Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Venus: The Forgotten Planet 419

Posted by timothy from the actual-goddess-of-beauty's-in-nyc dept.
Anonymous Coward from Winnipeg writes "These days many of us are consumed by daily batches of spectacular images from our twin Marsbots and international fleet of Mars-orbiting craft. But we should not forget our sister planet, Venus, which has undergone significant exploration in years past. Don P. Mitchell's home page features an intriguing refinement of Soviet surface images using modern reprocessing techniques. Don also includes a terrific overview of the Soviet Venus exploration program. Complete radar mapping of Venus was provided by Magellan ten years ago. Sadly, according to the Venus Exploration Timeline, only two new missions to Venus are envisioned: ESA's Venus Express (using leftover Mars Express and Rosetta equipment) and JAXA's Planet-C orbiter. Apparently, no landings on Venus are planned - is this another case of humanity losing advanced space travel capability due to neglect, like Apollo?" (We've mentioned Mitchell's reworked images before -- amazing stuff.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Venus: The Forgotten Planet More

Venus: The Forgotten Planet

Comments Filter:

  • venus is a forgotten planet? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    venus? my vote would be neptune, for the planet that gets the least press coverage...

    and mars for the planet that gets the most, outside of ours...

    • Re:venus is a forgotten planet? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      that's because neptunian food is to spicy. they always have to knock it up another notch.
    • I would give my vote to Mercury as the forgotten planet. There has only been 1 probe (Mariner 10) and it's mapping only covered about 45% of the surface to a resolution of 1km. Considering how close it is, it's odd that there really hasn't been any interest in it at all. Maybe NASA has something against large, uninteresting chunks of rock. But then, how do you explain the EROS Mission? :) onion.

  • It's not forgotten, just more expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:37PM (#8358017)
    We do cold and dry much better than hot and caustic. And Mars has all the potential for life evidence (or so we think) so it gets a lot of focus. I think Venus still takes a back seat to the moons of Jupiter. That's where the future action is going to be.
    • Exactly. If we wanted to actually colonize Venus, we'd have to terraform it in one way or another. Otherwise, the extreme pressures would make it difficult to explore without some form of space infrastructure already in place. *After* we have an infrastructure, it will be more like deep sea exploration. Right now it's like Romans talking about diving for sea monsters.

      • Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive (Score:5, Funny)

        by shigelojoe ( 590080 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:09PM (#8358221)
        I think Venus still takes a back seat to the moons of Jupiter. That's where the future action is going to be.

        Except Europa, of course.

      • Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:36PM (#8358353)
        This is partly a question of energy. Rough calculations seem to suggest that the human race will be producing enough power to be able to break down iron oxides on the Martian surface and free oxygen, or to move icy comet cores from the outer system and impact them on Mars, before that many generations have passed.
        We don't know much about what technology would make such things possible, but if you draw even a straight line curve from the technology of the past, such as wood heated boilers, through today (fission), and extrapolate, the time till we can spruce up Mars is only a hundred years or so.
        Terraforming Venus, on the other hand, takes changing that long rotation. Even if we could strip off the existing atmosphere, and replace it with 15 PSI worth of 70 some odd % Nitrogen, 22% Oxygen, etc., the Venusian day is so long that such an atmosphere would freeze out on the night side.
        Even if we can sustain a technological growth rate that may be just plain impossible in the long run, Mars will be doable generations before Venus.
        • This is partly a question of energy. Rough calculations seem to suggest that the human race will be producing enough power to be able to break down iron oxides on the Martian surface and free oxygen, or to move icy comet cores from the outer system and impact them on Mars, before that many generations have passed.

          *cough* Actually we have the power today. When one considers that space travelers' lives depend on energy, one realizes that Nuclear Fission is pretty much a requirement for space travel.

          We don't know much about what technology would make such things possible, but if you draw even a straight line curve from the technology of the past, such as wood heated boilers, through today (fission), and extrapolate, the time till we can spruce up Mars is only a hundred years or so.

          This is difficult, because the technology already exists for getting to Mars. Unfortunately, our society has been stopping technological progress in favor of the idea that everything must be "safe". So much so, that dangers are percieved where none exist. What people *want* is a Star Trek technology that glosses over how dangerous that much power actually is.

          Even if we can sustain a technological growth rate that may be just plain impossible in the long run, Mars will be doable generations before Venus.

          No argument here. I was just pointing out that Mars is more interesting *because* it doesn't need to be terraformed. Terraforming is still one of those "on the drawing board" type of things. Simple blimps flying around Venus would be a more viable option. With the extreme pressure of the atmosphere, it's even possible to build floating islands for exploration.

          • Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive (Score:5, Interesting)

            by phreakmonkey ( 548714 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @11:49PM (#8359839) Homepage
            Unfortunately, our society has been stopping technological progress in favor of the idea that everything must be "safe". So much so, that dangers are percieved where none exist. What people *want* is a Star Trek technology that glosses over how dangerous that much power actually is.

            Eh? Are you kidding? It seems like in every other episode of Star Trek that I watched the ship's Warp Core was going to self-destruct and needed to be fixed before it had to be ejected... or there was a matter/anti-matter collision explosion somewhere in engineering. (Granted, they used the latter more often in the original series). Hell, even their phasers were always overloading and being left somewhere to explode, killing a red-shirt or to.

            No sirree, I don't think people want a Star Trek technology world at all. :)

            - P.M.

        • Actually, I believe it may be possible with anaerobic bacteria.

          IANAB - I am not a biologist, but I know they have found bacteria living in very inhospitable areas, including mid-ocean vents. Some even survived a few years on the moon! Venus is not too unlike Earth was at the time life first arose. All we would have to do to start the ball rolling is unleash some genetically engineered bacteria that would thrive in the Venusian atmosphere, use a form of photosynthesis to convert the mostly CO2 atmosphere to oxygen and sugar, the way plant life does on earth. This would cool the atmosphere, and allow at least some of the the water in the atmosphere reach the surface. (Venusian clouds are sufuric acid)

          Perhaps introduced bacteria could convert the sulfur in the clouds to something harmless or perhaps even useful.

          Pushing one or two of Saturn's icy moonlets out of orbit and into a collision course would provide all the remaining water terraformers would need.

      • Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MMaestro ( 585010 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:46PM (#8358432)
        The problem isn't only in getting a space type infrastructure up, its also the problem of gathering, sorting and analyzing all the infomation. We have the two rovers on Mars sending information back fairly regularly to scientists on Earth, but how many scientists do you think are working on the data being sent back? At least a couple hundred, OFFICALLY. There are probably also a couple thousand private citizens also analyzing the data as soon as its public released. Its probably easier to have one big group of people researching one planet rather than having two groups arguing over "which planet is more habitable."

        Not only that there are management issues. NASA is already going insane trying to keep the two Mars rovers operational and funded. Chances are they're not going to spend a couple extra billion dollars on another planet which gets no PR.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:34PM (#8358749)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • That's what amazes me about people who talk about terraforming Mars, etc. They talk like it would be so simple. Even if we had the tech to move comets, etc., and the various other things we would need to do - we DON'T have the knowledge of WHAT to do.

          We *do* have the tech. Sort of. We can generate enough energy to be zipping around the solar system, displacing asteroids and comets. We have even built some of the engine designs that give us that kind of power. (Although only the weaker ones have been built.) Most of the resistance to these technologies is poltical. (Don't dare mention "nuclear" as a propulsion method. Even if you're talking about using it in space, some people are whacked enough to start complaining about "polluting space". Sheesh.)

          As for knowledge, most of the terraforming ideas are based on a "close enough" approach. It's assumed that once we get things to that state, then some of the more exotic Earth lifeforms could begin to get a foothold. (i.e. extremophiles) Whether it would actually pan out or not would be "the great experiment".

          Interestingly enough, Venus may be easier to terraform than Mars. Mars has less atmosphere and little ability to hold more. Venus on the other hand, has too much atmosphere. Microbes exist that could exist on Venus (at least flosting, perhaps actually on the ground). As they convert CO2 to O2, the soil would begin to absorb the excess O2. In theory, Venus's atmosphere could be thinned greatly just by making it more habitable for Earth life.

          There's also the asteroid-to-rip-away-atmosphere idea that I gave in another post. Personally, I'd be a little reluctant to try that route until it was shown that other methods fail.

          • We can generate enough energy to be zipping around the solar system, displacing asteroids and comets. We have even built some of the engine designs that give us that kind of power. (Although only the weaker ones have been built.) Most of the resistance to these technologies is poltical. (Don't dare mention "nuclear" as a propulsion method.

            Forget about the nuclear issue. If we develop the technology to aim asteroids and comets at a planet, would then have the ability to wipe out every living thing on thi

          • Re:Terraforming ain't so easy. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by zero_offset ( 200586 ) on Monday February 23, 2004 @08:43AM (#8361503) Homepage
            Interestingly enough, Venus may be easier to terraform than Mars. Mars has less atmosphere and little ability to hold more. Venus on the other hand, has too much atmosphere. Microbes exist that could exist on Venus (at least flosting, perhaps actually on the ground). As they convert CO2 to O2, the soil would begin to absorb the excess O2. In theory, Venus's atmosphere could be thinned greatly just by making it more habitable for Earth life.

            That isn't even close to accurate.

            The surface temperature of Venus is about 900 degrees F. Although the greenhouse effect of the CO2-rich atmosphere is commonly cited as the main cause, another critical contributor is the extremely low rotation speed. One Venutian day lasts for 243 Earth days. This means the sun shines on the exact same spot of Venus for very, very long periods of time. The greenhouse effect plays into it by reflecting back a lot of that heat energy, but you're not going to be able to speed up the rotation of the planet. Even if you could figure out how to magically reduce 90% of the atmospheric pressure (Earth is about 14.5 PSI, whereas Venus is about 1500 PSI), a sunny day on Venus would be deadly.

            The carbon dioxide atmosphere is also supplanted by a series of sulfuric acid cloud layers (each of which are many miles thick), as well as pools of liquid sulfuric acid on the surface. If that isn't challenging enough, intense microwave radiation is emitted from the surface, and all of that heat and pressure also means any water moisture which ever existed boiled away a long, long time ago (excepting small amounts of deuterium). Venus is largely devoid of hydrogen. Thus, even if you managed to deal with the atmospheric pressure and heat, you'd still be left with nothing but a bone-dry planet.

            Carl Sagan suggested in 1960 that we might terraform Venus by seeding the atmosphere with hypothetical tailored bacteria to remove CO2. At the time, the surface was thought to be around 300-400 F, but now we know that organically-fixated carbon would be liberated as CO2 again, once it fell into the 900 F furnace that is the lower atmosphere.

            Thus, Venus would certainly NOT be easier to terraform than Mars, even if we had any idea how to actually terraform in the first place. In fact, the surface of Mercury is probably more hospitable.

    • My objection is that NASA has decided that the search for life is is the most important aspect of planetary research, because it is what catches headlines. Venus is not a likely source of life, however the geology is still very interesting but ignored.

    • Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Inspector Lopez ( 466767 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:00PM (#8358539) Journal
      One of the weird coincidences of the Solar System is that, on every planet, there is a place that is not too far from STP ("standard temperature and pressure --- more or less like sea level and 300 K). In the case of Mars, that place happens to be in a very deep hole in the ground, whereas on Venus and Jupiter, that place happens to be well above the "surface" (whatever that means on Jupiter). For you Mars colonizers, if you dig a hole about 30-40 km deep, you'll find that a pretty good air pressure and temperature will result. It'll be CO2, of course, but perhaps some trees won't mind too much.

      In the case of Venus, the question is, then, "why bother landing?" Why not just build yourself a balloon that floats around at some convenient altitude where it's not so hot, below the H2SO4 clouds so you can see the ground, perhaps occasionally deploying gliders or whatever to go down to the surface....

      A subsequent /. post mentions that the Soviet landers bounced off the surface at 7m/s. If a "lander" had been equipped with airbags, it probably wouldn't have it the surface at all, if the bags were filled with a gas with lower molecular weight than that of Venus. Rather, it would bob at some altitude(well) above the surface, a sort of low altitude satellite bobbing along in Venus extremely dull weather.

      [ The submersibles like the Trieste used "balloons" filled with gasoline to supply bouyancy; the gasoline was not crushed by the terrific pressure down there. Then by shedding ballast, the subermisibles could return to the surface. ]
      • below the H2SO4 clouds so you can see the ground

        I'm afraid you haven't been looking too closely at the imaging and cloud density data that the websites above explain. There aren't "clouds" like on Earth -- chubby, fat little suckers that we have. On Venus, it's just a giant, very slow-moving morass of gas. The Sulpher-rich "clouds" are more like fog. The heavy pressure makes "walking" on the surface like deep-sea diving on the surface of the ocean floors. But you're never going to get much better vis

  • BepiColombo (Score:4, Informative)

    by brokencomputer ( 695672 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:37PM (#8358021) Homepage Journal
    You forgot to mention the BepiColombo that will laucnh on 2011-01-01: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog? sc=BEPICLMBO

  • The real question is WHY (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KingOfBLASH ( 620432 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:39PM (#8358029) Journal
    I find this article funny. Mars can be inhabited and explored by humans, and there are a lot of possibilities about what could be done there. The martian gravity is weaker then earths, so it becomes much cheaper in fuel costs to launch missions from mars. Add the proximity to the jovian asteroid belts, and we have all the resources we need to do a lot of neat stuff. Venus isn't habitable by humans. Now this doesn't mean that we shouldn't send any probes there, but first thing is first.

    • Re:The real question is WHY (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Chapium ( 550445 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:10PM (#8358224)
      The reason my friend is, that everyone believed Venus was inhabitable around the time the Soviets began exploring it. Their initial lander they sent there got fried because they thought it was only going to be about 80-100 degrees Farenheit on the surface; not 3-5x that.

    • Re:The real question is WHY (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kels ( 9845 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:30PM (#8358328)
      Well, scientifically Venus is at least as intriguing as Mars, at least in terms of the big picture. It is much closer in size & mass to Earth, and so would be expected to evolve geologically in a very similar way. From what we know, Venus does not seem to work like Earth at all, with no signs of plate tectonics. Why not? Was it different in the past? Is it due to the different surface conditions (temperature, presence of water)?

      The planet is thought to have been completely resurfaced around 500 million years ago, with relatively little geological activity since then. Why?

      And the biggest question of all, how did the atmosphere & surface temperature of Venus evolve? Was it ever a place that had Earth-like surface conditions (liquid water)? Could it ever have supported life? Was a runaway greenhouse effect an inescapable consequence of receiving ~2x the solar radiation of Earth, or did Earth escape that fate due to the fact that biological activity has been sequestering CO2 for hundreds of millions of years?

      In terms of planetary evolution, Venus, Mars & Earth seem to be the too hot, too cold, just right examples. Is the hospitibility of our planet due completely to the luck of its position at 1 AU from the sun, or did other factors come into play (stabilization of Earth's rotation & climate by our large Moon, for example)?

      There's a lot we still don't know about our solar system, and Venus is a vital piece of that puzzle. If it's all about resources or human habitation, no, Venus isn't an attractive destination. But scientifically, it is key.

      • Re:The real question is WHY (Score:4, Funny)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @10:45PM (#8359498) Journal
        The planet is thought to have been completely resurfaced around 500 million years ago, with relatively little geological activity since then. Why?

        The aliens screwed up their first attempt at planting humans, and decided to flush Venus clean and try a new colony on Earth. I think they are reaching for the handle again.

  • Mars is a Prospect for Money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Qweezle ( 681365 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:39PM (#8358033) Journal
    People look at Mars these days, almost as the "next Earth"...dreams and hopes from businesses the world over of exotic minerals, huge deposits of iron and whatnot, and this drives many to support Mars exploration

    There are also those who of course, believe that Mars is chiefly where we will dump those extra billions of people we are going to have in the next 100 years.

    But Venus should not be forgotten, it is a legitimate testing ground for technology and a potential "gold mine" in itself.
    • About those extra billion people... to give a generic answer to a generic argument, Antarctica is more hospitable, so we'll probably expand to fill down there before we start packing people off to Mars. That said, Mars has a certain romance (not in the love sense) to it that Antarctica can't claim (though back in the 1800s, it was Antarctica that had that same sort of allure).
    • I have a feeling venus will become a lot more interesting as time goes on. Having too much atmosphere seems to be a problem much more easily solved than having too little.

      At least venus can eventually be terraformed when we develop such technology to do so. Mars doesn't have much hope of being terraformed because it lacks the gravity to keep an atmosphere in place.

    • Re:Mars is a Prospect for Money (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ajagci ( 737734 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:33PM (#8358736)
      There are also those who of course, believe that Mars is chiefly where we will dump those extra billions of people we are going to have in the next 100 years.

      You're gonna ship African and Indian street kids to Mars by the billions? Because that's where those "extra billions" come from. It's not going to happen.

      There are only two ways we will deal with the population explosion: family planning and social changes on the one hand, or disease and starvation on the other.
      • And if disease and starvation don't pan out, there's always war.

        The population explosion has already happened, btw. With current technology we won't be able to support the 6 billion or so of us around today at today's standard of living (even though billions today have a pretty poor way of life) for more than a century. The whole premise for our civilization is that it's ok to burn through our forests, water, and oil because technology will find a solution before we run out.

        And if we don't find a solution

  • Landing on Venus (Score:5, Funny)

    by eluusive ( 642298 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:39PM (#8358036)
    Landing is not currently possible with the level of technology you puny earthlings currently possess. Our atmosphere would crush you faster than you can say Venusian.

  • cloudy venus (Score:2, Interesting)

    by maliabu ( 665176 )
    i believe one of the reasons for such neglection is due to the thick layer of cloud covering the planet. i myself would be put off observing the Moon or Saturn from my backyard if there's cloud hanging in the sky.

    having said that, we have seen amazing ground-penetrating technology used on Mars Rovers. So maybe some of these gears can be re-used?

    it'll be rather amusing if Venus does have lives kicking under the thick cloud as we speak, but we failed to further investigate it :)

  • There's a good reason we choose Mars, not Venus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CrystalFalcon ( 233559 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:40PM (#8358044) Homepage
    The most compelling reason to not send bots to Venus, but to Mars, would be Venus' surface temperature. If you think the greenhouse effect is bad on Earth, try an atmosphere comprised almost exclusively of greenhouse gases, and hop in a notch towards the Sun.

    Try surface temperatures in the range of 400-500 degrees C, and watch closely as that poor overclocked Pentium powering the robot overheats like an Eskimo who's in Rio de Janiero to watch the carneval.

    Thanks, I'd rather try for Mars first, with temperatures in the much more comfortable range for Earth-invented technology. Hell, we don't even have to shield it for temperature most of the time, as it is just marginally cooler on Mars and the electronics gives off some heat by itself to stay warm.

  • Venus harbors life? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:41PM (#8358049) Homepage Journal
    We know that life can exist in the harshest environments here on Earth. There are extremophiles (no, not X-Games lovers) that live at the bottom of the ocean near tectonic vents where the temperatures are hundreds of degrees above what humans could stand. Not to mention that there isn't any light down there for photosynthesis or anything of the sort.

    If life can exist there, it's more than likely that similar life could exist on Venus with its very extreme environment and bountiful liquid (unlike dry Mars).

    Could the Soviet explorers have found primitive life there and for fear of starting widespread panic decided to keep the whole thing quiet. Just declare that Mars is the target for the future and keep Venus missions underwraps?

    It's a little bit tin-foil inducing, but considering that Venus has water which we have 'decided' is one of the fundamental building blocks of life, could it be so far fetched that life spontaneously originated there on its own?
    • And all I can think is, if there is life on Venus, it should be thanking its gods that it's safe from us...

    • Re:Venus harbors life? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RoLi ( 141856 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:05PM (#8358191)
      Could the Soviet explorers have found primitive life there and for fear of starting widespread panic decided to keep the whole thing quiet.

      The most stupidest conspiracy theories are governments keeping alien life "quiet".

      If there would be any evidence for alien life - or even intelligent life out there, the governments would profit the most because it's a good reason to raise taxes for military, etc.

      The thought that the government would keep the cover over something that a) clearly isn't their fault, b) is possibly an external threat for which c) only the government has an adequate fix, is pretty dumb, IMO.

      I'm all for conspiracies, but there must be some kind of motive behind it.

    • Re:Venus harbors life? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alkali ( 28338 )
      If life can exist there, it's more than likely that similar life could exist on Venus with its very extreme environment and bountiful liquid (unlike dry Mars).

      I agree that there are some forms of bacteria that could survive on Venus. A more basic question is whether life could originate under such conditions, and I've never seen anyone address that question. I would be interested to know if anyone else has.

  • the question is why (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gimpy-Joe ( 580838 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:42PM (#8358059)
    the interesting thing isn't which planet gets less or more, but why they get less or more.

    mars gets the most because its the closest that might be able to support its own life

    europa isn't a planet but it still gets points for life, however its farther than mars

    venus is close but doesn't have a chance of life as we think of it. Venus does however have excellent energy harvesting/producing possibilities as soon as we are more space capable

  • Reflects Rational Use of Resources (Score:5, Interesting)

    by reallocate ( 142797 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:42PM (#8358063)
    No, the lack of a stampede to Venus is not evidence of a loss of "advanced space travel capabiilty".

    It is a function of limited resources and the obvious sense that Mars is more likely to have been, or be, hospitable to life than Venus.

  • Venus (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rholliday ( 754515 )
    I've always found Venus to be an interesting planet, but I agree with the focus on Mars. I think one of the first major step to interstellar travel will be establishing a base on another planet, and Mars is our (closest) best shot. Europa and Titan would be good supply stops on the way out of the solar system.

  • Venus isn't as interesting as Mars... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:43PM (#8358068)
    in the short term, at least. Consider: the conditions on Venus are very inimical to human life; we'd have to invest in some serious tech to counteract the atmosphere and the heat.

    In contrast, Mars is much simpler: domes to hold atmosphere in (with the possibility of terraforming to make a breathable atmosphere), and you're pretty much there.

    After Mars, there is a good prospect of moving on to Jovian moons, possibly Saturn's moons as well. Venus, however, doesn't have much to offer us until we've had a chance to refine our space-going technology with Mars and Jovian adventures.

  • Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by M0b1u5 ( 569472 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:44PM (#8358071) Homepage
    Excellent to see old, crappy images reworked with hi-tech to reveal things the original science team were never capable of seeing! What amazes me about the images is that there's enough light on the surface to actually see ANYTHING! I mean, isn't the surface pressure on the order of hundreds of atmospheres? To me, that implied some sort of soupy and only partly transparent atmosphere. The radar map of the surface is remarkable in that there are no craters visible - evidence of extreme and recent volcanic activity I assume. All together a very interesting planet - but one unlikely to see human footprints until we've throughly explored the Jupiter system I susppect. Just how on Venus would you design and use a pressure suit that can take the rather dangerous and corrosive Venusian Atmosphere, at ridiculous temeratures and pressures?
    • The radar map of the surface is remarkable in that there are no craters visible - evidence of extreme and recent volcanic activity I assume.

      The thick atmosphere would protect the surface from meteoric impacts, even more than ours does...

  • Good reasons to not land on Venus. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by THotze ( 5028 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:44PM (#8358073) Homepage
    Look at all the problems we've had with landing a craft on Mars - a planet whose surface we can see, which isn't THAT much farther away than Venus (both are too far to do say, human controlled robotics directly). And Mars is just a cold mound of rock, with some relatively flat spots. Its not a huge strecth of existing terrestrial technology to build a Mars rover - all you need to do is keep the electornics warm, and use low power so that you can use solar.

    Now, on Venus, the surface temperature is about 750'K - 900'F. now, a server room conks out at a LOT lower temperatures than that. And... did you want to build the lander out of mostly metal? Might not be so smart - it rains sulfuric acid all the time on Venus. That's nasty stuff if you're a lander. Oh, and solar power is out - that sulfuric acid rain comes from a pretty thick cloud cover.

    We're also exploring Mars because it seems to be a RELATIVElY Earth-like planet - in that, maybe we can make it work for permanent human habitation.

    Venus would just require radically new technology to land on, which isn't smart because the scientific benefits, while real, could be eclipsed in terms of */$ (bang per buck) on other places. And it doesn't look like humans are EVER going to live there. IMHO, the biggest problem that the space program now has is capturing our imagination - a preparing for humans on Mars does it, studying volcanoes on Venus is interesting, but doesn't scratch the human itch for exploration as well.

    • Re:Good reasons to not land on Venus. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rodgerd ( 402 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:54PM (#8358130) Homepage
      Venus would just require radically new technology to land on,


      Or you could ask the Russians how the Venera landers worked. I know NIH is a big problem for some people, but overcoming a bit of parochialism never hurt anyone.
    • I am confused or do I see pictures on websites from Venera landers that russians built? Any other Russion landers that we're not aware of?

    • Easy to land, hard to survive (Score:5, Informative)

      by Evil Pete ( 73279 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:10PM (#8358229) Homepage

      Its actually ridiculously easy to land on Venus. You don't even need a parachute. The Venera craft didn't use parachutes they just had a dish shaped structure at the top like an umbrella and in the enormously dense atmosphere that was enough to slow the craft to landing speed. However, once there surviving is very difficult, the major problem is the heat. We can build craft to go down 11 km in our oceans, and survive sulphuric acid environments no problem ... but you can't keep an object permanently cold (or cold for extended periods) in such a hot environment.

      I'm sure Venus has an interesting history and is worth exploring one day. But probably not for a while. Though the pics are very intriguing.

  • The real reason they haven't explored Venus (Score:5, Funny)

    by foidulus ( 743482 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:46PM (#8358081)
    It's sexism pure and simple. Mars is the male god of war, and Venus is a goddess. The male chauvenists are the REAL reason almost nobody cares about Venus, and to think, I thought sexism was dead. It's a male dominated solar system.

  • layman alert (Score:4, Funny)

    by digitalsushi ( 137809 ) * <slashdot@digitalsushi.com> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:49PM (#8358096) Journal
    K

    What if we sent some torpedo to Venus that somehow magically scooped all the atmosphere off. Here's my question: Would it come back on its own, or would it be gone forever?

  • Name a crater? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:53PM (#8358121)

    I had a friend working with NASA when they were naming geological features on the surface of Venus. Since all features were named after women, I managed him to persuade him to name a crater after my girlfriend, as a birthday present to her. Not bad, Venus being the planet of love and all that -- and certainly better than naming a star (star-naming companies are scammers, their catalogues are not recognised [iau.org] by the IAU).

    The only drawback, of course, is she's not my girlfriend anymore. However, every time I see Venus on my evening cycle home from work, I'm reminded of her and the crater. Fond memories indeed!

  • Possibly offtopic, but (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Threni ( 635302 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:55PM (#8358132)
    shouldn't we be taking care of Earth? Check this out:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0, 12 374,1153530,00.html

    Scary.

  • Maybe we could go and live there (Score:5, Funny)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:59PM (#8358160)

    I know that the continual 1200 F sulfuric acid rain is a bummer.

    Maybe we could nuke the planet into a nuclear winter to cool it down?

    I think I'm going to patent it.

  • Venus is hell... (Score:3, Redundant)

    by sterno ( 16320 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:59PM (#8358162) Homepage
    The problem with Venus is that it is one of the most hostile environments we've yet to find in our searches. It's hot, it's acidic, and so it's hard on equipment, and it's potential for harboring life is low (given what little we know about the subject).

    Our first objective in exploring the universe is answering the "are we alone" question. If we can find something as simple as bacteria on another planet, then it sets the groundwork for finding other more highly evolved forms of life. We just need to really prove that life is out there. I have zero doubt that there is, but we still have to proove it.

    Once we find aliens, fine, then it might be neat to look at Venus.

  • Venus - The forgotten planet! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Borg453b ( 746808 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @06:59PM (#8358165) Homepage Journal
    THRILL at its seductive mistresses of mayhem!

    MARVEL at the wonders of the future!

    EXPERIENCE the mysteries of the forgotten planet.

    Our biggest threat came from our very own solar system.

    Arrive 30 minutes prior to the movie to receive a FREE stale popcorn and a lukewarm coke

    Did anyone anyone think cheap sci-fi feature when reading the heading?

  • Why are there no Venus landers? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xabraxas ( 654195 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:04PM (#8358186)
    Apparently, no landings on Venus are planned - is this another case of humanity losing advanced space travel capability due to neglect, like Apollo?

    Perhaps this is the reason why we have not seen Venus landers:

    Venus today is a scorching, hell-like place -- totally dry, with a surface temperature hotter than the melting point of zinc (800 degrees F) and an enormously heavy, largely carbon dioxide atmosphere, 100 times as dense as Earth's.

    I don't know for certain but I imagine that would complicate things enourmously.

  • Venus is a difficult target... (Score:5, Informative)

    by wizz0bang ( 611592 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:08PM (#8358209)
    Venus is far more difficult to land on than Mars. We have successfully sent several probes to orbit Venus, and even a few that "landed" on the surface. They lasted a very short time due to: high concentrations of Sulfuric acid (just like in your car battery), high atmospheric pressure, roughly 1500 pounds per square inch to the Earth's roughly 15 pounds per square inch, and not least of all temperatures hot enough to melt lead... up to 450 degrees C.

    If we can learn to land on Mars with a much better track record, than perhapds will we be advanced enough to start building probes to explore Venus. But at 400 million a pop, I don't think anyone will want to pay for a whole five minutes of time on Venus just yet.

    see:

    http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/ headlines/2001/venus.html

  • Interesting stuff at the website not just Venus (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tandoori Haggis ( 662404 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:08PM (#8358215)
    The annonymous contributor from Winnipeg has given us a really cool link: http://www.mentallandscape.com/

    Theres much more to it than just Venus - though the material supplied on that subject is pretty damn good.
    Nikola Tesla; Rockets; Ion engines; lots of cool stuff. Explore the site - really fascinating stuff.

  • Probe Eater Plus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:13PM (#8358243) Homepage Journal
    "...is this another case of humanity losing advanced space travel capability due to neglect, like Apollo?"

    No, I think it's more a case of space agencies not wanting to toss their multi-million dollar probes into a nintey atmosphere, 850 F (450 C) cloud of sulphuric acid 850 F (450 C)where probe lifespans are measured in hours. The cost to knowledge-gain ratio is staggeringly out of proportion on those missions. At least on mars you stand a decent chance of getting a return on your investment.

    It's more a case of space agencies saying "Yep, that's nasty stuff. Let's move on for now."

  • Moon & Venus Pairing (Score:5, Informative)

    by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation&gmail,com> on Sunday February 22, 2004 @07:17PM (#8358264) Journal
    Don't forget to watch for the pairing of the Moon and Venus [thestar.com] tomorrow night at 6:30 - 7:00pm (Eastern Time) in the West sky. They'll only be about three degrees apart in the night sky.

  • Time for some re-evaluation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 22, 2004 @08:46PM (#8358816)
    For electronics to work in high heat conditions like on Venus, it's time to go back to vacuum tubes... They like heat. For memory, we can use magnetic cores with a high Curie point. I wouldn't mind working on a Nuvistor-based computer, or even integrated thermionics with welded wiring and ceramic substrates. Anyone want to hire a 32 year old 'old style' electronics expert?
    TIMMs [hts-homepage.de]

  • Venus is the obvious choice (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sir Foxx ( 755504 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @09:13PM (#8358976)
    I don't get it when it comes to picking which planet to terraform. Mars will never work, its core is dead, which is why the planet is dead with little to no atmosphere. Venus's core is still kicking, we just need to bleed off some of the atmosphere and increase its rotation a little. Still a monumental task but doable, whereas Mars is dead and will remain that way without an active core.

  • Venus and Bio-teraformation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GeneralEmergency ( 240687 ) on Sunday February 22, 2004 @10:02PM (#8359259) Journal


    Venus will be the first extraterestrial body that we will terraform.

    This will be accomplished by bio-engineering a class of organisms that will have the following characteristics:

    1) Asexual reproduction.
    2) Sulphur/oxygen/carbon based metaboism.
    3) Builds "Balloon" cells so it can "float" in the CO2 sea that is the venusian atmosphere.
    4) Short life span.
    5) The discarded Carbon/Sulphur/Nitrogen skeleton must not ignite, returning the CO2 back into the atmosphere.

    These organisms will be introduced into the the Venusian atmosphere by floating, automated seeding ships. In a few hundred years we oughtta be able to move in there.

    What we can do about the crappy weak magnetic field and the six month long days and nights, I haven't got a fucking clue.

  • acutally its Mercury... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lawrence_Bird ( 67278 ) on Monday February 23, 2004 @12:39AM (#8360019) Homepage
    thats become the forgotten planet. The outer planet have
    all had multiple probes in the past 20-25 years. Same
    with Venus, and Mars.. well we can't throw enough junk
    at that rock. AFAIK, Mariner 10 was the one and only,
    and that only made 2 or 3 passes after getting a boost
    after a Venus rest stop.

  • Not forgotten, but shelved (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xihr ( 556141 ) on Monday February 23, 2004 @03:21AM (#8360601) Homepage
    It's not forgotten, just shelved. Its surface is a corrosive, lead-melting hell; there's really not much of interest there for exploration or exploitation. In the list of Solar System objects to explore or exploit, Venus is way, way, down on the list. As in, arguably dead last.

Slashdot Top Deals

Avoid strange women and temporary variables.

Close