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."

26 of 113 comments (clear)

  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 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. 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 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.
    3. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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!

  7. 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!

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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. :-)

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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)
  14. 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.)

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.