Colonizing the Moon: Are you up for it?

[Canadave]

All you need to do is dispose of the CO2 and then produce an ozone layer. Then you can introduce mass quantities of water without fear of it escaping Venus' atmosphere.

Well one theory is to propel water based comets and asteroids to collide with Venus and blow off the excess atmosphere cooling the planet..

but that will take thousands of years..and the Human race can't think much beyond the next election..

or we could just suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere and into space using technology instead of asteroids. Build extractors on Venus' surface and build a space elevator and you can ship the stuff to Mars or just blow it into space. Alternatively use extractors that float in the thick dense atmosphere and have it pump the CO2 into space by sending it through a pipeline to an orbiting platform which then releases it.
The platforms could literally use the CO2 gas to create thrust to keep itself positioned or reposition itself when necessary.

The mass of the Venusian atmosphere is 4.8 × 1020 kg, about 97% of which is CO2. The escape velocity of Venus, meanwhile, is 10.42 km/s. I'm no physicist, so I don't know how much energy it would take to accelerate that much gas to that velocity, but just looking at those two numbers tells me that it would be nearly unimaginable, and certainly not plausible until a long, long time into the future.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Well one theory is to propel water based comets and asteroids to collide with Venus and blow off the excess atmosphere cooling the planet..

but that will take thousands of years..and the Human race can't think much beyond the next election..

or we could just suck the CO2 out of the atmosphere and into space using technology instead of asteroids. Build extractors on Venus' surface and build a space elevator and you can ship the stuff to Mars or just blow it into space. Alternatively use extractors that float in the thick dense atmosphere and have it pump the CO2 into space by sending it through a pipeline to an orbiting platform which then releases it.
The platforms could literally use the CO2 gas to create thrust to keep itself positioned or reposition itself when necessary.

The mass of the Venusian atmosphere is 4.8 × 1020 kg, about 97% of which is CO2. The escape velocity of Venus, meanwhile, is 10.42 km/s. I'm no physicist, so I don't know how much energy it would take to accelerate that much gas to that velocity, but just looking at those two numbers tells me that it would be nearly unimaginable, and certainly not plausible until a long, long time into the future.

The higher you are in the atmosphere the less power is required to pump the gas because the pressure isn't as great the higher up you go, so the floating extractors would work. They would also be powered by mini nuclear reactors and that's a heck of a lot of power from just a bath tub sized powerplant. The floating extractors could be used to begin with, as the atmosphere became less dense and the pressure became reduced on the surface the extractors could become ground based and if we have the technology for a space elevator we're pretty much laughing. I think we could have this kind of tech by the middle of the century. Let's not forget either that the CO2 doesn't have to go into space, we could liquify it and store it under ground in pre dug caverns and then seal them.

 

[Starbreaker]

I kind of like Earth right now. Ask me again in about 1500 years.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The easiest way to Terraform Venus would be to pelt it with icy comets and then introduce some lichen and algae and various microorganisms, preferably bioengineered. And it would have to be maintained. The biggest problem with actually colonizing Venus would be that it's tidally locked. The most comfortable real estate on the planet, both climatically and psychologically, would be the "twilight zone." Not many people would want to live in a place where it's always night or always day.

There would be a viable, self-sustaining population long before that.

I imagine there would be some fairly serious physiological problems involved with humans living in such a low gravity.

And putting these two together, I'd imagine there'd be some potentially very seriously physiological problems for developing children in a low gravity environment which would make a self-sustaining population either difficult or impossible.

The only problems would be for any people who would travel to a higher gravity environment; the physiological effects of living in lower gravity would probably be beneficial, all else being equal. In any case, the problems aren't insurmountable.

 

[Arrqh]

The only problems would be for any people who would travel to a higher gravity environment; the physiological effects of living in lower gravity would probably be beneficial, all else being equal. In any case, the problems aren't insurmountable.

On the contrary, I'd say never being able to travel to Earth after growing up on the moon would be fairly insurmountable... at least from the perspective of any potential parents. Would you want to raise a child on the moon knowing that they could never visit Earth? There could also be many other physiological side effects from growing up in such conditions on the human developmental cycle that could be fatal that we simply don't know about yet.

At the very least, a lot of research would have to be done on low gravity developmental physiology before that ever happened and there's certainly a lot of potential for something showstopping to be discovered.

 

[Aragorn]

It would suck to be the first colonists on the moon when the dome breaks. Where do you go -- outside?

I hope the colony would be capable of withstanding a strike from a fair sized asteroid. How do you propose we protect the colony from asteroids?

 

[drychlick]

i all for it! but not just right now we have money problem here on earth maybe by 2020.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The only problems would be for any people who would travel to a higher gravity environment; the physiological effects of living in lower gravity would probably be beneficial, all else being equal. In any case, the problems aren't insurmountable.

On the contrary, I'd say never being able to travel to Earth after growing up on the moon would be fairly insurmountable... at least from the perspective of any potential parents.

Possibly, at least in the absence of genetic engineering or something. By the way, this was a plot element of Clarke's Imperial Earth (not the Moon, though, I believe it was Ganymede).

Would you want to raise a child on the moon knowing that they could never visit Earth?

Why not? Many Europeans colonized North America never thinking that their children would go to Europe; I imagine it's been much the same with most migrations in history.

There could also be many other physiological side effects from growing up in such conditions on the human developmental cycle that could be fatal that we simply don't know about yet.

Sure, but I'm inclined to think that the lower gravity would simply be less stressful to the system and therefore more healthy.

At the very least, a lot of research would have to be done on low gravity developmental physiology before that ever happened and there's certainly a lot of potential for something showstopping to be discovered.

No doubt about that.

 

[Starkers]

Yeah the moon's a nice place to visit but I'd rather live on Mars...and even then you'd be talking muscle deteriation. Living permanantly on the moon would entail severe evolutionary changes for the human race--until we invent artificial gravity anyway

And why a one way trip? In astronomical terms the moon is the Isle of Wight to Earth's England!!

Children eighteen feet tall and with arms to happy slap and disrespect you from across the room. No good can come from this.

Loved the comparison at the end

Why thank you

18 foot tall surly teenagers is a terrifying notion!

 

[Deckerd]

Sure, but I'm inclined to think that the lower gravity would simply be less stressful to the system and therefore more healthy.

Since zero gravity has shown to be very damaging to the human body, I don't think your conclusions are likely.

 

[Starkers]

Sure, but I'm inclined to think that the lower gravity would simply be less stressful to the system and therefore more healthy.

Since zero gravity has shown to be very damaging to the human body, I don't think your conclusions are likely.

Yeah, even astronauts who've only been in space a few months come back with atrophied muscles.

 

[Deckerd]

The muscles aren't so much a problem as the degradation of bone.

 

[Arrqh]

Why not? Many Europeans colonized North America never thinking that their children would go to Europe; I imagine it's been much the same with most migrations in history.

To focus on this one, the situations are not exactly comparable. North America is still basically the same environment as Earth. Colonies in most scifi series are basically the same as well. But growing up on the moon and never being able to go to a normal gravity planet like Earth (and, now that I think about it, possibly restricting space flight as well as high-G acceleration would be even riskier) means never feeling the wind on your face, never walking through a forest with century old trees towering above you, never even swimming in the ocean. Sure, I'm turning up the schmultz here, but I think it's a valid psychological concern.

This was also a plot element in the series Planetes.

As for low gravity being healthier... well, perhaps for people with normal physiology it would in certain conditions (that was also a plot element in Planetes, actually... the Moon-based hospital got a lot of business from people who developed serious medical conditions on Earth or in orbit). Not so much for developmental physiology.

 

[John Picard]

Oh, I didn't know we'd get a 6-wheeled buggy. In that case, I'm up for some colonizing.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Sure, but I'm inclined to think that the lower gravity would simply be less stressful to the system and therefore more healthy.

Since zero gravity has shown to be very damaging to the human body, I don't think your conclusions are likely.

Yeah, even astronauts who've only been in space a few months come back with atrophied muscles.

Right, but this is only harmful because they come back to the higher-gravity environment.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Why not? Many Europeans colonized North America never thinking that their children would go to Europe; I imagine it's been much the same with most migrations in history.

To focus on this one, the situations are not exactly comparable. North America is still basically the same environment as Earth. Colonies in most scifi series are basically the same as well. But growing up on the moon and never being able to go to a normal gravity planet like Earth (and, now that I think about it, possibly restricting space flight as well as high-G acceleration would be even riskier) means never feeling the wind on your face, never walking through a forest with century old trees towering above you, never even swimming in the ocean. Sure, I'm turning up the schmultz here, but I think it's a valid psychological concern.

Basically, I agree with you. But a viable Lunar colony would have to have significant "natural" areas; i.e. arboretums. Have you ever read Ben Bova's Welcome To Moonbase (I think it's called)? That's the sort of thing I'm thinking of. Also, people growing up on the Moon would not be nostalgic for something they never experienced, any more than people living in Alaska are nostalgic for Palm trees or more balanced day-night cycles.

As for low gravity being healthier... well, perhaps for people with normal physiology it would in certain conditions (that was also a plot element in Planetes, actually... the Moon-based hospital got a lot of business from people who developed serious medical conditions on Earth or in orbit). Not so much for developmental physiology.

This was addressed by Clarke, too, in Islands In The Sky; people with heart conditions and so forth would be much better in zero gravity. For a somewhat amusing, and possibly true, look at development in zero gravity we have Larry Niven's Integral Trees and sequel. In real life, we really don't have enough data to know what would happen.

 

[anti-matter]

Be like a prison imo.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

But are there whalers on the moon?

 

[Ben Sisko3]

Swear to God I thought the thread title said "Colorizing the Moon", like the old Ted Turner joke on Family Guy.

 

[Michael_One]

So as I see it, the only costs are the six person spaceships... so the colonists just live in the space RV's? What about the radiation, don't you think it would be a real good idea to find a cave?

At a hundred billion bucks apiece... that's gonna be expensive; can you imagine the per unit cost at a lower total order? ( let me explain: aircraft cost less per unit in large numbers, if you buy ten 747s they don't cost ten times as much as one 747, it's more like eight times. It's a volume discount )

The Moon doesn't have much in the way of stuff to live off of... no organic material. There may be water at the poles but no one knows how much. You'd be better off colonizing a short period comet; still a hostile environment but now you have the stuff you need to live. You could build a track around the comet and run your habs in a circle for artificial gravity...

Of Course to Properly Answer the Question I Need To Keep Hitting the Shift Key And I'm Getting Tired Hitting The Shift Key So I'll Stop Now...