2
$\begingroup$

I think these are some strong reasons which would support a Venusian floating habitat

Venusian clouds have sulphuric acid and more than 96 % Carbon dioxide.

Does this ensures a constant supply of oxygen, hydrogen and Sulphur.

The surface composition of Venus --- Silicon, aluminum, magnesium, titanium, manganese potassium iron, calcium and sulphur. Short mining excursions to the surface would help us obtain a load of minerals which can then be extracted in the habitat.

As it is closer to the sun, it receives 4 to 5 times the sunlight, therefore the solar energy output would also be very high if efficient photovoltaic cells are used. Solar power paired with nuclear power would ensure a robust power supply.

It has a thicker atmosphere, which protects us from radiation and meteor showers.

Though it has a very hot surface, with the right cooling system and heat and pressure resistant materials machinery can be deployed for exploration and mining. The high temp and pressure can also be used in our favor.

With the right engineering a floating sky habitat can be deployed in Venusian atmosphere.

7.closer to earth, reducing transportation costs.

If such a habitat is paired with Martian habitat, lunar base, mars cycler, cislunar gateway, LEO support settlement a integrated supply and transport chain can be built which can help a human space settlements and hotels Is there any problem with Venusian habitat ??

$\endgroup$
7
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ With a surface temperature of 460 C I think you are grossly underestimating the cooling requirements for any device that would need to operate on the surface of Venus. Despite the best insulation methods all devices will rapidly reach 460 C. Trying to expel heat produced by a mining machine into an ambient temperature of 460 C would be an extremely difficult task. Also, operating under at atmospheric pressure of 93 bar, where the atmosphere at the surface is more like a super critical fluid is another significant difficulty. $\endgroup$
    – Fred
    Sep 15, 2021 at 7:04
  • $\begingroup$ Is there any example of a cooling system working at venusian temperatures only? A system on Earth working with two levels about 500 to 1000 °C and 10 to 50 °C does not count. $\endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Sep 15, 2021 at 7:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Errata: "As it is closer to the sun, it receives 4 to 5 times the sunlight,". Correct value is 85% more in orbit, 22% more at 1atm level in Venus atmosphere, compared to sealevel sunlight on Earth.(due to haze in upper atmosphere) $\endgroup$ Sep 15, 2021 at 9:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A constant supply of hydrogen is difficult, there is only 20 ppm of water vapor in the atmosphere. More hydrogen only in the cloud layer between 50 and 70 km height. $\endgroup$
    – Uwe
    Sep 15, 2021 at 10:17
  • $\begingroup$ See here or more ambitiously here. Either way, this topic is huge. $\endgroup$
    – J.G.
    Sep 16, 2021 at 14:40

5 Answers 5

8
$\begingroup$

Geoffrey Landis certainly seemed to think that floating habitats in Venus' atmosphere were possible... if you've not already done so, have a read of Colonization of Venus (only 6 pages!) for a brief summary of his thoughts on the matter.

Venusian clouds have sulphuric acid and more than 96 % Carbon dioxide. Does this ensures a constant supply of oxygen, hydrogen and Sulphur.

Apparently, yes. You can extract the hydrogen from sulphuric acid droplets condensing out in the clouds. The chemistry involved here isn't particularly novel. Converting CO2 into carbohydrates or oxygen via various means is also practical, obviously.

Short mining excursions to the surface would help us obtain a load of minerals which can then be extracted in the habitat.

Visiting the surface would be hideously difficult, even without trying to operate heavy machinery down there and return useful things to the above-cloud level. Science? Sure. Resource exploitation? Dubious, to say the least.

It has a thicker atmosphere, which protects us from radiation and meteor showers.

You also need to park your floating habitats 50+ km up from the surface, so most of that atmosphere will be below you. I'm not sure what the expected levels of radiation will be at that altitude, but bear in mind that being closer to the sun means that whilst your solar cells will be more effective you'll also be receiving more undesirable radiation, too.

7.closer to earth, reducing transportation costs.

"Close" and "cost" are tricky things in space.

If you can handle the extra delta-V required, Hohmann transit times from Venus to the asteroid belt are lower than from either Earth or Mars, and the synodic period is shorter so launch windows pop up more often. The asteroids seem like a good place to get stuff from, and if you're able to build all this space infrastructure, doing your manufacturing closer to the sun with all that convenient extra solar flux also seems like a good idea.

With that in mind, the occasional physical proximity of the Earth is not necessarily as valuable as you might first think.

(unless you can't put all your factories in Venus orbit, but if that's too hard, why do you think you can colonise a hellworld in the first place?)

If such a habitat is paired with Martian habitat, lunar base, mars cycler, cislunar gateway, LEO support settlement a integrated supply and transport chain can be built which can help a human space settlements and hotels

This question might be starting to drift out of the remit of this specific site, and towards Worldbuilding.SE... maybe consider posting future questions of this sort there?

For "integrated supply and transport chain", think about what each of those locations is actually going to contribute. I can't see any obvious useful things for Mars or Venus to ship to each other, for example.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

A habitat floating in the atmosphere of Venus is certainly an interesting concept and does have a lot going for it, but it also has problems. hydrogen and water would be in short supply as there is not that much in the atmosphere. A Venus flyer would also be blown on high speed winds around the planet which would make rendezvous with supply ships a bit tricky.

Given the shortage of water landing on the surface or lifting off from the surface using a rocket engine would be problematic in terms of what fuel to use. So any cargo brought up from the surface would be very costly indeed. And the surface is so hostile that the idea of a reusable lander is questionable. Not going to happen any time soon, but maybe one day.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

As it is closer to the sun, it receives 4 to 5 times the sunlight

In the "Earthlike" regions of the atmosphere, Venus gets only a fraction of the sunlight available in orbit due to clouds and haze. Worse, you must construct every square meter of real estate you want to place solar panels on, you can't just lay them out in a handy open area.

Also, you're only going to have the sun high overhead ~1/4 of the time, the rest of the time it's going to be close to the horizon and highly attenuated by the clouds and haze of that dense atmosphere, or below the horizon entirely. The superrotation of the atmosphere at least means you aren't subject to the planet's 2-month nights, but you will still only have about 1 day of good sunlight and will have to operate the remaining 3 days off stored energy. That's a long time to keep things running off batteries, while the period of good sunlight is short enough to make intermittent operation of heavy industry very inefficient.

Though it has a very hot surface, with the right cooling system and heat and pressure resistant materials machinery can be deployed for exploration and mining.

This seriously understates the difficulty of working on the surface. It's not impossible, but building machinery for that environment is very difficult, keeping it cool will consume huge amounts of power, and the need to transport everything back and forth between the surface and facilities in the upper atmosphere greatly complicates actually doing anything.

7.closer to earth, reducing transportation costs.

Interplanetary transport cost has little to do with distance. Just in orbital mechanics terms, ignoring the gas giants, Venus comes second only to Earth as the most difficult location in the solar system to launch spacecraft from, and it's considerably worse than Earth in delta-v requirements to the rest of the solar system. That's before you account for the logistical challenges of operating from the upper atmosphere and producing the required quantities of propellant only from what's available there. Venus would have a huge disadvantage in transportation costs compared to locations like Mars or the moon.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

As early as 1967, NASA had Martin Marietta Corporation develop a contractor report on the inflatable floating Venus station titled:

Buoyant Venus Station feasibility study. Volume III - Instrumentation study Final report

Scientific instrumentation for inflatable buoyant Venus station Document ID: 19670023061

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19670023061

Looking over the conclusions page, they were lacking certain details known today and requesting investigational missions.

Another study in 2015 published on Harvard's site from Northrop data investigates the possibility of a "Venus Atmospheric Maneuverable Platform Science Mission." The VAMP would be a floating platform in the dense Venusian atmosphere.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015DPS....4721703P/abstract

As such, a floating vehicle is a considered option for Venus, but the constant 880F air temperature and extreme air pressure are significant challenges to overcome.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The biggest problem of a venusian cloud island is that there's no water to be found, meaning water would have to be imported from elsewhere. The presence of resources like water, albeit in the form of ice, is a huge advantage the Moon and Mars have over Venus. On Moon and Mars, it would be possible to live off the land at least somewhat, especially if a settlement wants sovereignty and not beholden to the governments of Earth. Sure, living on Luna or Mars may necessitate being immured in fallout shelters essentially, at least until terraforming or doming the majority of the planet becomes possible, but due to local resources, lunar and martian settlements would undoubtedly become independent long before venusian colonies, assuming all three worlds were colonized within a few years or decades of each other.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ "there's no water to be found" vs "There is carbon monoxide, water vapour and atomic oxygen as well" $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Jan 13, 2023 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ Oxygen, as is intended to be generated on mars from CO2 etc, is much easier to harvest given the abundance of atmosphere. You have to take into account that the atmosphere of Venus is much denser, even at the proposed altitudes, than Mars (or for that matter, the moon!) is. This means that even if there isn't pure O2 in large quantities it can be split from sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide. We know how to do this. I understand why you answered as such, (I would have only a few weeks ago, but you can learn a lot that you don't expect in a short time!), but I would suggest checking that. (: $\endgroup$ Jan 13, 2023 at 6:38
  • $\begingroup$ As for the abundance of H2O, you're correct in stating that there is more on luna and mars than on venus. But then I could say... "but there is barely any there, even if it's more than venus, why not just go to Callisto or Ganymede or Titan or Tethys?(Ice moons, with most of the water in the solar system.)" $\endgroup$ Jan 13, 2023 at 6:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.