people to space. It is leading our species nowhere, and besides that, if there is no financial benefits, we can't make it very long.

If there is no purpose of living in space, we're better off on Earth.

  Last edited by:  Jason Ottavi (Asgardian)  on Apr 12, 18 / Tau 18, 02 07:10 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time
Reason: FJT