Only about 8 times as much as Earth. And it would be even colder if it wasn't there.
You could have HIGH PRESSURE fart gas or xenon gas, its still going to get HOT if its 800 PSI.
I have a couple of books on thermodynamics that disagree with your hypothesis. You probably have a refrigerator that also disagrees with your hypothesis, or it would not work. What pressure a fluid is at has absolutely nothing to do with its temperature. You'll only see changes in temperature when you change one of the other parameters (volume, pressure), and I don't think there's any proof of billions of compressors on the surface of Venus. But you probably know all that and are just trolling.
Additionally, Venus' rotational period is too long. Venusian days are on the order of two hundred and forty Earth days. If the surface were otherwise habitable, in terms of chemistry and pressure, you'd still get extremes of temperature during the day/night cycle.
Stick to colonizing the poles at first, then.
Increasing the planet's angular momentum would solve this, but the sheer amount of energy needed is mind-bending.
Something in the ballpark of 10^29 Joules. And that's just for the rotational energy, not for any heating effects.
I'm not even sure what spinning up a world would do to it's surface or internal structure.
You'll probably need to add a couple of extra joules, since the core might need to be heated up.
Forget centuries, we'd need a millennium or two to fix this.
Depends on how long it takes to find a suitable piece of space rock to smack into Venus. What could _possibly_ go wrong?;)
The questions are: How do you power it ? And will it happen before or after a sharp drop in city population as people die from dehydration, disease and getting punctured by flying metal ?
Yup, at 1.7X earth gravity my meager 205lb weight would be a 349 lb.
The other problem is that you suddenly have to deal with 1.7x the hydrostatic pressure difference, meaning that your heart would have to pump as if you were 1.7x as tall, and other means of distributing fluids in your system (e.g. the lymphatic system) might not work as intended, either.
Cities of any kind are science fiction. Flying habitats are not science fiction, no. We already have long-term aircraft prototypes. Hell, given a sufficient supply of fuel, all you really need is a more corrosion-resistant aircraft.
The proposed habitat on Venus isn't flying (as in "plane"), it's floating (as in "ballon" or "airship"). No fuel is necessary for it to stay afloat, just for actually doing anything useful.
I have the time to change it into what they wanted
Yes, on your nickel. Good luck running a business that way.
If you want to stay in business, you need the cya paper, and preferably a contract stating how much additional changes to the project will cost ("lots" is a good starting point, to discourage never-ending projects).
... to get stuff off the surface of this planet. Preferably solutions where
the launch vehicle does not need to lift all the fuel necessary to get into
orbit.
Of course, this leads to megaconstructions like space elevators or magnetic
rails spanning hundreds of miles and going tens of miles up. They're not only
engineering challenges, but also political ones (can you say NIMBYNIMBYNIMBY?).
Once we're able to build those, colonies on other planets should be within
reach, too.
What we should do is learn to build practical and sustainable space stations with artificial gravity (the classical spinning wheels, or the tethered ones, or whatever that _works_).
"Artificial" gravity does have some really weird effects. Coriolis force and all that.
1) you don't have to fight yet another gravity well.
I'd put "not having a gravity well" at the top of the list of disadvantages of space stations. If you have a gravity well, you can have all sorts of amenities known from Earth, such as a _real_ kitchen, plumbing, _real_ toilets, _real_ showers, and once the planetary outpost can support luxury items, maybe even a swimming pool.
Re:Go naked and get crushed under 90 atm pressure
on
Floating Cities On Venus
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I wonder how such rubbish appears on slashdot.
Because people here know that pressure drops as altitude increases. For others, this fact might be "news" or "rubbish".
Note that there are hazards when you're outside that floating city, but pressure isn't one of them. Lack of oxygen, presence of sulfuric acid, and of course the need for SPF measured in powers of ten are.
All this is utter BS. The last time I've read about Venus, I was told that its atmospheric pressure is about 90 times heavier than that of Earth. A quick verification on the Internet will tell you that the atmospheric pressure on Earth is about 101 kPa (also called as 1 atm) whereas that on Venus is about 9.3 MPa (about 90 atm).
Maybe you should also read the part of the book that explains that the "atmospheric pressure" is very strongly related to the altitude you're at. Venus' 90 atm are at surface level, not at 50 km above the surface. Just like you'll measure Earth's 1 atm mostly at sea level, but not when you're up on a mountain.
The all-important albedo can have a much bigger impact on temperature than distance!
Erm, your statement does not make any sense at all. The albedo of Venus is roughly 65%, Mercury's is below 20%. That alone should make Venus much, much cooler than Mercury, which it isn't.
In fact, Venus' albedo is high enough that it receives about as much solar heating as Earth (Earth's albedo is roughly half of that of Venus, Venus receives roughly twice as much solar input of Earth) - the only reason that Venus is such a hellhole is its super-thick atmosphere (calling it a "gas ocean" isn't too far off the truth) consisting mostly of CO2.
It may be earthlike, but it sure wouldn't be a comfortable place to spend any amount of time.
Mass alone says very little about the surface gravity of a planet - you need to know the radius of the object to make any statement about its surface gravity. Earth's moon has slightly over a percent of the mass of Earth, but about 1/6g surface gravity. Mars has only about 10% of the mass of Earth, while having 1/3g surface gravity.
In a compiled language, the compiler should be able to unroll the loop for you, given the right compiler options, unless it is absolutely brain-dead. So, leave the unrolling up to the compiler - it can do that better than you and you're not messing up your code.
The interpreter of a scripting language usually can't perform unrolling.
How exactly do you fix sending someone to prison for 30 years? It gives the state a chance to let them out before they die and possibly give them a token amount of money, but it does not fix the mistake.
Giving them more than a token amount would be a start. It's also a good motivation to be a little more diligent about convictions from now on. Apologies are cheap, large sums of money are harder to forget.
Yes. And that's not optimization, it's a necessary feature. Optimization would be having seven reverse gears in your car to get optimal gas mileage in reverse.
Military GPS is not the same as that used by civilian consumers.
Apart from the fact that the US can turn down the accuracy of the "civilian" GPS if they deem it necessary (right now, they don't)... no. Maybe the manufacturers of the civilian GPS receivers don't go through all the trouble of making them as accurate as the the military receivers, but that's mainly an issue of economics, not technology.
From the companys point of view: If you can get the employee to buy it with his own money, it doesn't have to pay for itself at all and you still get the productivity increase! Isn't it nice to have suckers for employees ?
Slashdot Mirror
21, at least in the States. Or are you seriously suggesting that there's life without beer ?
Mars as lots of c02, it aint god damn hot.
Only about 8 times as much as Earth. And it would be even colder if it wasn't there.
You could have HIGH PRESSURE fart gas or xenon gas, its still going to get HOT if its 800 PSI.
I have a couple of books on thermodynamics that disagree with your hypothesis. You probably have a refrigerator that also disagrees with your hypothesis, or it would not work. What pressure a fluid is at has absolutely nothing to do with its temperature. You'll only see changes in temperature when you change one of the other parameters (volume, pressure), and I don't think there's any proof of billions of compressors on the surface of Venus. But you probably know all that and are just trolling.
Stick to colonizing the poles at first, then.
Increasing the planet's angular momentum would solve this, but the sheer amount of energy needed is mind-bending.
Something in the ballpark of 10^29 Joules. And that's just for the rotational energy, not for any heating effects.
I'm not even sure what spinning up a world would do to it's surface or internal structure.
You'll probably need to add a couple of extra joules, since the core might need to be heated up.
Forget centuries, we'd need a millennium or two to fix this.
Depends on how long it takes to find a suitable piece of space rock to smack into Venus. What could _possibly_ go wrong? ;)
Because most, well, pretty much all of it, is already claimed by someone, and you'll have to deal with that someone to be able to live there.
Besides, it's still on Earth. Anything bad happen on Earth will happen to you, too.
The questions are: How do you power it ? And will it happen before or after a sharp drop in city population as people die from dehydration, disease and getting punctured by flying metal ?
Think about it, if you were 'the Republic of The Moon' why would you need anything from Earth?
Yes. I would need not having a few megatons of fireworks dumped on my behind the instant (plus IPBM travel time) I declare independence.
Yup, at 1.7X earth gravity my meager 205lb weight would be a 349 lb.
The other problem is that you suddenly have to deal with 1.7x the hydrostatic pressure difference, meaning that your heart would have to pump as if you were 1.7x as tall, and other means of distributing fluids in your system (e.g. the lymphatic system) might not work as intended, either.
Actually, the choice is "CO2 at 1 bar, droplets of sulfuric acid, pleasant temperatures, close to 1g" and "CO2 at 0.007 bar, (dry-)ice cold, 1/3g".
Plain "Earth air" is a lifting gas in the atmosphere of Venus.
The proposed habitat on Venus isn't flying (as in "plane"), it's floating (as in "ballon" or "airship"). No fuel is necessary for it to stay afloat, just for actually doing anything useful.
Yes, on your nickel. Good luck running a business that way.
If you want to stay in business, you need the cya paper, and preferably a contract stating how much additional changes to the project will cost ("lots" is a good starting point, to discourage never-ending projects).
Of course, this leads to megaconstructions like space elevators or magnetic rails spanning hundreds of miles and going tens of miles up. They're not only engineering challenges, but also political ones (can you say NIMBYNIMBYNIMBY?).
Once we're able to build those, colonies on other planets should be within reach, too.
"Artificial" gravity does have some really weird effects. Coriolis force and all that.
1) you don't have to fight yet another gravity well.
I'd put "not having a gravity well" at the top of the list of disadvantages of space stations. If you have a gravity well, you can have all sorts of amenities known from Earth, such as a _real_ kitchen, plumbing, _real_ toilets, _real_ showers, and once the planetary outpost can support luxury items, maybe even a swimming pool.
Because people here know that pressure drops as altitude increases. For others, this fact might be "news" or "rubbish".
Note that there are hazards when you're outside that floating city, but pressure isn't one of them. Lack of oxygen, presence of sulfuric acid, and of course the need for SPF measured in powers of ten are.
Maybe you should also read the part of the book that explains that the "atmospheric pressure" is very strongly related to the altitude you're at. Venus' 90 atm are at surface level, not at 50 km above the surface. Just like you'll measure Earth's 1 atm mostly at sea level, but not when you're up on a mountain.
The all-important albedo can have a much bigger impact on temperature than distance!
Erm, your statement does not make any sense at all. The albedo of Venus is roughly 65%, Mercury's is below 20%. That alone should make Venus much, much cooler than Mercury, which it isn't.
In fact, Venus' albedo is high enough that it receives about as much solar heating as Earth (Earth's albedo is roughly half of that of Venus, Venus receives roughly twice as much solar input of Earth) - the only reason that Venus is such a hellhole is its super-thick atmosphere (calling it a "gas ocean" isn't too far off the truth) consisting mostly of CO2.
The odds against it happening elsewhere are ... well ... astronomical.
The universe contains a very large number of elsewhere.
Mass alone says very little about the surface gravity of a planet - you need to know the radius of the object to make any statement about its surface gravity. Earth's moon has slightly over a percent of the mass of Earth, but about 1/6g surface gravity. Mars has only about 10% of the mass of Earth, while having 1/3g surface gravity.
Not sure about the "why" in scripting,
In a compiled language, the compiler should be able to unroll the loop for you, given the right compiler options, unless it is absolutely brain-dead. So, leave the unrolling up to the compiler - it can do that better than you and you're not messing up your code.
The interpreter of a scripting language usually can't perform unrolling.
The code is important. The braces are syntactical sugar.
I take it that you've never looked at the disassembly ? That "syntactical sugar" can stand for quite a few assembly instructions.
Giving them more than a token amount would be a start. It's also a good motivation to be a little more diligent about convictions from now on. Apologies are cheap, large sums of money are harder to forget.
Yes. And that's not optimization, it's a necessary feature. Optimization would be having seven reverse gears in your car to get optimal gas mileage in reverse.
Apart from the fact that the US can turn down the accuracy of the "civilian" GPS if they deem it necessary (right now, they don't) ... no. Maybe the manufacturers of the civilian GPS receivers don't go through all the trouble of making them as accurate as the the military receivers, but that's mainly an issue of economics, not technology.
From the companys point of view: If you can get the employee to buy it with his own money, it doesn't have to pay for itself at all and you still get the productivity increase! Isn't it nice to have suckers for employees ?