• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Venus as the Moon

Because "different" adds verisimilitude to the setting. Things aren't going to be the same.

One of the keys to alternate history is the ability to figure out what would change and also the consequences of those changes. That's what makes it interesting in the first place. Nobody's expecting that EVERYTHING should change in this exercise, but you should at least consider some major changes and extrapolate from those. Otherwise you get people thinking "well, why didn't people notice that".
 
Then again Galileo wouldn't be persecuted for saying that the 'Moon' is a world as anyone without a telescope could see that. The Judeo-Christian religion would just accept it as part of God's creation, the Sun to rule over the day and the 'Moon' to rule the night. They'd see a rotating ball in the heavens, this in turn would make it easier to accept that the Earth is not the center of the Universe. Whether its a world or just a ball is hard for them to say, it would certainly explain the phases quite neatly. In our world, the Moon was thought to be a disk as it did not rotate. I'm assuming history that self repairs for one thing. The D-Day landing on Normandy was dictated by the scheduling of the high tides, specifically the Moon and the Sun had to be on the same side of the Earth, and the shores of France had to be on the opposite side of the Earth facing away from the Moon and the Sun, thise creates a high tide and a moonless night. Perfect conditions for getting the landing boats over all the obstructions and mine the Germans placed there. But the landing happen whenever the tide dictate the should happen, the weather cooperates and things catch up to the way things are supposed to be purely by chance, the people living on this world are none the wise as they all seem like random events to them. You know there is a chance of local time reversals too, a very very very small chance but a chance none the less. If you play a movie backwards of someone diving into a swimming pool, and you had good enough resoulution to see all the molecules bouncing around, you would see no obvious laws of physics being violated, although by pure chance it seems that at times alot of molecules are moving in the same direction, so many in fact that they push the diver out of the swimming pool and cause him to land backwards on the diving board. This is all fiction of course, the imaginary universe I visualize has things set up so they would be convienent to the players when they roll up their characters. If you want to know about the time they come from just look in the history books about the year 1969, everything that doesn't have to do about space travel is approximately the same, and the default assumption is that it is the same. Yes the tides maybe higher, but we can make Florida too a little higher to compensate, all this means is that the beaches are much bigger at low tide, and beach goers have to move there umbrellas and beach towels a bit more so they don't get wet. We raise all those lowlands that would otherwise be flooded at high tide so that they are not. Harbors that carry boats would also have to be deeper so boats don't get grounded at low tide. If there is more erosion then we just assume there is more land to erode before the coastlines reach their present familiar shape. Only the things that have to be different are different, if something could be the same by making a few adjustments to compensate for the different moon, it is then. Its hard to say exactly what changes would be wrought, you can say things would be different but in what way is hard to say. In many cases one change is a good as another and its even possible that there wouldn't be any changes of significance. People on this Earth are just generally aware of the tides and make adjustments in their lives accordingly, they don't build houses too close to the shore at low tide and they move their beach umbrellas around more and get slightly more exercise while doing this.
 
Tom,

On how many colonists there are, I would argue for a larger number. Once the first set establishes that you can live off the land, I would expect the nations to send new colonists over with each supply mission. Having a goal of 100 colonists as quickly as possible is a good idea. With as dangerous a setting as Venus (BTW, I really like Mal's suggestion of Eden) is, they will need to continuously send replacement/additions.

As for coupling, I would argue that only unattached singles would be sent. I would also think they would be encouraged to NOT pair up. (I doubt it would be prohibited, just discouraged.) Having "fluid" relationships would increase the diversity of the fledgling gene pool, something that will be a virtual necessity for the first couple generations. (As an added plus, such "immorality" would help increase religious objections back home.)

I completely agree with your assumed cooperation. Most of the colonists will likely be fairly "idealistic" (assuming only volunteers are used), and more than willing to look past nationalism. Quite frankly, I would expect that, over the course of a few decades, for a new Venusian nationalism to rise up.

Finally, I would suggest that you check out GURPS:Mars. While it deals with colonizing and terraforming Mars, many of the political nuances it brings up will apply to this situation, too. It is quite likely that there will be a very vocal (and potentially violent) minority that object to the colonization efforts on ecological grounds.
 
Malenfant,

I didn't see you give an answer to the question of swapping Venus and Mars. This is effective the same as asking what would have happened with Earth in Mars' orbit. Or what if Mars had been larger (size 5+).

No matter the specific setup, could an Earth-like planet develop in Mars' orbit? Or is that orbit too cold for life (as we know it on Earth) to develop? Could it be habitable to any degree?

(This is not meant to be a counter to Tom's setup. I am just curious as to whether it could work.)
 
Malenfant said,
Because "different" adds verisimilitude to the setting. Things aren't going to be the same.

One of the keys to alternate history is the ability to figure out what would change and also the consequences of those changes. That's what makes it interesting in the first place. Nobody's expecting that EVERYTHING should change in this exercise, but you should at least consider some major changes and extrapolate from those. Otherwise you get people thinking "well, why didn't people notice that".
Well they do, I take each event on a case by case basis. The D-Day landings in France might have occured on a different date or even location because of this, but changes don't carry on down the time live very far. Random events cancel them out until some other item in history that's affected by the tides are reached the broad sweep of history is the same. I doubt anything but the most convoluted reasoning would cause the Soviet Union not to collapse for instance, there's no reason why that event should be any different, so I leave it the same, it also gives me a prearranged timeline that allow me to consider what each event on Earth means for the colonists. Perhaps the space shuttle would not be built because of all the money diverted to the Apollo Program. People would not be as interested in Mars when their is an obviously living planet right on their door step. The again maybe the the Shuttle would be build, with a planet ready for colonization, greater efforts may be made to get their more cheaply. What's needed is either a single stage to orbit vehicle or a two stage vehicle where the top and bottom stages are interchangable and reusable. A "tug boat" would be needed to move two shuttle orbiters from Earth Orbit to Venus orbit, perhaps using ion propulsion to save on reaction mass, then both orbiters would land on the Surface of Venus on a landing field prepared by the colonists. More fule would need to be made for the shuttles and perhaps a crude launch pad made out of preassembled parts, then the return trip back to Earth can be made. The most important thing is to minimize the amount of colonist labor required as their aren't that many of them. NASA can add more people to the colony using expendible rockets, but each additional colonist requires additional support expenditure if they are not to live as savages with bows and arrows. High tech living requires an industrial base, the industrial base is on Earth unfortunately and every high tech item the colonist needs has to be imported from Earth at a cost to the government of billions of dollars. Local fuel production is an immediate item of necessity, as you don't want to ship fuel to run the colonists machines from Earth. Chain saws to cut trees might be electric for example, they are connected to a portable wood burning steam turbine in order to chop down more trees.. The more people on Venus however, the more things can be done, still it is not easy.
 
daryen said,
As for coupling, I would argue that only unattached singles would be sent. I would also think they would be encouraged to NOT pair up. (I doubt it would be prohibited, just discouraged.) Having "fluid" relationships would increase the diversity of the fledgling gene pool, something that will be a virtual necessity for the first couple generations. (As an added plus, such "immorality" would help increase religious objections back home.)
The simplest way to discourage pairings is not to send women in the first place and have only men, but even the chauvanist society of 1969 would give pause to sending men someplace for the rest of their lives without women. Also if their are no children, whose going to take care of the old folks. Without a next generation the last person is simply going to die in the wilderness all alone, or perhaps even live long enough to be eaten by some animal. History has shown that a colony without women is a bad idea. You send the women and then you try to work the mission around their family life.
 
Originally posted by daryen:
I didn't see you give an answer to the question of swapping Venus and Mars. This is effective the same as asking what would have happened with Earth in Mars' orbit. Or what if Mars had been larger (size 5+).
If Earth was in Mars' orbit, it probably would have stayed frozen. We'd possibly end up with an ice covered world with life in the oceans under the ice, and a barren landscape poking above the ice.

There's too many variables there, really. Could depend on a lot of things.


No matter the specific setup, could an Earth-like planet develop in Mars' orbit? Or is that orbit too cold for life (as we know it on Earth) to develop? Could it be habitable to any degree?
I suppose with a big enough greenhouse effect it could be habitable. It looks like Mars was for a while, but then it lost its atmosphere and its oceans all froze over.
 
Originally posted by Tom Kalbfus:
The simplest way to discourage pairings is not to send women in the first place and have only men, ...
That's not what I meant. Sorry for not being clear.

They want the 50/50 split. They want the colonists to procreate. What they wouldn't want is for the colonists to only have single partners, as that needlessly limits the genetics. Instead they would want the colonists to have children with different partners.

Back home, however, such a rational, mathematically justified approach would not be received well at all. (Though it might encourage some to be potential colonists.
)
 
Originally posted by Malenfant:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No matter the specific setup, could an Earth-like planet develop in Mars' orbit? Or is that orbit too cold for life (as we know it on Earth) to develop? Could it be habitable to any degree?
I suppose with a big enough greenhouse effect it could be habitable. It looks like Mars was for a while, but then it lost its atmosphere and its oceans all froze over. </font>[/QUOTE]But Mars was screwed regardless, as it is too small to retain its atmosphere (or molten core and magnetic field) regardless of its temperature. Had Mars been larger (i.e. size 5+) would it have been able to retain an atmosphere, molten core, and magnetic field? Or would have it been so cold it would just freeze over anyway?
 
Originally posted by daryen:
But Mars was screwed regardless, as it is too small to retain its atmosphere (or molten core and magnetic field) regardless of its temperature. Had Mars been larger (i.e. size 5+) would it have been able to retain an atmosphere, molten core, and magnetic field? Or would have it been so cold it would just freeze over anyway? [/QB]
If it was bigger, it would have retained an atmosphere because of its extra mass and also because its volcanoes would still be pumping out gases today (and its core would still be molten and circulating so it should retain its magnetic field).

I think if that was the case, Mars would probably be a colder version of a prebiotic Earth today. It may even have developed its own life in such circumstances, in which case the atmosphere could be modified.
 
Hi
With Venus being the approximately the same size and mass as Earth and the fact that it is still volcanic and has a very slow rotation period -- and slow rotation means heat (I think I read that somewhere
) -- don't you think that it would stand a better chance of keeping warm enough to develop life? If this was the case, you could keep the same timelines up to and including the Apollo flights. And, although it would be a lot further away, it would still be something they could shoot for even with TL7 or TL8 technology.
Dwayne
 
Originally posted by Vargr Breath:
[QB] Hi
With Venus being the approximately the same size and mass as Earth and the fact that it is still volcanic and has a very slow rotation period -- and slow rotation means heat (I think I read that somewhere
) -- don't you think that it would stand a better chance of keeping warm enough to develop life?
Slow rotation has nothing to do with heat, unless you mean that it means that the day is longer so the surface heats up more?

If Venus was at the same distance as Earth then it'd be the same temperature anyway (assuming the atmosphere was the same).

Of course, that in itself is an interesting point - we're still not sure if what gives us our relatively thin atmosphere is the fact that most of it was blasted off by the impact that formed the moon. That didn't happen on Venus, which may be why it has such a thick atmosphere. So just moving it out to Earth's distance wouldn't magically make it habitable - you'd need to remove most of the atmosphere via terraforming anyway.
 
Originally posted by Malenfant:
Even without that, Venus is still tidelocked to Earth. That means its 'day' is 170 days long. And that means its dayside would roast and its nightside would freeze... unless it had a superdense atmosphere to trap the heat like it does now, in which case all of it would roast like it does now.doesn't look like it's all that possible....
Actually, tide-locked planets look more habitable than we've previously thought.

See "Habitability of Planets Orbiting M Stars"
http://mstars.seti.org/index.php?load=papers

"Simulations of the Atmospheres of Synchronously Rotating Terrestrial Planets Orbiting M Dwarfs: Conditions for Atmospheric Collapse and the Implications for Habitability
http://mstars.seti.org/index.php?load=papers

etc.

--- Edit ---
"Habitability of planets around red dwarf stars"
http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring02/scalo/heath.pdf
 
Malenfant -- How about co-orbital planets like some of the moons we've seen around Saturn?

You'd have some real tidal interaction (read periodic disasters) when they catch up to each other and dance, but the rest of the time they'd be independant with normal day/night cycles and all that. No moons, though.
 
Tom,

Okay, okay, I give up. ;)

I've been reading your bumf about Galileo, the D-Day landings, the USSR, and all that and have come to the conlcusion that you know about much about history and what effects history as you do about orbital mechanics and what effects orbital mechanics. Constantine used a term earlier to describe you that I won't use here, but believe me I can definitely see how it may apply.

I gave you a link to peruse. It's a good one too and it would have opened your eyes to just how fragile history is if you had just bothered to go there. Instead, you want to keep things simple. That's usually a noble idea. However in this case it's just an excuse for being intellectually lazy.

So, anyway... The USA launches a Venus/Moon mission named Apollo in July of 1969 and Tricky Dick gets to phone his congratulations to the astronauts aboard. Fine and dandy.

It's an interesting idea, it's a fun idea, and it's an idea you need to write up and submit to Hunter for the FLibrary.


Have fun,
Bill

P.S. I suspect I was reading Turtledove before you left grammer school. If you want some good AH fiction from him, eschew his latest stuff. He's developed a terminal case of King-Michener Syndrome. Check out An Agent of Byzantium and A Different Flesh for some of his best writing.
 
daryen said,
That's not what I meant. Sorry for not being clear.

They want the 50/50 split. They want the colonists to procreate. What they wouldn't want is for the colonists to only have single partners, as that needlessly limits the genetics. Instead they would want the colonists to have children with different partners.

Back home, however, such a rational, mathematically justified approach would not be received well at all. (Though it might encourage some to be potential colonists. )
Why wouldn't they want the colonists to have single partners? Genetics is not a problem for the first generation as they all are not related, besides it takes about 20 years for children to grow to adulthood. NASA could always expand its capacity and send up more people in the meantime. Besides wife swapping creates poor relations, some of the colonists might not agree to it, I sure would want someone having an affair with my wife. If you want amicable relations between the colonists, you wouldn't do this as some people will be less understanding of people sharing their wives than others. There are too few people to have them killing each other. I heard this was tried in Kibutzes in Israel and that it didn't work very well.
 
Back
Top