Can't Venus be colonised more easily than mars?

Question

I have read that a ballon/biodome full of breathable air which floats at 50km above the Venusian surface would have acces to liquid rain(although acidic) and CO2 which are needed for photosynthesis aswell as the correct temperature and pressure along with plenty of sunlight and access to power i.e. solar power, wind and geothermal energy allowing the building of Venusian colonies and potentially the development of native life as suggested by Dr. Luis N. Irwin of the university of texas. Mars on the other hand is a cold desert planet with nothing on offer aswell as gravity so weak it would severe bone deformation of human inhabitants. so why does everyone think mars is the right one for colonising?

Answer 1

I find it hard to believe building a giant balloon/biodome full of breathable air which floats at 50km above the Venusian surface would be easier than just building a similar dome on the ground on Mars. And there is plenty of water on Mars, if you look in the right places.

Answer 2

That's a good question. It is theoretically possible to build some sort of floating bio dome (like cloud city in 'The Empire Strikes Back') on Venus, however, it would be very difficult to maintain.

First, you would need to bring everything with you to build your floating city. That would be very expensive. On Mars, hopefully, we will find materials that can be mined and used to expand any colony or settlement we place there (not just water and oxygen, but metals as well). The pressure and temperatures on the surface of Venus are just too extreme to make this possible.

Second, unless you tethered your floating city to the surface of Venus (once again, difficult to accomplish due to the temperature and pressures of Venus) it would be at the mercy of the winds and be blown all over the planet. Think of it as building a city on pontoons and setting it adrift in the oceans on Earth. Things would be fine as long as you could avoid any large storms. You could build something like a 50km high off-shore oil rig (what an engineering feat that would be!) But even oil rigs on Earth are evacuated when hurricanes approach. Of course you could add engines to your floating city and move it around like a giant cruise ship (or dirigible). Cool for vacations, but I don't know how practical it would be.

Third, there is a problem with radiation. Neither Venus or Mars have a magnetic field shielding them from solar radiation. The radiation isn't enough to immediately kill you, but long term exposure would definitely be hazardous. Venus is much closer to the Sun and receives more radiation than Mars. On Mars you could build a habitat underground or cover it with soil for protection. On Venus you are completely exposed. In the event of a major solar flare the only options you would have would be abandon Venus (you would need a really fast spacecraft, CME's can cross the entire solar system in a matter of hours or days), or seek shelter on the surface of Venus (once again, heat and pressure).

The idea isn't bad, it just that from a technical stand point, Mars is much more appealing. It's easier to get to, and it and what we need to survive is easier to access. I am sure however that we will send probes to Venus which will float in the safer regions on the atmosphere as you suggest.

Answer 3

If you want enclosed colonies, then Mars is the place.  However, if you want to terraform a planet so humans can survive unprotected out in the open, then yeah, Venus is probably easier.  Mars is virtually impossible to terraform.  The people who suggest terraforming Mars seem to think it's as simple as just releasing some kind of plant or bacteria that converts the CO2 atmosphere to oxygen, then we're good.  Not so.  Even is you did somehow convert the atmosphere to oxygen, we still couldn't breathe it.  It's far too thin.  People need oxygen tanks to survive for any length of time on top of Mt Everest because the air is so thin there.  But the air on the surface of Mars is MUCH thinner than the air on Everest.

Not to mention, even if we did somehow find a way to transport billions of tons of gas to Mars to give it a breathable atmosphere (or released it from the rocks) it would never stay there.  The gravity isn't strong enough to hold it, and the lack of a magnetic field means the solar wind will strip it away.  Terraforming Mars is something that will probably never be possible.

Venus, on the other hand, all we have to do is GET RID of some of the atmosphere.  I don't know what would be a good way of accomplishing that, but it's got to be thousands of times simpler than trying to add an atmosphere to Mars.  Once you remove the dense atmosphere from Venus, the temperature problems go away since they're only a result of the greenhouse effect and air density.  And it already has geologic activity to sustain an atmosphere (although still a weak magnetic field, it's not such a big worry when you have active volcanoes to replenish the lost atmosphere), so no worry about that.  Plus, the gravity is similar to Earth so no health effects like the low gravity on Mars.

Answer 4

Although habitable floating towns could be built on Venus, the kinds of engineering required would be quite different than those we're normally used to working with. There are also many hazards that would not be present on Mars, including increased solar radiation along with harsh temperatures and weather effects. It would be rather difficult to land at a given base, because the base itself would be floating around in the wind and a landing spacecraft would have a hard time figuring out exactly the right place to touch down. The gravity is also much higher than that of Mars, so lifting back off the surface would be much more difficult (even not counting having to push through the atmosphere). Realistically, I think Mars would be easier to colonize than Venus, although Venus may be easier to terraform than Mars.

Answer 5

Not really because Venus is scalding hot rock planet filled with scorched volcano ash in layers, always having volcano eruptions, more carbon dioxide and no oxygen.

It's also too close to the sun which is too hot for any living species to survive.

Venus is known as the sister planet of Aerth because at one time it did have bodies of water just like Earth however evaporated.

Here is the links to Venus:

http://www.nineplanets.org/venus.html

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/venus.htm

Answer 6

sure! if humans can withstand 900 F!!!!! >:(

Answer 7

I say we end colonization! We've messed up this planet pretty well, don'tcha think?

Maybe we should focus on getting this one cleaned up before we take our "intelligence" elsewhere!

Answer 8

Weaverdreams - the problem with fixing all of our problems is that it will never happen.  We're just chock full of problems, and the cosmos puts us at risk all the time.  We need to find ways to send groups of people into the cosmos to survive instead of sitting on our asses, waiting for something that'll never happen.

Answer 9

not no,but h**l no

Answer 10

seening as venus is a gas planet and is very closd to the sun i would say no

Answer 11

Think of it this way... The moon is about to fall onto the Earth and there is nothing we can do about it. We have 500 years to establish a human colony in our solar system before the **** hits the fan. Were can we go that humans will be able to survive on indefinitely?

Do you think that floating cities will last forever? Sooner or later they will run out of metal or have a malfunctioning pressurizing pump or something and then where will they be? A colony on Venus may seem very plausible, but terraforming would be needed for any planet to be a viable home for all of humanity. The surface must be usable and Venus is much too hot to do anything besides burn on the surface.

Mars may be harsh but it is a much more suitable candidate for terraforming. By heating up the surface enough to begin melting the ice caps we will release a lot of gasses into the atmosphere to increase the temperature and pressure to tolerable conditions. Then plants could be brought to begin processing the CO2 to produce oxygen. Once the Earth goes poof I think the Martians will have it a little better off than the Venesians when the floating cities start springing leaks.

Answer 12

The surface of Venus is almost 900F, and the atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide, with clouds of sulfuric acid, chlorine, and fluorine.  It's unlikely that humans would ever care to be on the surface.  

If oxygen and water could be released on Mars, however, the surface would be much more amenable to life.  

It's a matter of economics.  What seems more feasible - inhabiting floating biodomes above a hot, poisonous atmosphere inside a structure constantly resisting acid, or inhabiting biodomes on the surface of a cold nearly airless planet?  

Also, there can be an advantage to Mars low gravity of 0.38 of Earth... it requires far less fuel for ships to land or take off, and so could facilitate exploration of other bodies in the solar system.  Floating biodomes would be an inefficient way to refuel rockets, especially given the near-earth gravity.

Answer 13

the intense heat is too much I suppose.  Although who knows, maybe we will end up starting there

Answer 14

If you were in a balloon colony 50km above the surface of Venus, you would want to be HIGHLY confident in the technology keeping you afloat, because the only way is down, and below you lies certain death, by acid, heat, temperature, air pressure and impact (ultimately).

Cloud City on Bespin (Star Wars) is perhaps something that could happen one day in the distant future, but for the next few thousand years, you'd probably be safer in orbit around Venus than anywhere in her atmosphere.

With Mars, you know what you are going to get. It's cold. The air is thin. The gravity is light. But it is more like a desert on Earth than Venus is like anything on Earth, except perhaps being at the bottom of an ocean...

The theory you describe of balloon colonies is an interesting story idea, but it is not the same as terraforming the planet's surface so human's could walk on the surface of Venus.

To most people, the idea of a colony involves the idea of solid ground, so Mars is more likely to appeal to that kind of pioneer. Some people might feel more comfortable in an orbital station (which has as much right to be called a colony) or a floating balloon city in the clouds of Venus.

If you got the technology for a Mars base right, you'd be able to cover the entire planet with them, and that would be easier and safer than anything within the atmosphere of Venus, if you ask me.

But the conditions you describe on Venus at that altitude could do what you suggest. Only time will tell which happens first! Venus is closer, after all!