Tech Level 8 Solar System

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

For the near future, closeness is going to be more important than size. Additionally, while the Moon might be so treasured as a landmark that no one will be allowed to develop it, bodies like Trojan Asteroids are so beneath the public’s notice that no one would care if they were devoured whole.

Find the biggest handful of Earth’s Trojan Asteroids, and make them significant.

What is famous is less important than what gets us into space faster.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

You forget, the balloon is being pushed by the wind, so its traveling the same speed as the wind, the relative velocity between the balloon and the wind is zero! the wind actually helps, because it takes the balloon completely around Venus once every 4 days, this is much better than the slow rotation of the planet if you are on the surface. the main reason you are up there is because its cooler, at the right altitude its around room temperature, Air pressure is less than on Earth at that altitude, but you can increase the percentage of oxygen in the habitat to compensate, if you go outside, you can wear a gas mask, and perhaps some protection from the sulfuric acid rain.

I forgot nothing. You forgot that wind speeds are inconsistent and highly variable... prone to dramatic changes. Which tosses the ship around violently. It’s still a bad idea.

There’s a lot you merely quoted but never commented on.

I think wind speeds near the ground are highly variable, because the terrain affects them, this isn't near the ground, its more like a jet stream. It super-rotates around the planet. You still have local weather phenomena such as thunderheads, lightning, tornadoes, and there are hurricanes on Venus, but you also have weather forecasting, the balloons are powered and can be piloted to avoid these storms.

 

[fusor]

I think wind speeds near the ground are highly variable, because the terrain affects them, this isn't near the ground, its more like a jet stream. It super-rotates around the planet. You still have local weather phenomena such as thunderheads, lightning, tornadoes, and there are hurricanes on Venus, but you also have weather forecasting, the balloons are powered and can be piloted to avoid these storms.

Hurricanes don't exist on Venus (except possibly as vortices around the poles) - hurricane-strength winds do though, in the upper atmosphere. Also, tornadoes have never been detected on Venus. it's highly doubtful that conditions would exist there to allow them to form.

http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/51937-super-hurricane-force-winds-on-venus-are-getting-stronger/

That said, wind speeds at ground level are really slow and consistent- only a few km/h - because the atmosphere is so thick there. They're more like ocean currents at that depth.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I think wind speeds near the ground are highly variable, because the terrain affects them, this isn't near the ground, its more like a jet stream. It super-rotates around the planet. You still have local weather phenomena such as thunderheads, lightning, tornadoes, and there are hurricanes on Venus, but you also have weather forecasting, the balloons are powered and can be piloted to avoid these storms.

Hurricanes don't exist on Venus (except possibly as vortices around the poles) - hurricane-strength winds do though, in the upper atmosphere. Also, tornadoes have never been detected on Venus. it's highly doubtful that conditions would exist there to allow them to form.

http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/51937-super-hurricane-force-winds-on-venus-are-getting-stronger/

That said, wind speeds at ground level are really slow and consistent- only a few km/h - because the atmosphere is so thick there. They're more like ocean currents at that depth.

The temperatures and pressures at the surface are intolerable however, and it would be really hard to develop the machinery and life support system to keep humans alive on the surface indefinitely, right now what we have are heat sinks. We drop a probe that lands on the surface, and it can survive for about an hour because of insulation which slows the flow of heat from the outside to the center of the probe where all the vital electronics are that keeps the probe operating. If you are going to have humans living on the surface of Venus, you are going to need active refrigeration, and a rigid hull that can hold out against the 92 bars of pressure on the outside. Now 92 bars at 981 degrees Fahrenheit is a lot of heat to be keeping out. The way you pump heat out is through the compression and expansion of gases. As you know, by the gas laws, when you compress a gas it heats up, when you expand a gas, it cools off.
You expand the gas within a pipe within the habitat where the humans live, you expand the case so that the temperature of the gas is cooler than the interior habitat temperature so the heat flows into the pipes, through the pipes conductive surface.
You then pump the gas through the pipe to the outside and then you compress the gas until it is hotter than the atmosphere outside, that means hotter than the 981 degrees I mentioned, maybe up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit within the pipes, the heat then flows from those compressed gases within the pipe to a radiator fin on the outside, so the 900 degree temperature can cool the gases from 1000 degrees down to about 981 degrees, and then the gas is pumped back in and expanded so that it is cooler than the interior of the habitat so it can absorb more heat, that keeps leaking through the walls from the inside from the outside.
It takes energy to compress and expand these gases, and a lot of it! You need material that can survive temperatures that are even hotter than the surface of Venus so you can pump heat out of those places in which humans want to live. That is the problem with living on the surface of Venus.

It is much easier to live at high altitude above the surface of Venus.

See this chart, you can see where the optimal temperature would be. I've converted the original chart from kilometers and Kelvin to Miles and Fahrenheit just to give you a better idea

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

For the near future, closeness is going to be more important than size. Additionally, while the Moon might be so treasured as a landmark that no one will be allowed to develop it, bodies like Trojan Asteroids are so beneath the public’s notice that no one would care if they were devoured whole.

Find the biggest handful of Earth’s Trojan Asteroids, and make them significant.

What is famous is less important than what gets us into space faster.

I don't think we are likely to significantly disfigure the Moon's surface at any time in the near future, and if we could, we could always mine from the far side, which is never seen from Earth. The Moon does contain more material than the asteroid belt and it is closer to Earth. One can operate robots remotely from Earth on the Moon's surface, it is also easier to get humans to and from the Moon's surface in a matter of days or even hours with more advanced propulsion systems, the asteroids are on average 2.5 AU away, although they do contain more volatiles. I think initially the volatiles will be mined from the asteroids, and the structural materials from the Moon.

 

[Rick]

It is such a tiny asteroid, I don't worry about it. I include the satellites that are size 1 and larger, tiny little rocks, I don't worry about, except for what's orbiting Mars, since those two are famous. I've had 4 large moons for Jupiter, 4 biggest ones orbiting Saturn, 2 for Uranus, and just one for Neptune and one for Pluto! There are more, but there are too many to mention.

For the near future, closeness is going to be more important than size. Additionally, while the Moon might be so treasured as a landmark that no one will be allowed to develop it, bodies like Trojan Asteroids are so beneath the public’s notice that no one would care if they were devoured whole.

Find the biggest handful of Earth’s Trojan Asteroids, and make them significant.

What is famous is less important than what gets us into space faster.

I don't think we are likely to significantly disfigure the Moon's surface at any time in the near future, and if we could, we could always mine from the far side, which is never seen from Earth. The Moon does contain more material than the asteroid belt and it is closer to Earth. One can operate robots remotely from Earth on the Moon's surface, it is also easier to get humans to and from the Moon's surface in a matter of days or even hours with more advanced propulsion systems, the asteroids are on average 2.5 AU away, although they do contain more volatiles. I think initially the volatiles will be mined from the asteroids, and the structural materials from the Moon.

Tom - please re-read what was said, the post was about the Trojan asteroids in Earth's orbit - specifically those and not the ones in the asteroid belt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_trojan Earth has at least one, probably more, as well as several other companions, including Cruithne. These would be significantly easier to reach (and mine) than even going to the Moon would be and would represent a significant source of raw materials.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Cruithne is good for one O'Neill sized space colony and no more, and worse yet, being a Trojan asteroid means that it is 1 AU away, and 93 million miles is a lot further away than one quarter of a million miles. Getting to something that is 1 AU away in Earth's orbit is harder than getting to something orbiting Earth, it is a longer journey for astronauts wanting to travel there. And once Cruithne is used up, it is no more! I am talking about the year 2163 AD, I think that by this time Cruithne may be gone, there maybe a space colony of the same name located elsewhere, but just one space colony, and it will be where ever it is economically advantageous for it to be. The problem with small asteroids is they get turned into space colonies and then moved, but I'm pretty sure our Moon will be in its original orbit, even if it is extensively mined.

 

[Rick]

Cruithne is good for one O'Neill sized space colony and no more, and worse yet, being a Trojan asteroid means that it is 1 AU away, and 93 million miles is a lot further away than one quarter of a million miles. Getting to something that is 1 AU away in Earth's orbit is harder than getting to something orbiting Earth, it is a longer journey for astronauts wanting to travel there. And once Cruithne is used up, it is no more! I am talking about the year 2163 AD, I think that by this time Cruithne may be gone, there maybe a space colony of the same name located elsewhere, but just one space colony, and it will be where ever it is economically advantageous for it to be. The problem with small asteroids is they get turned into space colonies and then moved, but I'm pretty sure our Moon will be in its original orbit, even if it is extensively mined.

Cruithne is not an Earth Trojan - it's in a stable but odd orbit that brings it close to Earth, but also crosses both Venus' and Mars' orbits and has almost exactly a 1:1 resonant orbit to Earth (364:365.3 days). Considering it will pass relatively close to Mars in 2058, you could hypothesize it would end up there.
As to something in Earth's orbit being more difficult to get to, I would say you were not entirely correct - if time is not a factor, it is actually much easier, and uses far less fuel.
Given that one of the stated goals for NASA's next generation of ships is to capture asteroids and bring them back to orbit in order to mine them, I think the near-Earth asteroids would make ideal candidates for this. The advantages of going for near Earth asteroids before going to the Moon are quite good - theoretically the way asteroids are formed should make them much richer in elements than an equivalent mass of the Moon, also easier to extract and less costly in fuel.

 

[fusor]

That is the problem with living on the surface of Venus.

That's great, but I didn't say anything about "living on the surface of Venus" - I just pointed out that your understanding of the weather conditions there was incorrect.

Again, you need to read what people say and not use replies as an excuse to go off on another one of your braindumps.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Cruithne is good for one O'Neill sized space colony and no more, and worse yet, being a Trojan asteroid means that it is 1 AU away, and 93 million miles is a lot further away than one quarter of a million miles. Getting to something that is 1 AU away in Earth's orbit is harder than getting to something orbiting Earth, it is a longer journey for astronauts wanting to travel there. And once Cruithne is used up, it is no more! I am talking about the year 2163 AD, I think that by this time Cruithne may be gone, there maybe a space colony of the same name located elsewhere, but just one space colony, and it will be where ever it is economically advantageous for it to be. The problem with small asteroids is they get turned into space colonies and then moved, but I'm pretty sure our Moon will be in its original orbit, even if it is extensively mined.

Cruithne is not an Earth Trojan - it's in a stable but odd orbit that brings it close to Earth, but also crosses both Venus' and Mars' orbits and has almost exactly a 1:1 resonant orbit to Earth (364:365.3 days). Considering it will pass relatively close to Mars in 2058, you could hypothesize it would end up there.
As to something in Earth's orbit being more difficult to get to, I would say you were not entirely correct - if time is not a factor, it is actually much easier, and uses far less fuel.
Given that one of the stated goals for NASA's next generation of ships is to capture asteroids and bring them back to orbit in order to mine them, I think the near-Earth asteroids would make ideal candidates for this. The advantages of going for near Earth asteroids before going to the Moon are quite good - theoretically the way asteroids are formed should make them much richer in elements than an equivalent mass of the Moon, also easier to extract and less costly in fuel.

Maybe so, but once the small asteroids are mined, they are gone, and would not be include on the map Space colonies would be added after I did all the natural objects, planets and moons for example. Worlds that are size one and larger get their own charts, Size S and smaller objects do not get them, though their orbits might be included on a map of some other central object. You might find Amalthea on a chart of Jupiter, but Amalthea itself won't get a chart centered on it. I keep my attention focused on th major objects, size 1 and greater, there are just too many Size S and smaller objects to get everything, so I don't try. Politically important space colonies perhaps, but that would be because of their political importance, not their size. Natural Size 1 and greater objects come first!

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

That is the problem with living on the surface of Venus.

That's great, but I didn't say anything about "living on the surface of Venus" - I just pointed out that your understanding of the weather conditions there was incorrect.

Again, you need to read what people say and not use replies as an excuse to go off on another one of your braindumps.

There are some anticyclones at the poles. I think part of the reason is that Venus just doesn't rotate that fast, the other reason is it has no ocean. Tornadoes are a possibility I think, so long as there are thunderheads. lightning has been detected, and thunderstorms have been known to brew tornadoes. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

 

[fusor]

There are some anticyclones at the poles. I think part of the reason is that Venus just doesn't rotate that fast, the other reason is it has no ocean. Tornadoes are a possibility I think, so long as there are thunderheads. lightning has been detected, and thunderstorms have been known to brew tornadoes. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

I think presuming that Venus' weather works like Earth's weather is somewhat optimistic. Nobody's detected "thunderheads" or "thunderstorms" - just lightning, which seems to be caused by sulphuric acid droplets in the upper atmosphere becoming electrically charged (possibly by solar radiation). Those droplets can't get to the ground because they evaporate long before they can reach it.

And for tornadoes you need warm, moist air and cool dry air to mix - neither of which exists on Venus.

 

[Rick]

Came across this, thought I'd share: http://www.sci-news.com/featurednews/clouds-venus-atmosphere-04055.html

Looks like the best way to look at the gaseous atmosphere of Venus might be to model it as a deep ocean environment.

 

[rust2]

And once Cruithne is used up, it is no more! I am talking about the year 2163 AD, I think that by this time Cruithne may be gone ...

Getting rid of ca. 65 cubic kilometers (ca. 4,700,000,000 Traveller dtons) may be a lot more difficult than you imagine ... :wink:

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

See this chart, you can see where the optimal temperature would be. I've converted the original chart from kilometers and Kelvin to Miles and Fahrenheit just to give you a better idea

While that certainly does make a compelling case for where people should choose to live on Venus, how they could live there is completely unresolved; you’d need to stabilize it with a space elevator style tether, which is no mean feat. Even then, wind pattern changes would still be very problematic.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Tom - please re-read what was said, the post was about the Trojan asteroids in Earth's orbit - specifically those and not the ones in the asteroid belt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_trojan Earth has at least one, probably more, as well as several other companions, including Cruithne. These would be significantly easier to reach (and mine) than even going to the Moon would be and would represent a significant source of raw materials.

Or, more correctly put, they’re easier to get back from. Much less pesky gravity to waste fuel on.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Maybe so, but once the small asteroids are mined, they are gone, and would not be include on the map Space colonies would be added after I did all the natural objects, planets and moons for example. Worlds that are size one and larger get their own charts, Size S and smaller objects do not get them, though their orbits might be included on a map of some other central object. You might find Amalthea on a chart of Jupiter, but Amalthea itself won't get a chart centered on it. I keep my attention focused on th major objects, size 1 and greater, there are just too many Size S and smaller objects to get everything, so I don't try. Politically important space colonies perhaps, but that would be because of their political importance, not their size. Natural Size 1 and greater objects come first!

Resources are politically important. That’s why you should mark them out on your Solar System chart; Earth-Sun L4 and L5, where they are located, are nothing to sneeze at either.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I have to think of what the political system looks like in the middle of the 22nd century, I'm going to assume that seven billion people live on Earth and an additional seven billion people live in space for a total of 14 billion people. It is an optimistic future, the Earth's resources aren't overly taxes, the population of the planet is down from 9 billion about 50 years ago. Solar and fusion are the main power sources, Solar is used for utilities, while fusion is used for spaceships and vehicles. Small vehicles used hydrogen fuel cells. On the equipment list, air vehicles replace grav vehicles, these include, the Air/Raft, the AirCarrier, and the Speeder, they have the same performance characteristics as the equivalent grav vehicles (Air/Raft, GCarrier, and Speeder), but have operational ceilings limiting then to Very Thin Atmosperes (Tainted or otherwise) or greater atmosphere 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The terrestrial equivalent of a Very Thin atmosphere starts at the Death Zone of Mount Everest and goes higher down to a pressure of 0.1 Atmospheres, air vehicles can't ascend higher than that, they are used primarily on Earth and in large space colonies, some special types are fusion powered and adapted for the atmosphere of Titan, which has a very cold Exotic atmosphere, the upper atmosphere of Venus, in the sulfuric cloud layer counts as a Corrosive Atmosphere, and special adaptations are required for that also. Venusian air vehicles need lots of maintence due to the corrosive nature of the sulfuric acid cloud droplets, the fan blades needs a special acid resistant coating, There are also Depressurized Air/Raft, these are designed to land on the planet's surface, and can stay down their for about 2 hours before their heat sinks are saturated with heat, and they need to ascend to cool off.


Here is the first interesting map I have. The Orbit H chart of Uranus, this includes a bunch of moons, and the inner ring 1986U2R and outer Epsilon ring.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Solar and fusion are the main power sources, Solar is used for utilities, while fusion is used for spaceships and vehicles. Small vehicles used hydrogen fuel cells.

Even going full Solar isn’t enough for cities. You can include wind power, ocean power, and geothermal too. But there are still going to be fusion plants for power hungry cities, factories, and scientific labs. Hydrogen fuel cells may make some sense out in space, where you can just soak that up and filter it, but on Earth, there’s no reasonable way to get hydrogen fuel for a fuel cell. It will all be rechargeable electric, using combinations of whatever replaces Lithium Ion batteries and Supercapacitors. The current roadblock for hydrogen fuel cells is that their membranes break down too damn fast to have a meaningful use life; but that might change in the timeframe you’re assuming.

On the equipment list, air vehicles replace grav vehicles, these include, the Air/Raft, the AirCarrier, and the Speeder, they have the same performance characteristics as the equivalent grav vehicles (Air/Raft, GCarrier, and Speeder), but have operational ceilings limiting then to Very Thin Atmosperes (Tainted or otherwise) or greater atmosphere 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The terrestrial equivalent of a Very Thin atmosphere starts at the Death Zone of Mount Everest and goes higher down to a pressure of 0.1 Atmospheres, air vehicles can't ascend higher than that, they are used primarily on Earth and in large space colonies, some special types are fusion powered and adapted for the atmosphere of Titan, which has a very cold Exotic atmosphere, the upper atmosphere of Venus, in the sulfuric cloud layer counts as a Corrosive Atmosphere, and special adaptations are required for that also. Venusian air vehicles need lots of maintence due to the corrosive nature of the sulfuric acid cloud droplets, the fan blades needs a special acid resistant coating, There are also Depressurized Air/Raft, these are designed to land on the planet's surface, and can stay down their for about 2 hours before their heat sinks are saturated with heat, and they need to ascend to cool off.

First... you’re ignoring all the nice work NASA is doing on spaceplanes. Anything currently done by a full airliner is better done by a spaceplane. These necessarily must work between full atmosphere and 0 atmosphere.

Second, Boeing Airliners typically have Service Ceilings of 43,000 feet, about 14,000 feet above Everest. You need to raise your flight ceilings for mundane aircraft.

Third, fan blades on Venus are simply a terrible idea. They’ll use chemical rockets.

Fourth, you need to take your research more seriously. This is all very publicly available stuff.

Here is the first interesting map I have. The Orbit H chart of Uranus, this includes a bunch of moons, and the inner ring 1986U2R and outer Epsilon ring.

Other than looking shiny, there’s nothing significant about any of the planetary rings. They aren’t even a significant navigational hazard... to a proper starship, anyway. Shade the regions with rings, nothing more.

And your useless “orbit distances” are polluting those orbits with noise.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

The planetary rings are on the map because they are there, the ones shown are the two largest, the innermost and the outermost, there are other rings inbetween that aren't shown. As for what they can be used for. Planetary rings make for a good radiation shield, they block the van allen belt radiation if your ship goes under them or inside them, they are composed of ice and dirt particles, and contain hydrogen compounds as well, they could be mined for fuel, if one does not want to dip into Uranus' atmosphere.

Among other things those standard orbits can be used as a ruler measuring distance from the planet's center. By comparing the real orbits with the standard orbits, you get an idea of their actual radii, and by the way, we can still put artificial colonies in those standard orbits. As for Venus, below a certain altitude the atmosphere becomes dense, perhaps ballast tanks, such as are used in submarines for controlling depth would be used close to the surface of Venus. Fan blades are more efficient than rockets, because they use the surrounding atmosphere as reaction mass, instead of stored onboard reaction mass as is the case with rockets, perhaps you are thinking of jet engines instead. Jet engines compress air and then heat it for propulsion. I think fusion rockets would switch to jets within an atmosphere, so as not to expend the stored supply of reaction mass, that way they can hover and fly so long as they have power and their propulsive system is in good working order. A typical fusion reactor can run for 4 weeks with stored fusion fuel. In Space however fusion rockets also need to expend reaction mass in order to maneuver, the standard amount of reaction mass for a given reaction engine will allow the ship to accelerate at the standard rate for about 7 hours., that is in space, in an atmosphere you aren't using stored reaction mass, so you can maneuver for as long as the fusion reactor supplies power, and the reaction engine is in good working order.

Now here is Neptune:

And Here is Pluto:

And now we go back to Earth at the scale of 50,000 miles per square:

L4

L5