UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-30-2014, 08:17 PM   #26
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
I fail to see why you think it would be easier to reduce the temperature from 600 degrees Celsius to 20 degrees Celsius than to increase the temperature from -80 degrees Celsius to 20 degrees Celsius.

Venus is not close enough to the Sun to get a drastically increased amount of solar energy. I may be closer than you to Chernobyl, but that doesn't mean that I'm being irradiated as we speak.

Venus is about .72 AU from the Sun. If you can pull a ton of solar energy out of that .28 AU distance, be my guest.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2014, 08:53 PM   #27
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
I fail to see why you think it would be easier to reduce the temperature from 600 degrees Celsius to 20 degrees Celsius than to increase the temperature from -80 degrees Celsius to 20 degrees Celsius.
The top of the troposphere of Venus, 65 km above the surface, has Earth-like temperature and air. It isn't 600 degrees C. The only interest I have in the planet surface is mining below it with remote-controlled machinery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Venus is not close enough to the Sun to get a drastically increased amount of solar energy. I may be closer than you to Chernobyl, but that doesn't mean that I'm being irradiated as we speak.
Versus Earth and beyond the atmosphere, yes. But the problem is you can't set up space shields around Earth without impacting the temperature on Earth: radiant energy from the sun has to reach the planet to heat the planet, and if we set up giant shields to absorb that solar energy it'll have a negative impact on Earth's ecology by depriving it of that same energy.

This is less of a problem with Venus because Venus retains heat much more strongly than Earth, and so conditions on Venus would take centuries and a LOT of solar shielding to have a noticeable change in climate. And, it would be for the positive too, since it would eventually cool the planet enough to not need the cloud cities.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2014, 04:57 AM   #28
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Dopple is correct about the upper atmosphere of Venus, iirc all you'd need up there is an oxygen tank. Also that distance difference roughly doubles the amount of solar energy falling on any given surface, which is a not insignificant difference.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2014, 05:19 AM   #29
Rangeet
Foot, meet mouth.
 
Rangeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,362
Send a message via MSN to Rangeet Send a message via Skype™ to Rangeet
But it'd be almost impossible to keep a consistent orbit in the upper atmosphere, wouldn't it? And what's the point of colonizing a planet if you don't live on the planet's surface itself?
__________________
Spoiler: show
Rangeet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 AM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.