Should we colonize Venus or Mars?
in Space

Pogue · March 2018

Should we colonize Venus or Mars?
Venus-
Pros:
An Earth-like pressure in the upper atmosphere.
Higher solar panel energy production from above the clouds.
Thick atmosphere to aerobrake.
Venus is actually an easier and less costly colonization proposition than Mars is.
For one, the round trip from Earth to Venus would be 30 to 50 percent shorter than it would be to Mars. Just think about how much food, fuel, and time this would save - particularly when we're considering carrying enough supplies over there to set up a habitable environment.
Gravity on Venus is very close to Earth's.

Cons:
We have to change the atmospheric composition to make it more habitable.
To live on the surface, we have to cool the planet down this is much harder than heating it up. Venus is too hot for us to live on the surface, so we have to live (proposed) above the clouds (because it is close to the Earth's temperature). Here's how a team of dreamers from NASA envisioned Venus colonization a couple of years ago. Basically, forget surfaces, let's all just live in huge, blimp-like airships high up in the clouds:

1 Venus day is 116 Earth days and 18 hours.
No way to harvest water, or any other resource from Venus, Except for rocket fuel.
The very corrosive atmosphere.
No feasible of returning home*.
If a blimp fails then the crew doomed.
An extremely high pressure at the surface.
*Launching rockets from a blimp is not proven to work, let alone feasible.

https://www.sciencealert.com/should-we-be-trying-to-colonise-venus-instead-of-mars

Mars-
Pros:
Can actually land.
Actual ground science possible.
Has a light atmosphere to aerobrake.
24.3 hour day
Resources harvest from ground and atmosphere.
Can actually return to Earth from the surface.
If a hab fails then the crew could potentially fix it.

Cons:
Really cold.
Hard to land without propulsion.
Lower solar panel energy production.
No magnetic field.
With no magnetic field, the atmosphere is very weak and so we have to develop an atmosphere after the magnetic field.

https://www.universetoday.com/14883/mars-colonizing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy

Fredsnephew · March 2018

Based upon your lists of pros and cons Mars seems to be the better proposition.

Ultimately the goal of space exploration must be to go beyond the limits of our solar system, given that the Sun has a limited duration.

Perhaps it would be preferable to use Mars as a staging post for future outward space exploration.

Whereas the Venus proposition seems to be more of an exercise in relatively short term possibilities, rather than a sensible stage in what should be our long term objectives.

joecavalry · March 2018

The US and other countries should colonize other planets which as Mars and Venus.

Ampersand · March 2018

The no magnetosphere flaw applies to Venus as well, although it's thick atmosphere compensates for this somewhat (although Mars is also further form the sun and thus is less at risk from solar radiation, although no real difference in cosmic rays).

I'd also mention that because the planets orbit on different schedules, Mars is sometimes closer and easier to get to than Venus and it will vary depending on the orbits. I believe currently Mars is actually a little closer.

WokeWhale · April 2018

Mars seems a much more concrete option, as opposed to Venus. The issue with Venus is the huge margin for error, whereas Mars has a significantly larger margin for error. There is the alluring prospect of Venus being closer, but the toxicity and lack of usable solid ground, as well as the lack of ways to return to Earth far outweigh the benefits. I supposed a permanent colony could work, but a civilization would be extremely difficult due to lack of access to materials. So all in all, Mars seems like the better choice

someone234 · April 2018

Elon Musk, the poor soul... Wasting millions, failed rockets the first three goes... Oh he will send them in the capsule... Nasa will kill all of them and say 'it's been sent'. Poor Elon Musk, killing people by trying to save us all.

NASA IS NOT THE GOOD GUY HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pogue · April 2018

someone234 said:

Elon Musk, the poor soul... Wasting millions, failed rockets the first three goes... Oh he will send them in the capsule... Nasa will kill all of them and say 'it's been sent'. Poor Elon Musk, killing people by trying to save us all.

NASA IS NOT THE GOOD GUY HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you please stop with these irrelevant comments? How is he killing people? No one was on those rockets.

someone234 · April 2018

@Pogue When he sends people to mars, NASA will physically kill everyone in the ship and fake the sending of it into space and make us truly believe they are there on Mars.

AmericanFurryBoy · April 2018

Venus Penus

Pogue · April 2018

someone234 said:

@Pogue When he sends people to mars, NASA will physically kill everyone in the ship and fake the sending of it into space and make us truly believe they are there on Mars.

Um, ok. How do you know this?

AmericanFurryBoy said:

Venus Penus

What?

EmeryPearson · May 2018

I believe both to be a poor option, the Moon should be colonized first as a stepping stone outside Earth's gravity well. While you can't terraform the moon as suggested with Mars and Venus, it's simply more practical to colonize first.

MayCaesar · June 2018

Both Mars and Venus appear very difficult to colonize, for a multitude of reasons. Now, Venus is a much harder nut to crack out of the two, with its volcanic activity, extreme temperatures and atmospheric density, so it is completely out of question for now. But even with Mars there are serious problems. To name a few:
1. Mars has a very low atmospheric density (below 1% that of Earth) and a gravity too low to keep even an induced atmosphere for a long period of time. So terraforming of Mars into a planet with a climate similar to that of Earth may not be possible.
2. Similarly, extremely low temperatures on Mars due to a very low solar energy flux make it very hard to induce an atmosphere similar to that of Earth. Even if we were to increase the surface temperature to the Earth-like ones by introducing heavy concentrations of greenhouse gases trapping the solar energy in the atmosphere, those concentrations would make the atmosphere absolutely unbreathable.
3. Mars has a nearly zero magnetic shield, so everyone on its surface is going to be exposed to heavy cosmic radiation. While not a significant problem short-term, it is unknown what long-term effects on colonists permanently living and reproducing on Mars it may have.
Points 1 and 2 also apply to Venus, only in reverse.

However, the colonization model that is viable on Mars is building the domes insulating the internal environment, similar to how the ISS insulates its insides from the outer space, making the conditions inside habitable. Another model is an orbital colonization, where space stations are built to rotate around Mars - however this model would not be self-sufficient and would require a regular resource supply from Earth, which would be extremely expensive.

For any meaningful colonization to be even remotely possible, we must find a way to reduce the expenses on the inter-planetary travel by a few orders of magnitude, at least. And even then, a full-scale colonization of any planet to the level that people can live there naturally, without any special equipment, is likely to require extensive cybernetic or genetic enhancements. Humans are not made to survive outside the Earth's atmosphere, unfortunately, and there are not many ways for us to replicate that atmosphere anywhere else without involving very complicated technologies requiring constant difficult and expensive maintenance.

calebsica · March 2019

I think we should not colonize any other planets. Why would we need to?

sear · March 2019

Should we colonize Venus or Mars?

Venus is not suitable for human colonization with current technology. It would have to be terraformed first, also far out of reach of current technology.

The U.S. should suspend these silly human-aboard space adventures until the U.S. federal government is $100% out of debt, a $debt which now exceeds $20 $Trillion.

If the U.S. sends humans to Mars it would be a two year mission, preposterously expensive, and pointless, and if we did it now, we'd be spending the grand-kids' $money.

If the grand-kids want to pay for that, then let them. It's not our choice to make.

NASA's Apollo program made some sense, as it was during the Cold War, and the U.S. had incentive to demonstrate our superiority with missiles, and technology.

The Cold War is over. And al Qaida doesn't care whether we send some kids to Mars or not.

sear · March 2019

PS

"I think we should not colonize any other planets. Why would we need to?" C

Because we're trashing this one.

K_Michael · March 2019

I think we should colonize the oceans, if anywhere.

Pros:
No exorbitant rocket prices
No months-long journey
Already sustains life

Cons:
Storms would be a problem at the surface
Pressure would be a problem below the surface
Would possibly add to marine pollution and overfishing.

K_Michael · March 2019

sear said:

PS
"I think we should not colonize any other planets. Why would we need to?" C
Because we're trashing this one.

It would be more practical to just save the planet.

sear · March 2019

"It would be more practical to just save the planet." KM

And some freshman Democrats in congress have a specific plan (AOC Green New Deal) to do that, a plan with both a process, and a deadline.

I gather Republicans will choose (or already have chosen) partisan opposition above survival of the human race.

John_C_87 · March 2019

Even with the best conservation plan for earth any and all efforts will become short lived as the solar systems natural life cycle will bring about the Earths doom. By not doing something when the margins are in the favor of humanity would irresponsible. We can dictate the demand with greater caution. Taking into account the number of factures which accrue over time Mars is the only choice as our sun will grow, needing and taking more room, changing its effect on all planets in the solar system. Mars is the cushion as it has the longer window of operation in relationship to all cost factures.

Ideally a solar system space station would be built placed in an orbit between Earth’s orientation and the orbit of Mars in our solar system. This station could be an ongoing labor of love, while and on, after, and with the expedition to Mars taking place, think smart, be smart, with a doable pace, not about the quick achievement as the better goal for travel into the international universe.

@Emery Pearson mentioned efforts on the moon for colonization, this is a realistic testing ground for efforts which would be part of Mars. The idea is to set a list of hard by achievable goals to be reached in a sequence of events leading humanity up to living on Mars.

@Sear one of my shorter term goals is to create a debt clock that is actually associated to finance as the clock that is displayed publicly now, is not, It does not even reflect time let alone is it reflective of money, spending, or debt. A device of measurement of national debt as a time clock needs to be all four. Here again developing a Time for use in the universe can start with a much easier reachable goal on earth as far as testing mathematic calculation goes.

sear · March 2019

J8,

The inevitable cosmic heat death would surely doom the human race, IF IT SURVIVED THAT LONG.

I seriously doubt it will.

But cosmic heat death is over a billion years in the future, tens of millions of human generations.

On the matter of global warming humanity may not survive one dozen generations.

True;

If anthropogenic climate change precipitated a mass human die-off, killing 99.99% of Earth's human population that might seem to lighten the atmospheric carbon issue a bit.

BUT !!

The problem according to the experts is, it may take centuries for Earth's climate to "return to normal", and by then the remaining 0.01% will have died off too.

" space station would be built placed in an orbit between Earth’s orientation and the orbit of Mars in our solar system. This station could be an ongoing labor of love" J8

Yes.

That is technologically possible.

BUT !!

Only at $SPECTACULAR $Cost !!

Consider for example the radiation issue. Such station would be well outside Earth's magnetosphere, so solar radiation would bombard the station.

We can shield against that with Lead or Gold, but only at GARGANTUAN cost.

And to what purpose?

"Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket that is fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children ..." President Dwight D. Eisenhower

" space station would be built placed in an orbit between Earth’s orientation and the orbit of Mars in our solar system. This station could be an ongoing labor of love" J8

It would probably be the single worst mis-expenditure of scarce social resources in all human history, all other human blunders would pale in comparison.

calebsica · March 2019

Global warming is not a deadly affect yet

sear · March 2019

... and neither is a bullet careening toward a human skull at 1,200+' per second, until it blasts the skull open.

OK

Now it's your turn to state the perfectly obvious and irrelevant again.

John_C_87 · March 2019

@sear ;

But cosmic heat death is over a billion years in the future, tens of millions of human generations.On the matter of global warming humanity may not survive one dozen generations.

I guess under ideal conditions billions of years off. So? I don't like to rush.

The problem according to the experts is, it may take centuries for Earth's climate to "return to normal", and by then the remaining 0.01% will have died off too

A problem according to honesty, the earth's climate will never return to normal, it is an unrealistic goal. The manipulation of climate is the least of all worries, of problems in need of clear resolution.

A second problem is the addressing of money as if it was gold, or lead it’s not.

To cut to the chase just asking me to put together a report on the viability, along with the procedures necessary to make the situation more realistic in understanding to you.

And to what purpose?

A United State of Constitutional Separation. We do not need one planets resources to leave the boundaries of our solar system, we need them all. All planet resources. America was called a new world, as our knowledge grew we lost focus on the expansion of open frontier. The environment is just more hostile deal with it.

It would probably be the single worst mis-expenditure of scarce social resources in all human history, all other human blunders would pale in comparison

Taxation is the world’s greatest blunder of human resources as it presents an idea that money can be spent more wisely by the group, then by the person. Politically it should also be known that a state of the union can be made up of inhabitants of space colonies. To increase the size of the Republic of United State's on a time table, we allow the procrastination of country to limit our understanding of responsible growth.

An assurance against the idea things are not always predictable is an asset, basic truth Mars is in the opposite direction of the sun, the sun is getting closer. this is a united state shared and presented by all science. We should act like it is true and start to move. looking dazed at the light will not help.

BryceSloan · March 2019

Venus would be more dangerous and more expensive, so out of the two, Mars would be the better option. But these are not the only celestial bodies able to be colonized. Jupiter moon Io and Europa and Saturn's moons of Titan and Enceladus could possibly, in theory, be colonized. But out of the two inner planets, Mars would be our best bet.

sear · March 2019

"I guess under ideal conditions billions of years off. So? I don't like to rush." J8

But you're OK with the apocalyptic extinction of the human race before the 23rd century?

"The manipulation of climate is the least of all worries, of problems" J8

Pure ignorant buffonery.

" Io and Europa" B

Yes, BUT !!

Refusing to trash Earth is both the low cost, and the vastly superior option. Life-boats are fine. But candidly, I prefer the ocean liners they're mounted on.

John_C_87 · March 2019

@ sear

"The manipulation of climate is the least of all worries, of problems" J8

Pure ignorant buffonery.

What is funny is you are making a personal judgment from a list of priority, never pointing out earth can do both. The truth, the whole truth is no matter what is done about the trashing of this planet, or outer-space for that matter. It will not save the earth from the path of its destruction. There are a number of ways the end will come to this planet, it will however come to this planet, and keep coming until it arrives.

Any how the question is which planet should be screw up next after Earth, Venus or Mars?

I say Mars it will last longer, give more time to screw things up, and the colonies would make great additions to the United States of America. I think we need to do away with this whole democratic idea of bribery to convince countries to join in a Constitutional Union on Earth. Do like any other business with limited space and a need to expand, become creative on solutions.

John_C_87 · March 2019

@BryceSloan ;

But these are not the only celestial bodies able to be colonized.

We are following a path to a start of colonizing. Where to land first? Where will be the colony?

John_C_87 · March 2019

@calebsica ;

Warmth has always been deadly, and climate manipulation is very deadly. Global Warming is not the basic Principle of the grievance made.

sear · March 2019

"you are making a personal judgment" J8

Not in the comment you quoted, which is: "Pure ignorant buffonery."

If I had called you a buffoon, it could be deemed a personal judgment. My comment addressed your position, not the person that offered it.

Your anti-scientific position is not merely an affront to one, or a few radical pseudo-scientists. You ignorantly contradict a global scientific consensus which transcends languages, religions, and national borders, developed over decades.

What your position ignores is that science as a discipline thrives on peer review. The language of science is mathematics, and the quanta of this language are units, including the Meter, the Newton, and the Ångström.

It is not that your groundless position hasn't been tested. To the contrary, it's under constant and current review. Your own is merely a shallow, rhetorical attempt. There are more credentialed critics of anthropogenic climate change. Their best efforts have only confirmed the scientific consensus you presume to dispute.

"from a list of priority" J8

Is this your attempt to dismiss the scientific consensus as a trivial, inconsequential matter of subjective preference? That sir would be "Pure ignorant buffonery."

"never pointing out earth can do both" J8

For extremely good reason. It can not.

It can do one.

Or it can do the other.

It cannot do both.

John_C_87 · March 2019

Is this your attempt to dismiss the scientific consensus as a trivial, inconsequential matter of subjective preference? That sir would be "Pure ignorant buffonery." Nope.

The Scientific consensus is excluding general HVAK knowledge in temperature manipulation. The general HVAC knowledge is the practical experience and use of scientific understanding and data. In any real study of truth, no matter if science basic application it would be the first link between ignorance and impartial observation. Unless there was a pre-existing reason to avoid the comparison.

As for buffoonery it is the monkey who beat man into space but only displayed abilities to perform simple tasks of repetitive conditioning as Artificial intelligence. Basic principle being the best at being openly conditioned makes the subject the most intelligent of its kind? There is a question of honor which can be called into question with the applied application of science, at the least on occasion.

To change and unite our direction of discussion, as direction is without limit at this stage, drone application of construction might prove more valuable, more practical, with even greater responsibilities as calculation of time can expand by dimension to be translated in a universal way.

calebsica · March 2019

Global warming can also help us

AmericanFurryBoy · March 2019

Unpopular opinion:
we move all of our trash to these two planets and start cleaning up our own world so we don’t have to move

calebsica · March 2019

Our planet is not in any danger.

billbatard · March 2019

Venus might be problematic . its hot

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Mayorkas articles of impeachment: What to expect

In this Debate

Should we colonize Venus or Mars?
in Space

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Should we colonize Venus or Mars?

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Mayorkas articles of impeachment: What to expect

In this Debate

Should we colonize Venus or Mars?in Space

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Should we colonize Venus or Mars?

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Should we colonize Venus or Mars?
in Space