Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Photos from the Surface of Venus 113

Posted by michael from the land-down-under dept.
Mean_Nishka writes "I was surprised to learn that the Soviets sucessfully landed a number of probes on the surface of Venus (the probes were given the name 'Venera') in the 70's and early 80's. NASA has a small collection of images from four of the missions. The images aren't much, but offer a stunning view of the surface of Venus. You can view surface photos at this NASA site. Space.com has a great summary of the Venera program here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Photos from the Surface of Venus More

Photos from the Surface of Venus

Comments Filter:

  • My car keys (Score:5, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @02:01PM (#6134118)
    At last I have hope that my lost car keys might show up in one of these photos. I've looked everywhere else for them.

  • Camera mounting? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @02:03PM (#6134130) Homepage
    Couldn't the Soviets have found a better place to mount their cameras? The pictures are awfuly obstructed, and the camera appears to be aimed at a bad angle.

    Brings new meaning to 'disposible spacecraft'

    • Re:Camera mounting? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Muhammar ( 659468 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @02:17PM (#6134225)
      Check the Venus fact sheet - namely the surface temperature, pressure and the composition of the Venus atmosphere - and you will find reasons why their best time of the probe functioning (before disintegrating) was approx one hour. If you do not like their camera optics and mounting, please volunteer to take better pictures by yourself.
      • Actually, you pose an interesting question - How would a modern probe made from advanced materials fare?

        We've got a little time to finance the construction of one before venus comes back into a good position for launch.

    • Re:Camera mounting? (Score:4, Informative)

      by xutopia ( 469129 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @02:32PM (#6134368) Homepage
      Venus fact sheet is here http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ven usfact.html
    • As I recall when I saw the pictures years ago (there are I believe 2 colorized photos) the density of the atmosphere essentially warps the view that the camera had, so that the photos show a wide area but it doesn't look that way.

      Its like looking through gas fumes, lots of distortion. Add in the fact that its hot enough to melt lead and you have showers of sulfuric acid as well as a dense enough atmosphere to crush a man, its a wonder that with Soviet technology, they landed there and were able to get a

      • Refraction of light only occurs when it passes from one material to another and the index of refraction of the two materials is different. So, the atmosphere of venus would not distort anything.

        The real answer is the cameras on the Veneras were panoramic rotating slit cameras. Nothing more complicated than that.
        • Its not the atmosphere, its the density of the atmosphere that causes distortion. Still, you have to hand it the Venera team for pulling this off. I used to subscribe to the Planatary Society, and they had a magazine that had the color photos. It looked pretty nasty, not unlike Yuma, Arizona on a hot day.
          • Water is more dense than the atmosphere of Venus, but light travels in straight lines there.

            I repeat: light travels in straight lines unless it crosses a boundary between two materials with different refractive indices. If you disagree, give me an example.
            • Given proper heat/pressure/surface combination you CAN get different refractive indices (though no boundary between them) -- think of mirages
              http://images.google.com/images?q=mirage+ desert&hl =en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

              Paul B.
              • No boundary between two refractive indices? That's a violation of the concept. The boundary might be continuous, but it's there. Without a change in the index, you get no light bending. Try again.

                • Hmm, you will have a GRADIENT of the index, but hardly a BOUNDARY (almost by definition, BOUNDARY is where index is not continuous and gradient can be considered to be +-Inf; OTOH, the "continuous boundary", if such a beast exists, is nothing but a gradient).

                  Not that I was arguing directly with the point you were making (I do not know if they had to compensate for this effect or not), but one can definitely imagine a physical effect when you have no sharp boundary between two matherials, but some interest
                  • I already talked about this before. It's already in the thread. We're not being mathematically rigorous here, so there's no need to get very technical with this.

                    I'll restate myself here simply: when light passes from materials with one index of refraction to another index of refraction, it will refract.

                    Some have nitpicked the thing about materials, pointing out that the same material at different temperatures have different indexes of refraction. I KNOW.

                    And others have pointed out that the boundary doesn
            • Its the heat layers also. Not unlike the thermoclines that you get when scuba diving, where the warmer upper water meets the cooler water, and it is all wavy and distorted. If you find a thermocline that is thick enough to try to dive through, it is an interesting experience.
              • What you are saying is that the light is crossing a boundary between two different refraction indices. In liquids and gasses it can depend on temperature and turbulence.

                This has nothing to do with the density of the material, and no such effects have been observed on Venus.
                • Give me a break, it was 20 years ago when I read the article!!!

                  In any case I thought the pics were cool, but they had a detailed explanation about why they looked the way they looked, and Sagan is dead now, and it turns out he was pothead as well.

                  • You don't get a break. A little thinking would have saved you the embarassment.

                    And what does Sagan smoking pot to ease nausia from his cancer treatment have to do with anything?
                    • A little decorum would have saved you from coming off like the "Comic Shop Guy" from the Simpsons.

                      Your replies showed that you are an arrogant, unforgiving geek who probably has to reaquaint himself with the outside every three months.

                      The Sagan stuff was a joke, get it spock boy? It was light hearted funsterism!

                      BTW, I am a libertarian, and had a family member die of cancer that could have used pot, but wouldn't during chemo, because it was illegal, so don't go there monkey-boy.

                    • BTW, I am a libertarian, and had a family member die of cancer that could have used pot, but wouldn't during chemo, because it was illegal, so don't go there monkey-boy.

                      They died? Probably to get the fuck away from you.
            • Correctly stated Fermat's Principle states:

              The actual path between two points taken by a beam of light is the one which is traversed in the least time. (Wikipedia)

              In a medium which is isotropic this corresponds to a straignt line since the shortest path between two points is a straight line. In a inhomogeneous medium the path of a ray of light corresponds to the path integral of the index of refraction. In the case of discrete boundaries this corresponds to straight lines between bounadries with refrac

            • crosses a boundary
              If there were no gravity, that would be correct if you meant "moves into a region with a different refractive index(speed of light)". If you form a gradient of RI, you can run the light around in smooth curves, instead of the instantaneous direction changes at boundaries. Most common example seen is cold ground with warmer air above it and no wind, big gradient forms. On a few mornings, I've seen Longs Peak (northern front-range Colorado, USA) get stretched up to where it looks half
              • I know about mirages and similar effects, the discussion is about the Venera cameras and the implausibility of the Venusian atmosphere producing distortions in the rocks you see at your feet.

                And, if your light is bending due to the curvature of space, wouldn't your straight edge also curve? So, it would be difficult to determine space is curved from the perspective of the straight edge.
                • Oh, yes, of course on the distortion - it was obvious that it was a scan-generated image, with the scanning done at an offset to the plane of rotation,yet projected as a rectangular image. I was surprised anybody even asked about it, and was ignoring that part of the discussion. The use of the term "boundary" just caught my attention, and made me think of that dramatic example of smooth bending I'd seen.
                  On the straight-edge question, You've definitely got me there. If the edge were physically perfectly

                • And, if your light is bending due to the curvature of space, wouldn't your straight edge also curve? So, it would be difficult to determine space is curved from the perspective of the straight edge.

                  Nah. The straight edge is rigid, and kept rigid because of intermolecular forces. Light rays are not. So long as the intermolecular forces are stronger than the differential gravitational forces, it'll stay straight.

                  The curvature in spacetime would produce stress on the straight edge, but an 'ideal' (i.e. inf

        • Refraction of light only occurs when it passes from one material to another and the index of refraction of the two materials is different. So, the atmosphere of venus would not distort anything.

          You assume the atmosphere is homogenous. Thermal differences between blocks of the atmosphere on Earth can produce refraction. It's how you get mirages.

          It's also how you can sometimes "see" heat rising off objects. Warmed air rising off a hot object can have a perceptibly different index of refraction from the a

          • I think it's a safe assumption. Where is the localized intense heating at Venus' surface? That's what is required for a mirage.

            The temperature of Venus is at equilibrium, so there's not going to be any big temperature differences in the atmosphere. The air above the ground will not be much different in temperature than the surface, because the insulating layer's bulk is higher than the height of the Venera probe.

            All of you are trying to tell me how mirages are created. That's 4th grade stuff, and it shoul

            • The temperature of Venus is at equilibrium, so there's not going to be any big temperature differences in the atmosphere.

              In proper Slashdot fashion, I spouted off before actually taking a look at the photos in question. The distortion there is obviously due to the optics of the camera, and one of the pages explicitly says "The distortion is caused by the Venera imaging system."

              All of you are trying to tell me how mirages are created. That's 4th grade stuff, and it should be obvious that I understand it.

              • Where did I imply that atmospheres were incapable of refracting light?

                Why is the sky blue?
                • Well, I typed that and hit click without thinking. The sky is blue because of light scattering, not refraction.

                  Anyway, I don't think that I implied that atmospheres cannot refract light.

                  • Anyway, I don't think that I implied that atmospheres cannot refract light.

                    When you said:

                    Refraction of light only occurs when it passes from one material to another and the index of refraction of the two materials is different.

                    I read that as meaning "the atmosphere is all one material, so they have the same index of refraction, so there's no refraction." Obviously I misunderstood.

                    Anyway, it's pretty much settled that the meaningful distortion in the images came from the wacky lens the Russians were

                  • All of your posts on this topic involved you not thinking.
                    • So, you think that the Venera images are distorted by the atmosphere? Prove it cowboy.
                    • Mike, you sure are an ugly fellow, but I'll put you in my friends list anyway.
                    • Well, my name's not Mike, so I have no idea who you are talking to. And I don't have to prove that the atmosphere causes lensing in order to prove you wrong. (If you disagree with that, maybe you should be an American court judge or something).
                    • So who's the guy in the photos on your website? Thought I saw the name Mike applied to it.

                      Now, my questions:

                      1) If you stood of Venus and looked at a rock 10 feet in front of you, how much lensing will happen? The light will NOT be travelling through different densities of atmosphere, so what is the mechanism for lensing? If you're arguing that a mirage is to blame, the consider that the atmosphere and the surface of Venus are at equilibrium, and there is no localized heating of the surface. What would the
                    • You seemed to be arguing that refraction could only occur if there were a boundary between 2 regions with different refractive indices. (And therefore, since this didn't occur in the Venusian atmosphere, the atmosphere can't cause the lensing effect). OK so far?
                    • Yes, that's right. The atmosphere around the camera, and the ground, and in between, is going to be all the same pressure, and temperature. Please continue.
                    • Argh. I said "A", and you said "Yes that's right, B". You know you are wrong and are just trying to confuse the issue.

                      To elaborate, you are introducing the premise that the medium is constant. This was not a part of your original claim. If you wish to retract that claim, and assert that "refraction only occurs at a boundary, given that there are no boundaries", then say so.
                    • I'm not trying to confuse the issue. I was wrong elsewhere in the thread (in fact you posted directly to my own correction) and there was no indication that I was attempting to suppress the correct information, was there?

                      I've already described what I meant my boundary. I was not referring to a boundary that was described only by a step function. I'm also talking about a continuous change in material OR refractive index. I made that clear a while back. Basically, light has to travel from one refractive inde
                    • Another point for Old Wolf:

                      You're using a very mathematical definition of a boundary. You are assuming that there is such a thing as a zero width boundary. In real life there is no such thing.

                      So, if you are going to get pedantic about the fact that I used the term boundary, then I can get pedantic about the fact that you haven't specified how narrow your narrow boundaries really are.

                      Are you arguing with me simply because you have set the size of your hypothetical boundary width to be N - 1, where N is th
                    • I'm rereading this to see where the disconnect is:

                      You said in part: And therefore, since this didn't occur in the Venusian atmosphere, the atmosphere can't cause the lensing effect

                      And I said in part: The atmosphere around the camera, and the ground, and in between, is going to be all the same pressure, and temperature.

                      So, to re-iterate one more time yet again: You said my claim was that that light was crossing no boundaries in the atmosphere. I agreed, saying that the atmosphere was constant.

                      As far as
                    • The distinction has nothing to do with the Venera pictures. However you were attempting to apply a false principle to the pictures; and the principle is one that should be debated without any concrete example in mind.

                      Anyway, if there is a continuous change in refractive index then there is no boundary. The index at any point (x) may be different to at point (x + delta) . If you're going to say that there's a boundary between (x) and (x + delta) for arbitrary small delta, then you're saying that the entire
                    • And there you go again bringing a bunch of math into it. I mentioned before that at no time was I trying to be mathematically rigorous. Short answers are necessarily lacking in details.

                      So if you want to win based on nit-picky details, then fine. You win.

                      Now, the argument about the uniform density of the atmosphere is an interesting one. I think you're right that it would get less dense as you go upwards. That's how all atmospheres are.

                      But specifically, I think the conditions to produce a mirage-like dist
                    • OK, my other response was a little too snippy. I just got out of a meeting that went for an hour too long because someone wanted to argue about nitpicky definitions.

                      I accept your definition of boundary. It is correct. I can understand that you would object to it because I can get pretty cranky when people use the word 'definition' when they really mean 'declaration' referring to a C++ program.
                    • So the conclusion is, we're both pedants who have nothing better to do than argue in old slashdot threads. :)
        • Refraction of light only occurs when it passes from one material to another and the index of refraction of the two materials is different. So, the atmosphere of venus would not distort anything.

          Venus has layers of atmosphere with different compositions. Also, you are incorrect anyway. It does not have to be two different materials. Haven't you ever seen a mirage? That's refraction of light caused by different densities of air.

          • Ah for fucks sake. Yet another dork trying to explain a mirage to me. Read the fricking thread.

            Now, explain to me how this pertains to Venus and the cameras on the Venera spacecraft? Jeez.

    • Re:Camera mounting? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by barakn ( 641218 )
      I suppose you would have preferred photos of a featureless sky and a flat horizon? The Soviets took photos of the only interesting things there: the rocks. And they included the base of the lander as a convenient scale. Venera 14, for example, landed in a region with basalt-like rocks. They are thin and flat in appearance, though, suggesting that the high pressure and temperatures at Venus's surface allowed the source magma to spread out and become very thin before cooling.

  • Stunned? (Score:5, Informative)

    by PD ( 9577 ) * <slashdotlinux@pdrap.org> on Friday June 06, 2003 @02:04PM (#6134138) Homepage Journal
    I thought everyone knew about these. It's almost like never hearing that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon. And hey! We've got Space Shuttles now! Or at least had them.

    Everyone should know all they can about space exploration. Start at the beginning. Look up the list of early launches (back in the 1960's) to the moon, Venus, and Mars. Find the first closeup. photograph of Phobos ever taken. Learn what happened to the spacecraft. Investigate the technology behind the first photo of the backside of the moon. (a portable film development laboratory and a fax machine!!!). Marvel at the precision landing of a LEM near a Surveyor. Ooogle at the footage of a Ranger crashing into the Moon.

    There's a lot of shit out there, and it's important enough that any geek should be ashamed to admit they'd never heard of Venera.
    • I'm stunned that a guy named Don P Mitchell has copyrights on photos made by a russian satellite.

  • you were surprised? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by egomaniac ( 105476 )
    I thought this was common knowledge. I remember reading about it when I was in elementary school. Still pretty cool, of course, but this isn't some grand secret.
  • Chairface (From "The Tick" comics and cartoon) wrote his name on the moon, but apparently The Tick made it all the way to Venus [nasa.gov]

  • microbes? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Galahad ( 24997 )
    Good thing these craft weren't designed to return. If they had brought back new diseases, we'd be in trouble...we'd have veneral disease.

    *sigh*

    It seemed to be a good pun before I submitted it...

  • You need to watch more TV.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by seanmeister ( 156224 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @02:58PM (#6134665)
    ... if you did, you'd remember how the Six Million Dollar Man kicked the venus Probe's ass!

    Death Probe, part 1 [sixmillion...site.co.uk]
    Death Probe, part 2 [sixmillion...site.co.uk]
    The Death Probe! [tvheaven.com]
    • ... if you did, you'd remember how the Six Million Dollar Man kicked the venus Probe's ass!

      That was one of my favorite episodes. Ah the memories. "Mom! Can I have a Venus probe for my birthday?"
    • If this probe is supposed to scour Venus and find life, then why would it want't to destroy everything in it's path, including a sentient being able to walk and reason. This is one BAD MUTHER F*CKER probe. Remind me never to get the Russians to design a probe again, except the one in Red Planet.
  • ... life is discovered on Venus in the form of tiny airborn microbes. Russian scientists are now calling it Venera Disease. *bada ching*

  • This just in ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by crmartin ( 98227 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @03:12PM (#6134837)
    Armstrong, Aldrin land on Moon
    Kennedy beats Nixon by narrow margin
    Allies land on Normandy beach -- D-Day has arrived!

  • Russian moon rocks (Score:3, Funny)

    by GeoGreg ( 631708 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @03:20PM (#6134909)
    Did you also forget that the Russians sent probes to the moon that retrieved samples and brought them back? Yup, the Americans were not the only ones with moon rocks.

    AFAIK, the Soviet lunar probes did not start on a murderous Six Million Dollar Man-style rampage upon returning to earth.

    • Just so its clear, you're referring to that one episode where the Soviets' top secret moon-guy goes postal, and Steve Austin has to stop him without letting out the secret, or something, right?

      Please tell me I'm not imagining that episode. I watched a lot of SMDM when I was a kid, it had a huge impact on my imagination, and I'm praying I'm not imagining this episode. :)
      • No, that's not what I was referring to. There were several episodes where our man Steve had to battle a robotic Soviet Venus probe that had been built for the harsh Venutian environment, crashed to Earth during a flyby or something, then started rampaging through the countryside attempting to "sample" the local populace.

        This is just one of the many true-to-life stories explored on that fine program.

  • Landing on Venus easier than Mars in many ways (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Friday June 06, 2003 @03:40PM (#6135127) Journal
    The Soviets had much more success with their Venus probes than with their Mars probes. The reason is that Venus' atmosphere is so thick that a probe practically floats down like it is under water. The top of the probes had a hat-like thingy that acted like a small parachute.

    On the flip-side, Mars landings are *still* difficult. It has enough gravity to require carefully timed decents, has wind gusts that can swing probes around, and sharp boulders, yet the atmosphere is not quite thick enough to make parachutes very effective. Mars ate up Soviet probes like Mars Bars, and a US probe also.

  • all the same (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Rocks, sand, dirt, and pebbles. Everywhere probes land they find rocks, sand, dirt, and pebbles. Moon, Mars, Venus, Asteroids, all the same. Time for something more interesting like say glass melted into funny blobs, or rainbow crystals. I suppose I watch too much Holywoodized versions of space.

  • venus not mars (Score:3, Insightful)

    by solferino ( 100959 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `mehczah'> on Friday June 06, 2003 @05:09PM (#6135817) Homepage

    why venus should be the focus of colonisation efforts, not mars

    • gravity is the big insurmountable - venus's gravity is much closer to earth than mars
    • extreme pressure and heat are problems that are solvable with engineering - and we have the bottome of the earth's ocean as a practice environment
    • venus is a much more interesting planet
    • finally, make love (venus) not war (mars)

  • The US Magellan Mission to Venus [nasa.gov] returned much larger-scale satellite images using Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and topography and bathymetry as well -- of darn near the whole planet. The SAR images are at a spatial resolution of about 75m, and because the polarisation of the returning radio waves was recorded along with the intensity, a lot more information about the surface material was recovered. Also, the Magellan mission was the most effective NASA mission to date, in terms of GB of data recovere

  • Soviet landers and Venus (Score:2, Interesting)

    by daevt ( 100407 )
    If you read the blurbs by the pitures about the missions, you'll notice that these landers all had very short lives when they landed on Venus. There are rumored to be, and my astronomy teacher claims to have seen, videos of the Soviets using language not "fit for print" as they watched their probe being eaten by the less then friendly atmospere (which contains noticible amounts of the multi-zillions dollar probe-eating compound sulfuric acid.)
    • I thought that the main problem with the survivability of the landers was the surface temperature of Venus. How much science can be accomplished before the lander's electronic components get fried.

      Would it be possible to build a refrigeration unit that would keep the interior of the lander cool?

    • > There are rumored to be, and my astronomy teacher claims to have seen, videos of the Soviets using language not "fit for print" as they watched their probe being eaten by the less then friendly atmospere (which contains noticible amounts of the multi-zillions dollar probe-eating compound sulfuric acid.)

      I'd believe it - just imagine the look on the face of the first guy to get a temperature reading. "Naaw, that can't be a real number!"

      ObVenus:

      I'd like to see us plop a probe down around those

  • For an even more fun site, try Hypothetical Planets [seds.org] by Paul Schlyter. Vulcan, the Earth's second moon, it has it all...
  • A story... on Slashdot... hours old... about probes.... and photos... from the surface of another planet....

    ....and noones mentioned Uranus yet!?

    WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE???
  • I've known this for years, how on earth is this new in any way?
  • There has been a lot of talk about terraforming Mars. But what do scientists think about terraforming Venus? Venus has at least an Earth-like gravity.

    One problem with Venus is that it has a very thick and hot athmosphere composed mostly of carbon dioxide. On the otherhand Mars has a problem of not having an athmosphere thick enough.

    *lbrt*

Slashdot Top Deals

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970

Close