Does turbulence make sky cities infeasible on Venus?Can Venus be made habitable?How does Venus' thick atmosphere survive against the solar wind?Terraforming Of VenusWhat would a Venus sky look like above the cloud tops night and day?How would people measure time on Venus?Does Venus have a north star or south star?Will thinning the atmosphere of Venus make its surface habitable?Could there be caves/underground tunnels in Venus?Venus ExplorationHow to come back from a Venus cloud station?
I'm feeling like my character doesn't fit the campaign
How to play a D major chord lower than the open E major chord on guitar?
Why do Klingons use cloaking devices?
Examples of fluid (including air) being used to transmit digital data?
Passwordless authentication - how invalidate login code
Why do airports remove/realign runways?
How do resistors generate different heat if we make the current fixed and changed the voltage and resistance? Notice the flow of charge is constant
Implicit conversion between decimals with different precisions
Did William Shakespeare hide things in his writings?
Can a USB hub be used to access a drive from two devices?
How many Jimmys can fit?
Better random (unique) file name
Why do most airliners have underwing engines, while business jets have rear-mounted engines?
Why no parachutes in the Orion AA2 abort test?
Is this standard Japanese employment negotiations, or am I missing something?
Earliest example of double planets in science fiction?
Why do Martians have to wear space helmets?
What happens if the limit of 4 billion files was exceeded in an ext4 partition?
Is conquering your neighbors to fight a greater enemy a valid strategy?
Was the 45.9°C temperature in France in June 2019 the highest ever recorded in France?
Multi-user CRUD: Valid, Problem, or Error?
Can the Four Elements monk's Shape the Flowing River elemental discipline create stairs by expending a single ki point?
When moving a unique_ptr into a lambda, why is it not possible to call reset?
Will Jimmy fall off his platform?
Does turbulence make sky cities infeasible on Venus?
Can Venus be made habitable?How does Venus' thick atmosphere survive against the solar wind?Terraforming Of VenusWhat would a Venus sky look like above the cloud tops night and day?How would people measure time on Venus?Does Venus have a north star or south star?Will thinning the atmosphere of Venus make its surface habitable?Could there be caves/underground tunnels in Venus?Venus ExplorationHow to come back from a Venus cloud station?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
It has been proposed that Venus' atmosphere at the altitude of around 50 km could be colonized with large aerostats. Since Venus' atmosphere is largely CO2 regular air acts like a lifting gas. So it has been proposed that a small city could be lofted by a balloon filled with air of similar size to a small city(~km in diameter).
My question is could Venus' atmospheric turbulence and wind shear at these altitudes make constructing such large aerostats infeasible due to structural reasons? Turbulence and wind shear seem to have played a part in a number of airship disasters here on earth. Would said turbulence or other atmospheric processes on venus be sufficient to irreparably damage or fatigue at an impractically high rate aerostats made from the typical materials we make balloons from on earth? Or is the rate at which an individual aerostat encounters fatally damaging turbulence similar to the rate at which an individual city on earth experiences a large natural disaster?
To preempt the trivial answer of just avoid the turbulence and because it is my opinion that propelling a large balloon the size of a city is impractical, let's only consider non-propulsive aerostats. Although I will concede that buoyancy control is allowed. A large aerostat may be considered to be one that has a payload of =>750,000 tons or a diameter => 1 km.
EDIT: Because a non-propulsive aerostat is to be considered, it can be assumed to move freely with the wind and does not station keep.
venus
asked Jun 27 at 6:20
EstimatorNoiselessEstimatorNoiseless
1344 bronze badges
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
It has been proposed that Venus' atmosphere at the altitude of around 50 km could be colonized with large aerostats. Since Venus' atmosphere is largely CO2 regular air acts like a lifting gas. So it has been proposed that a small city could be lofted by a balloon filled with air of similar size to a small city(~km in diameter).
My question is could Venus' atmospheric turbulence and wind shear at these altitudes make constructing such large aerostats infeasible due to structural reasons? Turbulence and wind shear seem to have played a part in a number of airship disasters here on earth. Would said turbulence or other atmospheric processes on venus be sufficient to irreparably damage or fatigue at an impractically high rate aerostats made from the typical materials we make balloons from on earth? Or is the rate at which an individual aerostat encounters fatally damaging turbulence similar to the rate at which an individual city on earth experiences a large natural disaster?
To preempt the trivial answer of just avoid the turbulence and because it is my opinion that propelling a large balloon the size of a city is impractical, let's only consider non-propulsive aerostats. Although I will concede that buoyancy control is allowed. A large aerostat may be considered to be one that has a payload of =>750,000 tons or a diameter => 1 km.
EDIT: Because a non-propulsive aerostat is to be considered, it can be assumed to move freely with the wind and does not station keep.
venus
asked Jun 27 at 6:20
EstimatorNoiselessEstimatorNoiseless
1344 bronze badges
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a better fit for Worldbuilding. Any answers will largely be speculation, or at best back-of-the-envelope calculations.
$endgroup$
– Jan Doggen
Jun 27 at 8:26
$begingroup$
a lot of things "have been proposed". That doesn't mean they're feasible. And creating floating cities is one of those things that aren't feasible. If it's not feasible on earth, it won't be feasible on Venus, which is a harsher environment.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Jun 27 at 12:09
3
$begingroup$
The key question is simply "How turbulent is Venus atmosphere at the 1 bar level?"
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Jun 27 at 14:40
2
$begingroup$
@jwenting It's actually more feasible on Venus, because Venus' atmosphere is denser (it's mostly carbon dioxide), which means standard air is a lifting gas. This means that instead of suspending your city from massive gasbags as zeppelins/blimps/hot air balloons do, you can build your city inside the bags and have much simpler structural engineering.
$endgroup$
– Skyler
Jun 27 at 15:20
1
$begingroup$
Skyler - but it is Venus, which means it is far less feasible. As all humans (so far) are on Earth - that's a hell of a lot of delta-V required to get floating cities there.
$endgroup$
– Rory Alsop
Jun 27 at 16:41
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
It has been proposed that Venus' atmosphere at the altitude of around 50 km could be colonized with large aerostats. Since Venus' atmosphere is largely CO2 regular air acts like a lifting gas. So it has been proposed that a small city could be lofted by a balloon filled with air of similar size to a small city(~km in diameter).
My question is could Venus' atmospheric turbulence and wind shear at these altitudes make constructing such large aerostats infeasible due to structural reasons? Turbulence and wind shear seem to have played a part in a number of airship disasters here on earth. Would said turbulence or other atmospheric processes on venus be sufficient to irreparably damage or fatigue at an impractically high rate aerostats made from the typical materials we make balloons from on earth? Or is the rate at which an individual aerostat encounters fatally damaging turbulence similar to the rate at which an individual city on earth experiences a large natural disaster?
To preempt the trivial answer of just avoid the turbulence and because it is my opinion that propelling a large balloon the size of a city is impractical, let's only consider non-propulsive aerostats. Although I will concede that buoyancy control is allowed. A large aerostat may be considered to be one that has a payload of =>750,000 tons or a diameter => 1 km.
EDIT: Because a non-propulsive aerostat is to be considered, it can be assumed to move freely with the wind and does not station keep.
venus
asked Jun 27 at 6:20
EstimatorNoiselessEstimatorNoiseless
1344 bronze badges
$endgroup$
It has been proposed that Venus' atmosphere at the altitude of around 50 km could be colonized with large aerostats. Since Venus' atmosphere is largely CO2 regular air acts like a lifting gas. So it has been proposed that a small city could be lofted by a balloon filled with air of similar size to a small city(~km in diameter).
My question is could Venus' atmospheric turbulence and wind shear at these altitudes make constructing such large aerostats infeasible due to structural reasons? Turbulence and wind shear seem to have played a part in a number of airship disasters here on earth. Would said turbulence or other atmospheric processes on venus be sufficient to irreparably damage or fatigue at an impractically high rate aerostats made from the typical materials we make balloons from on earth? Or is the rate at which an individual aerostat encounters fatally damaging turbulence similar to the rate at which an individual city on earth experiences a large natural disaster?
To preempt the trivial answer of just avoid the turbulence and because it is my opinion that propelling a large balloon the size of a city is impractical, let's only consider non-propulsive aerostats. Although I will concede that buoyancy control is allowed. A large aerostat may be considered to be one that has a payload of =>750,000 tons or a diameter => 1 km.
EDIT: Because a non-propulsive aerostat is to be considered, it can be assumed to move freely with the wind and does not station keep.
venus
venus
asked Jun 27 at 6:20
EstimatorNoiselessEstimatorNoiseless
1344 bronze badges
asked Jun 27 at 6:20
EstimatorNoiselessEstimatorNoiseless
1344 bronze badges
edited Jun 27 at 17:00
EstimatorNoiseless
asked Jun 27 at 6:20
EstimatorNoiselessEstimatorNoiseless
1344 bronze badges
asked Jun 27 at 6:20
EstimatorNoiselessEstimatorNoiseless
1344 bronze badges
asked Jun 27 at 6:20
EstimatorNoiselessEstimatorNoiseless
1344 bronze badges
1344 bronze badges
8
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a better fit for Worldbuilding. Any answers will largely be speculation, or at best back-of-the-envelope calculations.
$endgroup$
– Jan Doggen
Jun 27 at 8:26
$begingroup$
a lot of things "have been proposed". That doesn't mean they're feasible. And creating floating cities is one of those things that aren't feasible. If it's not feasible on earth, it won't be feasible on Venus, which is a harsher environment.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Jun 27 at 12:09
3
$begingroup$
The key question is simply "How turbulent is Venus atmosphere at the 1 bar level?"
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Jun 27 at 14:40
2
$begingroup$
@jwenting It's actually more feasible on Venus, because Venus' atmosphere is denser (it's mostly carbon dioxide), which means standard air is a lifting gas. This means that instead of suspending your city from massive gasbags as zeppelins/blimps/hot air balloons do, you can build your city inside the bags and have much simpler structural engineering.
$endgroup$
– Skyler
Jun 27 at 15:20
1
$begingroup$
Skyler - but it is Venus, which means it is far less feasible. As all humans (so far) are on Earth - that's a hell of a lot of delta-V required to get floating cities there.
$endgroup$
– Rory Alsop
Jun 27 at 16:41
|
show 2 more comments
8
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a better fit for Worldbuilding. Any answers will largely be speculation, or at best back-of-the-envelope calculations.
$endgroup$
– Jan Doggen
Jun 27 at 8:26
$begingroup$
a lot of things "have been proposed". That doesn't mean they're feasible. And creating floating cities is one of those things that aren't feasible. If it's not feasible on earth, it won't be feasible on Venus, which is a harsher environment.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Jun 27 at 12:09
3
$begingroup$
The key question is simply "How turbulent is Venus atmosphere at the 1 bar level?"
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Jun 27 at 14:40
2
$begingroup$
@jwenting It's actually more feasible on Venus, because Venus' atmosphere is denser (it's mostly carbon dioxide), which means standard air is a lifting gas. This means that instead of suspending your city from massive gasbags as zeppelins/blimps/hot air balloons do, you can build your city inside the bags and have much simpler structural engineering.
$endgroup$
– Skyler
Jun 27 at 15:20
1
$begingroup$
Skyler - but it is Venus, which means it is far less feasible. As all humans (so far) are on Earth - that's a hell of a lot of delta-V required to get floating cities there.
$endgroup$
– Rory Alsop
Jun 27 at 16:41
8
8
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a better fit for Worldbuilding. Any answers will largely be speculation, or at best back-of-the-envelope calculations.
$endgroup$
– Jan Doggen
Jun 27 at 8:26
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a better fit for Worldbuilding. Any answers will largely be speculation, or at best back-of-the-envelope calculations.
$endgroup$
– Jan Doggen
Jun 27 at 8:26
$begingroup$
a lot of things "have been proposed". That doesn't mean they're feasible. And creating floating cities is one of those things that aren't feasible. If it's not feasible on earth, it won't be feasible on Venus, which is a harsher environment.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Jun 27 at 12:09
$begingroup$
a lot of things "have been proposed". That doesn't mean they're feasible. And creating floating cities is one of those things that aren't feasible. If it's not feasible on earth, it won't be feasible on Venus, which is a harsher environment.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Jun 27 at 12:09
3
3
$begingroup$
The key question is simply "How turbulent is Venus atmosphere at the 1 bar level?"
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Jun 27 at 14:40
$begingroup$
The key question is simply "How turbulent is Venus atmosphere at the 1 bar level?"
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Jun 27 at 14:40
2
2
$begingroup$
@jwenting It's actually more feasible on Venus, because Venus' atmosphere is denser (it's mostly carbon dioxide), which means standard air is a lifting gas. This means that instead of suspending your city from massive gasbags as zeppelins/blimps/hot air balloons do, you can build your city inside the bags and have much simpler structural engineering.
$endgroup$
– Skyler
Jun 27 at 15:20
$begingroup$
@jwenting It's actually more feasible on Venus, because Venus' atmosphere is denser (it's mostly carbon dioxide), which means standard air is a lifting gas. This means that instead of suspending your city from massive gasbags as zeppelins/blimps/hot air balloons do, you can build your city inside the bags and have much simpler structural engineering.
$endgroup$
– Skyler
Jun 27 at 15:20
1
1
$begingroup$
Skyler - but it is Venus, which means it is far less feasible. As all humans (so far) are on Earth - that's a hell of a lot of delta-V required to get floating cities there.
$endgroup$
– Rory Alsop
Jun 27 at 16:41
$begingroup$
Skyler - but it is Venus, which means it is far less feasible. As all humans (so far) are on Earth - that's a hell of a lot of delta-V required to get floating cities there.
$endgroup$
– Rory Alsop
Jun 27 at 16:41
|
show 2 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Infeasible may be the wrong word but impractical might be fitting.
The suggested structures would be comparable to rigid or semi-rigid airships of today's time.
The lifting envelope does not need to hold a significant pressure differential. Since at the altitudes of interest the external pressure is nearly one bar, atmospheric pressure inside the envelope would be the same as the pressure outside. The envelope material itself would be a rip-stop material, with high-strength tension elements to carry the load. - "Colonization of Venus" by Geoffrey A. Landis
A rigid structure should be able to handle the maximum wind speeds of 100m/s that you find at altitudes of interest.
The linear wind speeds at this level are about 100 ± 10 m/s at lower than 50° latitude. [...] The winds quickly decrease towards the higher latitudes, eventually reaching zero at the poles. (Source: Wikipedia)
Your bigger problem will be to stay in one place with your city as you need to work against those strong winds.
A modern airship can reach maximum speeds of 35m/s, so you would need to give your floating cities quite a few engines or anchor them to the ground to avoid your cities of being dragged with the strong winds.
Moving your cities towards the poles might at first sound better because of the decrease in wind speed but the decrease in solar efficiency and the danger of the polar hurricanes make it unattractive, at least in my opinion.
(My meteorology knowledge is quite limited so take everything with a (big) grain of salt)
answered Jun 27 at 7:36
GittingGudGittingGud
3979 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I suspect, stabilization could be reached also by hooks. Although a 60km long cable is surely not easy to build, particularly that it should survive also the surface temperature. But it is possible. Alternatively, maybe a dynamical floating in height between two, opposite directionally moving atmospheric layers.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:37
1
$begingroup$
@peterh some weight you drag with you hanging into another part of the atmosphere would help. But I think that when we are able to but 750kt into the atmosphere of another planet we can simply achieve a stable position for the city by brute force. We are far into SciFi territory anyway which is why the question also doesn't really fit into this SE.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:40
1
$begingroup$
Well, unfortunately it is. But it is so beautiful to think about it. However, if Musk succeeds, maybe that 750kT is not so far away.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:47
$begingroup$
The thing with building huge structures on other planets which we have to import is always:why? We can simply put the same Blimp-City into Orbit around Earth or even around Venus.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:49
2
$begingroup$
The blimp-city is technology far easier. The lift/volume of an $O_2$-loaded blimp in a $CO_2$ atm is $approx$ the same than the current $H_2$/$He$ blimps in our air. However, the $O_2$ could be created directly from the CO2 or the Venusian atmosphere. Or, maybe a yet better idea: the Venusian atmosphere has also some atm $N_2$, too. It gives a little bit more lifting force than $O_2$, is not a fire hazard, and it can be extracted from the Venusian atmosphere by simple cooling.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 11:12
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
No, winds do not make it infeasible to make sky cities on Venus. In order to build them in the first place we would need to solve the massive technological challenges that would allow us to build massive structures around a different planet. If we can develop the orbital lift, space construction, propulsion and other technologies to build the sky city, get it to Venus, de-orbit it into the cloud level without it burning up, then populate it, feed it and care for it I doubt a bit of wind is going to truly pose a problem.
answered Jun 27 at 12:30
GdDGdD
11.4k3 gold badges36 silver badges50 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36981%2fdoes-turbulence-make-sky-cities-infeasible-on-venus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Infeasible may be the wrong word but impractical might be fitting.
The suggested structures would be comparable to rigid or semi-rigid airships of today's time.
The lifting envelope does not need to hold a significant pressure differential. Since at the altitudes of interest the external pressure is nearly one bar, atmospheric pressure inside the envelope would be the same as the pressure outside. The envelope material itself would be a rip-stop material, with high-strength tension elements to carry the load. - "Colonization of Venus" by Geoffrey A. Landis
A rigid structure should be able to handle the maximum wind speeds of 100m/s that you find at altitudes of interest.
The linear wind speeds at this level are about 100 ± 10 m/s at lower than 50° latitude. [...] The winds quickly decrease towards the higher latitudes, eventually reaching zero at the poles. (Source: Wikipedia)
Your bigger problem will be to stay in one place with your city as you need to work against those strong winds.
A modern airship can reach maximum speeds of 35m/s, so you would need to give your floating cities quite a few engines or anchor them to the ground to avoid your cities of being dragged with the strong winds.
Moving your cities towards the poles might at first sound better because of the decrease in wind speed but the decrease in solar efficiency and the danger of the polar hurricanes make it unattractive, at least in my opinion.
(My meteorology knowledge is quite limited so take everything with a (big) grain of salt)
answered Jun 27 at 7:36
GittingGudGittingGud
3979 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I suspect, stabilization could be reached also by hooks. Although a 60km long cable is surely not easy to build, particularly that it should survive also the surface temperature. But it is possible. Alternatively, maybe a dynamical floating in height between two, opposite directionally moving atmospheric layers.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:37
1
$begingroup$
@peterh some weight you drag with you hanging into another part of the atmosphere would help. But I think that when we are able to but 750kt into the atmosphere of another planet we can simply achieve a stable position for the city by brute force. We are far into SciFi territory anyway which is why the question also doesn't really fit into this SE.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:40
1
$begingroup$
Well, unfortunately it is. But it is so beautiful to think about it. However, if Musk succeeds, maybe that 750kT is not so far away.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:47
$begingroup$
The thing with building huge structures on other planets which we have to import is always:why? We can simply put the same Blimp-City into Orbit around Earth or even around Venus.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:49
2
$begingroup$
The blimp-city is technology far easier. The lift/volume of an $O_2$-loaded blimp in a $CO_2$ atm is $approx$ the same than the current $H_2$/$He$ blimps in our air. However, the $O_2$ could be created directly from the CO2 or the Venusian atmosphere. Or, maybe a yet better idea: the Venusian atmosphere has also some atm $N_2$, too. It gives a little bit more lifting force than $O_2$, is not a fire hazard, and it can be extracted from the Venusian atmosphere by simple cooling.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 11:12
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
Infeasible may be the wrong word but impractical might be fitting.
The suggested structures would be comparable to rigid or semi-rigid airships of today's time.
The lifting envelope does not need to hold a significant pressure differential. Since at the altitudes of interest the external pressure is nearly one bar, atmospheric pressure inside the envelope would be the same as the pressure outside. The envelope material itself would be a rip-stop material, with high-strength tension elements to carry the load. - "Colonization of Venus" by Geoffrey A. Landis
A rigid structure should be able to handle the maximum wind speeds of 100m/s that you find at altitudes of interest.
The linear wind speeds at this level are about 100 ± 10 m/s at lower than 50° latitude. [...] The winds quickly decrease towards the higher latitudes, eventually reaching zero at the poles. (Source: Wikipedia)
Your bigger problem will be to stay in one place with your city as you need to work against those strong winds.
A modern airship can reach maximum speeds of 35m/s, so you would need to give your floating cities quite a few engines or anchor them to the ground to avoid your cities of being dragged with the strong winds.
Moving your cities towards the poles might at first sound better because of the decrease in wind speed but the decrease in solar efficiency and the danger of the polar hurricanes make it unattractive, at least in my opinion.
(My meteorology knowledge is quite limited so take everything with a (big) grain of salt)
answered Jun 27 at 7:36
GittingGudGittingGud
3979 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I suspect, stabilization could be reached also by hooks. Although a 60km long cable is surely not easy to build, particularly that it should survive also the surface temperature. But it is possible. Alternatively, maybe a dynamical floating in height between two, opposite directionally moving atmospheric layers.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:37
1
$begingroup$
@peterh some weight you drag with you hanging into another part of the atmosphere would help. But I think that when we are able to but 750kt into the atmosphere of another planet we can simply achieve a stable position for the city by brute force. We are far into SciFi territory anyway which is why the question also doesn't really fit into this SE.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:40
1
$begingroup$
Well, unfortunately it is. But it is so beautiful to think about it. However, if Musk succeeds, maybe that 750kT is not so far away.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:47
$begingroup$
The thing with building huge structures on other planets which we have to import is always:why? We can simply put the same Blimp-City into Orbit around Earth or even around Venus.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:49
2
$begingroup$
The blimp-city is technology far easier. The lift/volume of an $O_2$-loaded blimp in a $CO_2$ atm is $approx$ the same than the current $H_2$/$He$ blimps in our air. However, the $O_2$ could be created directly from the CO2 or the Venusian atmosphere. Or, maybe a yet better idea: the Venusian atmosphere has also some atm $N_2$, too. It gives a little bit more lifting force than $O_2$, is not a fire hazard, and it can be extracted from the Venusian atmosphere by simple cooling.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 11:12
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
Infeasible may be the wrong word but impractical might be fitting.
The suggested structures would be comparable to rigid or semi-rigid airships of today's time.
The lifting envelope does not need to hold a significant pressure differential. Since at the altitudes of interest the external pressure is nearly one bar, atmospheric pressure inside the envelope would be the same as the pressure outside. The envelope material itself would be a rip-stop material, with high-strength tension elements to carry the load. - "Colonization of Venus" by Geoffrey A. Landis
A rigid structure should be able to handle the maximum wind speeds of 100m/s that you find at altitudes of interest.
The linear wind speeds at this level are about 100 ± 10 m/s at lower than 50° latitude. [...] The winds quickly decrease towards the higher latitudes, eventually reaching zero at the poles. (Source: Wikipedia)
Your bigger problem will be to stay in one place with your city as you need to work against those strong winds.
A modern airship can reach maximum speeds of 35m/s, so you would need to give your floating cities quite a few engines or anchor them to the ground to avoid your cities of being dragged with the strong winds.
Moving your cities towards the poles might at first sound better because of the decrease in wind speed but the decrease in solar efficiency and the danger of the polar hurricanes make it unattractive, at least in my opinion.
(My meteorology knowledge is quite limited so take everything with a (big) grain of salt)
answered Jun 27 at 7:36
GittingGudGittingGud
3979 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Infeasible may be the wrong word but impractical might be fitting.
The suggested structures would be comparable to rigid or semi-rigid airships of today's time.
The lifting envelope does not need to hold a significant pressure differential. Since at the altitudes of interest the external pressure is nearly one bar, atmospheric pressure inside the envelope would be the same as the pressure outside. The envelope material itself would be a rip-stop material, with high-strength tension elements to carry the load. - "Colonization of Venus" by Geoffrey A. Landis
A rigid structure should be able to handle the maximum wind speeds of 100m/s that you find at altitudes of interest.
The linear wind speeds at this level are about 100 ± 10 m/s at lower than 50° latitude. [...] The winds quickly decrease towards the higher latitudes, eventually reaching zero at the poles. (Source: Wikipedia)
Your bigger problem will be to stay in one place with your city as you need to work against those strong winds.
A modern airship can reach maximum speeds of 35m/s, so you would need to give your floating cities quite a few engines or anchor them to the ground to avoid your cities of being dragged with the strong winds.
Moving your cities towards the poles might at first sound better because of the decrease in wind speed but the decrease in solar efficiency and the danger of the polar hurricanes make it unattractive, at least in my opinion.
(My meteorology knowledge is quite limited so take everything with a (big) grain of salt)
answered Jun 27 at 7:36
GittingGudGittingGud
3979 bronze badges
edited Jun 27 at 8:33
answered Jun 27 at 7:36
GittingGudGittingGud
3979 bronze badges
answered Jun 27 at 7:36
GittingGudGittingGud
3979 bronze badges
answered Jun 27 at 7:36
GittingGudGittingGud
3979 bronze badges
3979 bronze badges
$begingroup$
I suspect, stabilization could be reached also by hooks. Although a 60km long cable is surely not easy to build, particularly that it should survive also the surface temperature. But it is possible. Alternatively, maybe a dynamical floating in height between two, opposite directionally moving atmospheric layers.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:37
1
$begingroup$
@peterh some weight you drag with you hanging into another part of the atmosphere would help. But I think that when we are able to but 750kt into the atmosphere of another planet we can simply achieve a stable position for the city by brute force. We are far into SciFi territory anyway which is why the question also doesn't really fit into this SE.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:40
1
$begingroup$
Well, unfortunately it is. But it is so beautiful to think about it. However, if Musk succeeds, maybe that 750kT is not so far away.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:47
$begingroup$
The thing with building huge structures on other planets which we have to import is always:why? We can simply put the same Blimp-City into Orbit around Earth or even around Venus.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:49
2
$begingroup$
The blimp-city is technology far easier. The lift/volume of an $O_2$-loaded blimp in a $CO_2$ atm is $approx$ the same than the current $H_2$/$He$ blimps in our air. However, the $O_2$ could be created directly from the CO2 or the Venusian atmosphere. Or, maybe a yet better idea: the Venusian atmosphere has also some atm $N_2$, too. It gives a little bit more lifting force than $O_2$, is not a fire hazard, and it can be extracted from the Venusian atmosphere by simple cooling.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 11:12
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
I suspect, stabilization could be reached also by hooks. Although a 60km long cable is surely not easy to build, particularly that it should survive also the surface temperature. But it is possible. Alternatively, maybe a dynamical floating in height between two, opposite directionally moving atmospheric layers.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:37
1
$begingroup$
@peterh some weight you drag with you hanging into another part of the atmosphere would help. But I think that when we are able to but 750kt into the atmosphere of another planet we can simply achieve a stable position for the city by brute force. We are far into SciFi territory anyway which is why the question also doesn't really fit into this SE.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:40
1
$begingroup$
Well, unfortunately it is. But it is so beautiful to think about it. However, if Musk succeeds, maybe that 750kT is not so far away.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:47
$begingroup$
The thing with building huge structures on other planets which we have to import is always:why? We can simply put the same Blimp-City into Orbit around Earth or even around Venus.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:49
2
$begingroup$
The blimp-city is technology far easier. The lift/volume of an $O_2$-loaded blimp in a $CO_2$ atm is $approx$ the same than the current $H_2$/$He$ blimps in our air. However, the $O_2$ could be created directly from the CO2 or the Venusian atmosphere. Or, maybe a yet better idea: the Venusian atmosphere has also some atm $N_2$, too. It gives a little bit more lifting force than $O_2$, is not a fire hazard, and it can be extracted from the Venusian atmosphere by simple cooling.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 11:12
$begingroup$
I suspect, stabilization could be reached also by hooks. Although a 60km long cable is surely not easy to build, particularly that it should survive also the surface temperature. But it is possible. Alternatively, maybe a dynamical floating in height between two, opposite directionally moving atmospheric layers.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:37
$begingroup$
I suspect, stabilization could be reached also by hooks. Although a 60km long cable is surely not easy to build, particularly that it should survive also the surface temperature. But it is possible. Alternatively, maybe a dynamical floating in height between two, opposite directionally moving atmospheric layers.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:37
1
1
$begingroup$
@peterh some weight you drag with you hanging into another part of the atmosphere would help. But I think that when we are able to but 750kt into the atmosphere of another planet we can simply achieve a stable position for the city by brute force. We are far into SciFi territory anyway which is why the question also doesn't really fit into this SE.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:40
$begingroup$
@peterh some weight you drag with you hanging into another part of the atmosphere would help. But I think that when we are able to but 750kt into the atmosphere of another planet we can simply achieve a stable position for the city by brute force. We are far into SciFi territory anyway which is why the question also doesn't really fit into this SE.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:40
1
1
$begingroup$
Well, unfortunately it is. But it is so beautiful to think about it. However, if Musk succeeds, maybe that 750kT is not so far away.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:47
$begingroup$
Well, unfortunately it is. But it is so beautiful to think about it. However, if Musk succeeds, maybe that 750kT is not so far away.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 10:47
$begingroup$
The thing with building huge structures on other planets which we have to import is always:why? We can simply put the same Blimp-City into Orbit around Earth or even around Venus.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:49
$begingroup$
The thing with building huge structures on other planets which we have to import is always:why? We can simply put the same Blimp-City into Orbit around Earth or even around Venus.
$endgroup$
– GittingGud
Jun 27 at 10:49
2
2
$begingroup$
The blimp-city is technology far easier. The lift/volume of an $O_2$-loaded blimp in a $CO_2$ atm is $approx$ the same than the current $H_2$/$He$ blimps in our air. However, the $O_2$ could be created directly from the CO2 or the Venusian atmosphere. Or, maybe a yet better idea: the Venusian atmosphere has also some atm $N_2$, too. It gives a little bit more lifting force than $O_2$, is not a fire hazard, and it can be extracted from the Venusian atmosphere by simple cooling.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 11:12
$begingroup$
The blimp-city is technology far easier. The lift/volume of an $O_2$-loaded blimp in a $CO_2$ atm is $approx$ the same than the current $H_2$/$He$ blimps in our air. However, the $O_2$ could be created directly from the CO2 or the Venusian atmosphere. Or, maybe a yet better idea: the Venusian atmosphere has also some atm $N_2$, too. It gives a little bit more lifting force than $O_2$, is not a fire hazard, and it can be extracted from the Venusian atmosphere by simple cooling.
$endgroup$
– peterh
Jun 27 at 11:12
|
show 10 more comments
$begingroup$
No, winds do not make it infeasible to make sky cities on Venus. In order to build them in the first place we would need to solve the massive technological challenges that would allow us to build massive structures around a different planet. If we can develop the orbital lift, space construction, propulsion and other technologies to build the sky city, get it to Venus, de-orbit it into the cloud level without it burning up, then populate it, feed it and care for it I doubt a bit of wind is going to truly pose a problem.
answered Jun 27 at 12:30
GdDGdD
11.4k3 gold badges36 silver badges50 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, winds do not make it infeasible to make sky cities on Venus. In order to build them in the first place we would need to solve the massive technological challenges that would allow us to build massive structures around a different planet. If we can develop the orbital lift, space construction, propulsion and other technologies to build the sky city, get it to Venus, de-orbit it into the cloud level without it burning up, then populate it, feed it and care for it I doubt a bit of wind is going to truly pose a problem.
answered Jun 27 at 12:30
GdDGdD
11.4k3 gold badges36 silver badges50 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
No, winds do not make it infeasible to make sky cities on Venus. In order to build them in the first place we would need to solve the massive technological challenges that would allow us to build massive structures around a different planet. If we can develop the orbital lift, space construction, propulsion and other technologies to build the sky city, get it to Venus, de-orbit it into the cloud level without it burning up, then populate it, feed it and care for it I doubt a bit of wind is going to truly pose a problem.
answered Jun 27 at 12:30
GdDGdD
11.4k3 gold badges36 silver badges50 bronze badges
$endgroup$
No, winds do not make it infeasible to make sky cities on Venus. In order to build them in the first place we would need to solve the massive technological challenges that would allow us to build massive structures around a different planet. If we can develop the orbital lift, space construction, propulsion and other technologies to build the sky city, get it to Venus, de-orbit it into the cloud level without it burning up, then populate it, feed it and care for it I doubt a bit of wind is going to truly pose a problem.
answered Jun 27 at 12:30
GdDGdD
11.4k3 gold badges36 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Jun 27 at 12:30
GdDGdD
11.4k3 gold badges36 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Jun 27 at 12:30
GdDGdD
11.4k3 gold badges36 silver badges50 bronze badges
answered Jun 27 at 12:30
GdDGdD
11.4k3 gold badges36 silver badges50 bronze badges
11.4k3 gold badges36 silver badges50 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f36981%2fdoes-turbulence-make-sky-cities-infeasible-on-venus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
8
$begingroup$
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a better fit for Worldbuilding. Any answers will largely be speculation, or at best back-of-the-envelope calculations.
$endgroup$
– Jan Doggen
Jun 27 at 8:26
$begingroup$
a lot of things "have been proposed". That doesn't mean they're feasible. And creating floating cities is one of those things that aren't feasible. If it's not feasible on earth, it won't be feasible on Venus, which is a harsher environment.
$endgroup$
– jwenting
Jun 27 at 12:09
3
$begingroup$
The key question is simply "How turbulent is Venus atmosphere at the 1 bar level?"
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
Jun 27 at 14:40
2
$begingroup$
@jwenting It's actually more feasible on Venus, because Venus' atmosphere is denser (it's mostly carbon dioxide), which means standard air is a lifting gas. This means that instead of suspending your city from massive gasbags as zeppelins/blimps/hot air balloons do, you can build your city inside the bags and have much simpler structural engineering.
$endgroup$
– Skyler
Jun 27 at 15:20
1
$begingroup$
Skyler - but it is Venus, which means it is far less feasible. As all humans (so far) are on Earth - that's a hell of a lot of delta-V required to get floating cities there.
$endgroup$
– Rory Alsop
Jun 27 at 16:41