Slashdot Mirror


Photos from the Surface of Venus

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."

113 comments

  1. My car keys by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:My car keys by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

      Obligatory Joke:

      Did you check Uranus?

      Sorry. ;) We now return you to your regularly scheduled Science story comments section.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  2. Camera mounting? by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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'

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Camera mounting? by Muhammar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    2. Re:Camera mounting? by xutopia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Venus fact sheet is here http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ven usfact.html

    3. Re:Camera mounting? by barakn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  3. Stunned? by PD · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Stunned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I didn't know about these. Well, actually, I knew the Russians sent a couple of probes to Venus, I didn't know they took any pictures.

      It's probably because most of us here are American, so we naturally hear about the American accomplishments more. Sure, it's all there if you want to look for it, but I'm sure some of us are lazy (like me) and don't do any investigation beyond the occasional Sci/Tech article on BBC or Google News. And those articles seem to mention the American stuff more.

      BTW, is there any good central site for space stuff where I could find info on some of the events you mentioned? There has to be something faster/easier/better than spending hours searching around on nasa.gov and the astronomy picture of the day site. I actually don't know what a lot of the Russian (and even a few American) missions were called or did; I list of probes and missions done by both countries during the cold war era would be a great help to lazy space researchers like myself. :)

    2. Re:Stunned? by PD · · Score: 1

      Google is your friend.

      Suggested search terms:

      ranger
      pioneer
      mariner mercury
      mariner venus

      etc.

      And read everything on http://www.astronautix.com/index.html

      That ought you occupy you for a good long time.

    3. Re:Stunned? by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Informative
      Heh, the guy was complaining about an emphasis toward U.S. space probes by Western sci-news outlets, and you respond by directing him to search for a bunch of American missions, and no Russian ones. Nice.

      Not a bad list, as regards American probes, however- and that link is awesome- a definite bookmark. Adding to it, I would suggest:

      Surveyor
      Magellan
      Viking
      and of course, Voyager (though I'm sure you're at least somewhat familiar with that one)

      And for the Russians:

      Luna
      Zond
      Venera (yeah, I'm aware that's what the story is about, but there are actually like 15 of these, which met with varying degrees of success)
      Mars (might want to drop in a qualifier for this search)
      Vega

      Happy hunting.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    4. Re:Stunned? by bruthasj · · Score: 1

      I'm stunned that a guy named Don P Mitchell has copyrights on photos made by a russian satellite.

    5. Re:Stunned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's almost like never hearing that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon."

      Well, at least *I* was suprised to learn a (very) few years ago that there was not one, but multiple moon landings! Talk about living behind the iron curtain and screwing with your head...

    6. Re:Stunned? by PD · · Score: 1

      Yep. That and the lack of info on the other missions is due to the crappy space coverage over the years. Apollo 13 (only the 3rd moon mission) was largely ignored by everyone until they ran into trouble.

  4. you were surprised? by egomaniac · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    --
    ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    1. Re:you were surprised? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      The grandparent's handle is egomaniac, what kind of response did you expect. :-) egomaniac probably knows everything.

      Now, if his handler were "iliveinacave" the story poster might have had something to be ashamed of.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
  5. Chairface wrote his name on the moon... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

    Chairface (From "The Tick" comics and cartoon) wrote his name on the moon, but apparently The Tick made it all the way to Venus

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:Chairface wrote his name on the moon... by Cuthalion · · Score: 1

      Chairface wrote some of his name on the moon

      --
      Trees can't go dancing
      So do them a big favor
      Pretend dancing stinks!
  6. Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Colonel+Blimp · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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 few holiday snaps off!

    1. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Colonel+Blimp · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Colonel+Blimp · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Colonel+Blimp · · Score: 1
      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.

    7. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 3, Informative
      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 ambient air surrounding it. This produces optical distortion of objects viewed through the warmed air.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    8. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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 should be obvious that I understand it. So, why not try to explain how those conditions could or could not exist on Venus?

    9. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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?

    10. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1
      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.

      This is Slashdot. Assuming somebody has a basic grasp of elementary school science concepts is generally a bad idea. And you did imply that atmospheres in general were incapable of refracting light.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    11. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by monopole · · Score: 2, Informative
      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 refraction occuring at the boundary according to Snell's law (which corresponds to a minimization of the path integral).
      In the case of smoothly varying indices of refraction, such as in a heated gas or a medium of varying concentration the light follows a curved path described by a minimization of the path integral, resulting in a curved path. This is not only the basis for mirages but also "lineless" bifocals. The atmoshere of Venus at one point was believed to be so dense that the curvature of these rays would make an observer think that he was within a bowl. see http://www.cosmographica.com/gallery/portfolio/por tfolio051/pages/096-%20Superrefraction%20.htm

      As for light travelling in straight lines through water check out http://faraday.physics.uiowa.edu/optics/6A40.40.ht m and http://faraday.physics.uiowa.edu/images/6a40.40b.j pg
      in this case the varying refraction is achieved by varying concentrations of sugar (although brine will work as well).

      This gradient index effect is commonly employed within CD-rom lenses: http://www.sinopt.com/software1/usrguide54/example s/grinlens.htm

      So an example of bending rays of light is probably within arm's reach of you.

      All this being said the primary source of the distortion is probably the line scan optics.
    12. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

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

      Why is the sky blue?

    13. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1
      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 using.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    15. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      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 again as tall and steep. I thought it was an illusion, so I noted where the summit lined up with trees from a particular location (it was on my way to work), and checked it again from that same spot. When it's stretched, you can see features that are normally hidden by the foothills.
      I'll also point out another non-straight travel for light - gravity lensing. I suppose you can say that it's going straight through the space it's crossing, but geometrically, it sure looks like a bend.

    16. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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.

    17. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Colonel+Blimp · · Score: 1
      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.

    18. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by n9hmg · · Score: 1

      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 rigid, would it bend opposite to the way light bends? I was thinking of the other straight-edge we can use in measuring gravitational lensing - comparison to apparent position of other stars whose light isn't as affected by the lens in question. Plainly, both rays come straight through space, but change direction from each other. Hrmm... we can have perfectly straight and parallel lines that are also non-parallel. They're both perfectly straight to themselves, but each sees the other as bent. (B==true && !B==true) == true. I guess the work "relativity" makes sense. :-) I call the lensed ray bent because it appears to be so in comparison to the majority of the rest of the universe, sort of a majority rule. I know the minority's right too - in fact, the apparently bent path is quite possibly the shorter distance, That's right, the shortest distance between two points is either a straight or curved line.

    19. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    20. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1


      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.

    21. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Someone mod this up, geez. And tell that retard PD that some people understand optics better than he does.

    23. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      All of your posts on this topic involved you not thinking.

    24. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      So, you think that the Venera images are distorted by the atmosphere? Prove it cowboy.

    25. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      Mike, you sure are an ugly fellow, but I'll put you in my friends list anyway.

    26. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      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).

    27. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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 source of the temperature difference across 20 feet of atmosphere be?

      2) What are you talking about American court judges? Difficult to see where that comes into this discussion.

      3) Are you aware that we were discussing the distortion in the Venera probe photographs? It's not clear that you are.

    28. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      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?

    29. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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.

    30. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      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.

    31. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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 index to another to refract. I don't care what kind of function describes the transition.

      Anyway, how does the distinction have anything at all to do with the Venera pictures?

      And on the point of the constant medium of the atmosphere, I am making that claim. If you want to discuss that, it might be more interesting than the ant-fucking that we are currently engaged in.

    32. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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 the size of my hypothetical boundary width?

      There you go, Old Wolf. A defense, and in this article, an attack.

    33. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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 I can see, we are saying the same thing.

      Sorry to dump three different responses to you, you only need to reply to one. And I double checked your website. Looks like Mike is your brother (Chris is another). So is your name Wolf, or is that a nick?

    34. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by barawn · · Score: 1


      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. infinitely strong) straight edge would be just that - straight.

      Gravitational lensing is a unique situation where you can refract light without a change in the index of refraction of materials.

      For a better example, imagine this: Throw a rock perpendicular to the Earth's semimajor axis (i.e. along its orbital path). It won't go straight - that is, you set up a Cartesian coordinate system, and its motion won't be linear. It'll start going in a circle around the Sun. Throw it faster, and it'll go in a wider circle (or ellipse). Speed it up to the speed of light and it won't loop in a circle, but it will be distorted slightly.

      Now imagine a very very long, infinitely strong pole, extended in the same direction. It won't curve. It'll just keep going straight. The fact that it isn't following the curvature of spacetime simply means there's a stress along it.

      Anyway, you're right in most everyday applications. Some wacky quantum effects and (as stated) gravitational effects complicate the precise statement, but in general, refraction (bending of light) happens with a gradient in the index of refraction (be it a delta function or a smooth curve).

    35. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much, your explanation was very clear.

    36. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      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 atmosphere is a boundary (which seems a silly application of the word 'boundary').

      On the other issue: we don't know from the pictures or the article whether the atmosphere is of uniform density or not (with refractive index varying with density of course). Intuitively it would seem that it would get less dense as you go upwards. Also, in such a volatile environment there may be steep gradients everywhere (like how there are winds and storms and crap everywhere here, but on a much larger scale)

    37. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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 distortion in the Venera photos don't exist because the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the temperature of the ground, because of the insulating cloud cover. That would also prevent direct heating of the ground.

    38. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by PD · · Score: 1

      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.

    39. Re:Dense atmosphere is the culprit by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      So the conclusion is, we're both pedants who have nothing better to do than argue in old slashdot threads. :)

  7. microbes? by Galahad · · Score: 2, Funny

    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...

    --
    --jdp Maintainer of VisEmacs
    1. Re:microbes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, from the mound of venus

      oooohhhhhh, ha ha ha

  8. You need to watch more TV.... by seanmeister · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... if you did, you'd remember how the Six Million Dollar Man kicked the venus Probe's ass!

    Death Probe, part 1
    Death Probe, part 2
    The Death Probe!

    1. Re:You need to watch more TV.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      ... 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?"

  9. I can't believe no one by CableModemSniper · · Score: 0, Redundant

    has said this yet: "In Soviet Russia, Venus takes pictures of you!"

    --
    Why not fork?
    1. Re:I can't believe no one by metamatic · · Score: 1

      I can't believe nobody has said: "For photos of Uranus, go to www.goatse.cx."

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  10. In other news... by kenthorvath · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... life is discovered on Venus in the form of tiny airborn microbes. Russian scientists are now calling it Venera Disease. *bada ching*

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *bada ching*

      Don't you mean bad aching, as in the pain you'll be in when we punch your fucking guts out for that lame shitass attempt at humor?

  11. This just in ... by crmartin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Armstrong, Aldrin land on Moon
    Kennedy beats Nixon by narrow margin
    Allies land on Normandy beach -- D-Day has arrived!

    1. Re:This just in ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in Old Soviet Union, old news has never heard of YOU!

  12. Russian moon rocks by GeoGreg · · Score: 3, Funny
    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.

    1. Re:Russian moon rocks by torpor · · Score: 1

      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. :)

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    2. Re:Russian moon rocks by GeoGreg · · Score: 1
      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.

  13. hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some things are a little beyond me (and probably most of the slashdot crowd). Example:

    "Automatic gain control and logarithmic quantization were used to handle the unknown dynamic range of illumination. The raw image was converted to optical density according to Russian calibration data, then to linear radiance for image processing. It was interpolated with windowed sinc filter to avoid post-aliasing (a "pixilated" appearance), and the modulation transfer function ("aperture") of the camera was corrected with a 1 + 0.2*frequency**2 emphasis. This was then written out as 8-bit gamma-corrected values, using the sRGB standard gamma of 2.2. The bottom image is a digitally in-painted version, using Bertalmio's isophote-flow algorithm."

    1. Re:hmm. by stephens_domain · · Score: 1

      Clearly, manual gain control was not an option.

      --

      ..
    2. Re:hmm. by KewlPC · · Score: 3, Informative

      Basically, they had no idea how much light was reaching the surface. The probe wouldn't have lived long enough for manual gain control (it would have to take a picture, send it to Earth, the Russians would have to process it, adjust the gain, send the gain adjust command to the probe, repeat until a usable image comes back), so they gave the probe's on-board camera automatic gain control.

      Once they got the image from the probe, they converted the raw logarithmic data into a more usable format. Then it was adjusted to be viewable by a human.

    3. Re:hmm. by Squiffy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Automatic gain control:
      The electronics in the camera automatically adjusted for brightness.

      Logarithmic quantization:
      The image data had to be digitized in order to be sent back, which requires quantization. But if you don't know ahead of time the brightness characteristics of the pictures you're taking, you don't know how subtle a difference in brightness the your digitization scheme should be able to handle, while still being able to capture the full range of brightnesses in the images. So when they digitized, which basically means that they made a table of integers and assigned a brightness value to each integer, the assignment scheme made each brightness value be some constant multiple K of the preceding value. In this way a brightness range of K^N, where N is the table size, can be captured in the digitization. This is opposed to a linear quantization scheme (like is used in digitized audio), where only a range of K*N can be represented.

      Optical density:
      Don't know what this means.

      Linear radiance:
      This is where they undid the logarithmic stuff to get numbers that their software was expecting, so they could massage their image data to get something suitable for human eyes.

      Windowed sinc filter:
      This is part of the massaging they had to do. It's hard to explain without going into some deeper concepts. It's basically what the smooth filter in Photoshop does.

      Correcting the modulation transfer function:
      I don't know. I'm an audio guy.

      Gamma-corrected values:
      Different displays show colors differently. The gamma value has to do with some curve that maps between brightness values and display brightness. Or something like that.

  14. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, serious question here.

    Is "Venera" the plural of "Venus?"

    Seriously. I wanna know. Because, you know, the plural of "genus" is "genera." If you set aside for a moment the fact that "Venus" is a proper noun, is "Venera" its plural?

    Because, you know, it sounds a lot better than "Venuses."

    (There's a "penis"/"penera" comment in here someplace, but it's (1) eluding me, and (2) not funny.)

    1. Re:hmm by Beowabbit · · Score: 4, Informative
      The nominative singular (subject of a sentence) is "Venus", but all the other cases (other grammatical uses) start in "Vener-". I'm pretty sure the genitive case "Venus' clamshell, the clamshell of Venus" is "Veneris".

      When Russian speakers borrow foreign words, they usually keep the original gender (feminine in this case, despite the fact that the Latin nominative plural ends in -us which usually means masculine), and they usually take the root form of other cases rather than just the nominative singular ("Vener-" rather than "Venus"). In Russian, feminine nouns usually end in "-a" (or "-ya", which is a different letter). So to borrow the word Venus from Latin, Russian took the base form "Vener-" and tacked an "-a" on the end of it because it was feminine to make "Venera".

      I believe genus/generis (pl. genera) is declined (has grammatical endings tacked on) in the same way as "Venus", so yes, if she were cloned there would be two Venera. (But in Russian Venera is the singular.) Penis is declined in a different way; the Latin plural would be penes.

      Not that anybody's life is really improved by knowing this, of course. :-)

    2. Re:hmm by Kesha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BEHEPA - Russian spelling of Venera, is the Russian word for Venus. I am sure this word is not indiginous to Russian language and most likely came from the Greeks. Venus is Latin. I don't think your analogy for genus/genera applies here.

      You say Venus de Milo, I say Venera Milosskaya.

      Paul.

    3. Re:hmm by Kesha · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am wrong. I just looked up Venus through the English->Greek dictionary, and it came back as Afroditi. I guess Venera is the plural of Latin Venus, and not Greek as I have speculated.

      Here is the dictionary link:
      http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

      Paul.

    4. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Great answer.

      And I knew about penis. My point was that the joke wouldn't be funny because the analogy would not be sound.

    5. Re:hmm by misterpies · · Score: 1


      "Vener-" is also the origin of the word venereal in English. venereal diseases being of course those that come from love. (so strictly "erotic disease" would be a better term, but that just sounds too funny)

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
  15. Landing on Venus easier than Mars in many ways by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Landing on Venus easier than Mars in many ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although probes that land on Mars tend to last longer than those that land on Venus.

    2. Re:Landing on Venus easier than Mars in many ways by monopole · · Score: 1

      Of course the evil Commies had the additional advantage of only using the Metric system* allowing them to avoid mixing metric and english units.

      *Devised by the even more evil French specifically designed to confuse good but simpleminded Americans, in much the same manner as that evil Iraqi invention algebra.

    3. Re:Landing on Venus easier than Mars in many ways by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Although probes that land on Mars tend to last longer than those that land on Venus.

      Indeed. One planet makes it hard to land there, the other makes it hard to stay.

    4. Re:Landing on Venus easier than Mars in many ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame28.html

  16. all the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    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.

  17. venus not mars by solferino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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)
  18. CF US Magellan Mission by stanwirth · · Score: 1

    The US Magellan Mission to Venus 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 recovered per dollar spent. It was done on a shoestring.

  19. Soviet landers and Venus by daevt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.)

    1. Re:Soviet landers and Venus by Detritus · · Score: 1
      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?

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Soviet landers and Venus by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > 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 "wind" features. I'm curious as to how long it's been since those volcanoes were active.

  20. So, ho do you think mirages happen? by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:So, ho do you think mirages happen? by PD · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:So, ho do you think mirages happen? by PD · · Score: 1

      Read what I wrote. It's not semantic nitpicking, it's trying to explain something to people who don't understand optics.

    3. Re:So, ho do you think mirages happen? by PaulBu · · Score: 1

      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 interesting optical phenomena.

      I think there were even lenses made out of FLAT "gradiated" glass.

      Paul B.

    4. Re:So, ho do you think mirages happen? by PD · · Score: 1

      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't need to be a step gradient. I KNOW.

      This entire discussion is silly. We should all know how this works, and everyone who keeps posting to this thread with various rehashes of forth grade material is just annoying.

      Basically I KNOW how mirages work, and refraction, and that the index of refraction can change in a single material smoothly. But none of this is even remotely close to the original point: it's not the source of the distortion in the Venera camera.

  21. The "Hypothetical Planets" are better by Nice2Cats · · Score: 1

    For an even more fun site, try Hypothetical Planets by Paul Schlyter. Vulcan, the Earth's second moon, it has it all...

  22. Censored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's up with that big black square on the linked photo?

    1. Re:Censored? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      It's The Tick's secret headquarters!

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  23. Why democracy might not be a good idea after all by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    For every person making a vote based off of research, analysis, and careful consideration of the candidates, you have a guy like this flipping the coin and cancelling out your vote. Why Venus will not be colonized before Mars: 1) Gravity isn't a "big insurmountable". Mars gravity would be just fine for colonists. Venus gravity would make it prohibitively expensive to make orbit. 2) The "solvable" extreme pressure and heat also exists on Jupiter. "Solvable" != economically feasible. How exactly do you propose to "solve" these problems? 3) Venus is not "much more interesting". It's a dead rock. Mars, from the standpoint of history, is much more interesting. 4) You're an idiot. 5) Venus is tidally locked.

  24. Bloody Hell!! by bad_fx · · Score: 1

    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???

    1. Re:Bloody Hell!! by barakn · · Score: 1

      Actually, someone did. Apparently it's such a stupid joke that almost nobody noticed. That's what's going on.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  25. news? by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

    I've known this for years, how on earth is this new in any way?

  26. New probes? by nounderscores · · Score: 1

    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.

  27. Terraforming by lbrt · · Score: 1

    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*

  28. Plural of Venus is Veneres, not Venera by ccevans · · Score: 1

    The plural of Venus is Veneres, not Venera. Genus,generis is neuter, and thus has an -a ending for the nominative plural. Venus is not. Thus Venus follows the regular 3rd declension, and has a plural of Veneres.

    All neuter plural nominatives in Latin end in -a. This is not the case for any other gender, if I remember correctly.

    I believe that section 62 of Allen and Greenough's gives a full description of the declension of such nouns.

  29. Re:Why democracy might not be a good idea after al by solferino · · Score: 2, Informative
    Why democracy might not be a good idea after all
    For every person making a vote based off of research, analysis, and careful consideration of the candidates, you have a guy like this flipping the coin and cancelling out your vote.
    elitist nonsense - pluribus assumes he has a monopoly on careful consideration and rational anaylsis
    1) Gravity isn't a "big insurmountable". Mars gravity would be just fine for colonists.

    Gravity is insurmountable. It is directly related to the mass of the planet. While simulation of gravity by "centrifugal force" may be possible in space-craft it is not remotely practical for planet exploration and habitation. Most medical problems experienced by cosmonauts and astronauts are directly related to weak gravity conditions.

    2) The "solvable" extreme pressure and heat also exists on Jupiter. "Solvable" != economically feasible. How exactly do you propose to "solve" these problems?

    There are two types of planets in our solar systems, small rocky planets and gas giants. Bringing in Jupiter as an analogue to Venus is just plain silly

    Solved in the short term by structures that are structurally engineered to resist extreme pressure and heat on the outside while maintaining liveable conditions on the inside. As I noted, the Earth's oceans constitute a valuable test environment for such structures, as does space itself.

    Solved in the long term by climate engineering and terra-forming. This is more achievable than changing the mass of the planet.

    3) Venus is not "much more interesting". It's a dead rock. Mars, from the standpoint of history, is much more interesting.

    Highly debatable. For evidence of life on Venus see the recent New Scientist story "Venus' Atmosphere Implies Life" discussed here on slashdot.

    4) You're an idiot.

    The puerile mindset of the poster demonstrated by this ad hominem attack immediately reduces the respect paid to any counter-argument the poster may choose to put up. I was highly reluctant to pay respect to such a comment by replying. I won't do so for any future replies from this poster.

  30. Re:Why democracy might not be a good idea after al by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 1

    elitist nonsense - pluribus assumes he has a monopoly on careful consideration and rational anaylsis

    Of course I don't assume I have any such monopoly. For all you know, I'm the one flipping the coin.

    Gravity is insurmountable. It is directly related to the mass of the planet. While simulation of gravity by "centrifugal force" may be possible in space-craft it is not remotely practical for planet exploration and habitation. Most medical problems experienced by cosmonauts and astronauts are directly related to weak gravity conditions.

    But lets get back to that careful consideration and rational analysis thing. While you are semantically correct (gravity is a force), you are totally wrong in concluding that, because Venus is close to 1G, it would make it more suitable for colonization. This is where the idiot comment came in...you obviously don't have a clue. Mars having less gravity is not a problem, it's a benefit. Makes it cheaper to exploit.

    Most medical problems experienced by cosmonauts and astronauts are caused by micro or 0-gravity, which is a far cry from what they would experience on Mars. Mars has a high enough gravity where there wouldn't be significant bone degeneration.

    Your solutions for Venus are non-starters too. "Solved in the short term by structures that are structurally engineered to resist extreme pressure and heat". And for our next trick we'll have matter transporters and phaser beams. Note, you are trying to go through and awful lot of trouble for 1G. It would be easier, safer, and more economical to build a colony at the bottom of the Marianas trench. Or Mars.

    The fact that Venus is tidally locked is also a major problem. It rotates exactly once a year. Meaning, for half a year, one side is dark, and the other side is bathed in perpetual light.

  31. Interesting linguistic point by misterpies · · Score: 2, Interesting


    It's not only latin neuter plurals that end in -a.
    In all indo-european languages, the neuter nominative, vocative and accusative plurals end in -a. Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, German, Polish, Russian etc. It's one of those odd signs that show how closely related these seemingly disparate languages (and many of the people who speak them) really are.

    (Of course many Indo-European languages lost the neuter gender anyway -- eg English, French, Persian -- so it doesn't apply to those)

    --
    The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
  32. Re:You need to watch more TV....WTF?? by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

    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.

  33. Venus is hot .... Serena too ... niiceee surface.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Venus is hot ... Serena too ...
    with niiiiceee surface ...