# NASA to return to Venus



## Brian G Turner (Jun 3, 2021)

It's about time: NASA is to return to Venus, with not just one but with two missions:








						Venus: Nasa announces two new missions
					

The two missions will examine the planet's atmosphere and geological features.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




However, it would be nice to try and get a lander there as well. As Earth's "twin", Venus has always seemed much more interesting - and relevant - to better understanding our Earth than the cold dusty rock that is Mars.


----------



## Astro Pen (Jun 3, 2021)

Agree. Venus remains, despite its current atmosheric density, a better prospect for terraforming than Mars which, because it is so small, is uninhabitable long term. 
The resemblance between Mars landscapes and earthly deserts is a false friend. It is pretty hostile. Not that stripping all that co2 and sulphuric from Venus will be a walk in the park. However the foundational real estate beneath is more viable


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jun 3, 2021)

The surface pressure is equivalent to 3,000 feet below sea level on Earth and the surface temperature is reported at 932 F. This might change for the better if the composition of the atmosphere was changed but that would take a long time unless a catastrophic size change was initiated somehow. The way it is, it is going to be very hard to make vehicles that can explore the surface. Besides being hot enough to melt lead, it is also hot enough to melt Aluminium and lots of plastics. I would say Mars is a walk in the park compared to Venus.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jun 3, 2021)

Are they looking for the Venusian women or the telepathic frogs on the swamps?


----------



## Astro Pen (Jun 3, 2021)

Robert Zwilling said:


> The surface pressure is equivalent to 3,000 feet below sea level on Earth and the surface temperature is reported at 932 F. This might change for the better if the composition of the atmosphere was changed but that would take a long time unless a catastrophic size change was initiated somehow. The way it is, it is going to be very hard to make vehicles that can explore the surface. Besides being hot enough to melt lead, it is also hot enough to melt Aluminium and lots of plastics. I would say Mars is a walk in the park compared to Venus.



Been checking Robert. Not looking for an argument here,  nor do I underestimate the time and effort in dealing with Venus. I just realised long ago that Mars was a non starter.  The only alternative approach is to genetically modify humans to survive low gravity and even then Mars will have big problems retaining a useful atmosphere. 


My personal favourite for rehabilitating Venus' atmosphere is the 'Lagrange point parasol' method. Forget the floating cities and other flights of fantasy.

Here are a couple of Venus terraforming videos. 
One from our old friend Anton and one from an American who starts talking about dogs but gets more sensible as he goes. 
Anton is probably the best grounding


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Jun 4, 2021)

As long as people believe there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, or at least gold, in them thar hills, people are going to want to get out to the other planets, seen as massive carrots. Gold being anything that cures, fixes, or supplies solutions to problems on Earth with huge profits.

From a practical and safest point of view, floating cities is entirely possible for Venus, the same way living underground works for the Moon and Mars. Living 50 km above Venus in floating cities would have gravity very similar to Earth. It would be like a boat docked on the ocean's surface, exploring the depths below. There is speculation that Venus might have life in the higher cloud levels. It would be fascinating to find life biologically similar to Earth life living in the higher clouds, opposite for most life on Earth. As far as the extreme conditions go, there are hundreds if not more, of different kinds of Earth life living in extreme conditions compared to ordinary surface conditions.

If low gravity becomes an insurmountable issue, that would add it to the faster than light paradox, where almost everyone assumes it does exist and so it becomes an unquestioned part of any story. 

Putting aside extreme genetic engineering (gengerineering) , artificial gravity would become just as important as air for living in space. This would be a problem that needs to be solved sooner rather than later. It would be nice to put everyone in one big spinning ship structure so that it would be easy to generate the artificial gravity and also make getting in and out of the spinning structures more feasible. I don't think we are anywhere near being able to build massive spinning objects in space. Perhaps a fleet of smaller ships that would lock together. Docking with a spinning object in space looks real easy in 2001, that is until the last few seconds. Turning the spinning off would be the easy way out, but everything loose would have to be restrained.


----------



## Elckerlyc (Jun 4, 2021)

Robert Zwilling said:


> Turning the spinning off would be the easy way out, but everything loose would have to be restrained.


That seems a very unlikely option to me. It would take a lot of energy to put the mass of such a big structure in a spin. To get it out of the spin and then back spinning again, just to allow a ship to dock, is unrealistic. Also, it would not take long for the 10,000 people living in their spinning starbase to start complaining about each time they have to secure everything and adjust to freefall, just when they busy cooking..

I have always been a great fan of SF, but the older I get and the more I think about it, the less likely it seems to me we will ever _seriously_ spread out into space and colonize planets or build space-stations. Both for technical and economical reasons.
We're explorers. We're curious. That's why we go to Venus. Correction, not we go, but probes do.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Jun 5, 2021)

Human bodies are incredibly fragile things. They are not designed for space travel. It's quite possible that at some point in the future we may be able to transplant or transform our bodies into much more durable frames, but tbh if that happens we will lose much of what makes us human in the first place.

I think the latest missions to the Moon are the prelude to establishing a regular shuttle and quite soon a permanent base there. Personally I think it should have happened 20-30 years ago. At some point we may send people to Mars, but if it's unlikely to be be this side of the 21st century.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jun 5, 2021)

Brian G Turner said:


> However, it would be nice to try and get a lander there as well.



The Soviets did that. The landers lasted about an hour.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 6, 2021)

Sorry, yes - I meant a new lander with more modern instrumentation, as well as built to last longer than the Soviet ones.


----------



## .matthew. (Jun 6, 2021)

Brian G Turner said:


> built to last longer than the Soviet ones.


Nothing lasts longer than Soviet space tech 

They used the same rocket design for over 40 years.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jun 6, 2021)

I don't remember what exactly did the landers in, whether pressure, temperature, acid raid, lightning, etc. or all of the above. I bet we've certainly gotten better at dealing with high pressures in the intervening decades, but I wonder about the other bits.


----------



## Ori Vandewalle (Jun 6, 2021)

Apparently temperature is the primary barrier. Electronics don't work above ~250 deg F. So NASA is looking at mechanical designs... steampunk Venus!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 11, 2021)

And now so is the European Space Agency - though still no lander. 








						Venus hotter than ever: 3rd new robotic explorer on horizon
					

Venus is hotter than ever, with a third new robotic explorer on the horizon.




					phys.org


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jun 11, 2021)

Venusian women are hot.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 20, 2021)

Astro Pen said:


> Been checking Robert. Not looking for an argument here,  nor do I underestimate the time and effort in dealing with Venus. I just realised long ago that Mars was a non starter.  The only alternative approach is to genetically modify humans to survive low gravity and even then Mars will have big problems retaining a useful atmosphere.
> 
> 
> My personal favourite for rehabilitating Venus' atmosphere is the 'Lagrange point parasol' method. Forget the floating cities and other flights of fantasy.
> ...



It's too close to the sun.


----------



## Astro Pen (Jun 20, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> It's too close to the sun.


 We're going at night.


----------



## BAYLOR (Jun 20, 2021)

Astro Pen said:


> We're going at night.



Oh , okay. 

Seriously Veus us about 66 Million miles from the Sun and outside of Goldilocks Zone. Even if you could change composition of the atmosphere , you could lower the temperature to make the place liveable  or even have surface oceans.  What you have to do is move veins out from the sun to about   87  million miles from the sun ,it would be closer to earth but not close enough to pose a threat   Then it might be possible reduce the temperature make it at least livable in many places , it would still be hot,. but in that situation  you have oceans . The next part is more difficult , you have to find Venus a moon 1 /6th Venus size ,  so  you break up its crust and have plate techtoncis .. Also you need to speed up Venus rotation.


----------



## Wayne Mack (Jun 29, 2021)

Venus’s clouds are too dry for life, but study findings point to Jupiter & Mars


----------

