Venus: The Forgotten Planet

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Sunday February 22, 2004 @11:33AM 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.)

34 of 419 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

It's not forgotten, just more expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-22 11:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive by MMaestro · 2004-02-22 12:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive by AKAImBatman · 2004-02-22 13:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
3. Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive by sniggly · 2004-02-22 13:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There's one pretty good rationale, that's that this planet's ecosystem won't exist forever, if it isnt wiped out by an impact it could be destroyed by a nearby start going nova. If the ecosystem is lucky it'll survive another 4 billion years until the sun itself goes nova. Actually there are several extremely good rationales having to do with survival of the human race in the longer term.
  
  --
  Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
4. Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive by ajagci · 2004-02-22 13:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Assuming those were good reasons to colonize other planets, the time frame of those issues is so long-term (as is the time-frame in which we will be technologically ready to actually colonize other planets in any meaningful way) that it really has no bearing on which planets to target by unmanned probes for the foreseeable future.
  
  In this century and the next, we should pick our targets for maximum scientific benefit, not for the possibility of colonization.
5. Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive by 100lbHand · 2004-02-22 14:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nah, let your asteroid get caught in orbit, something about the size of our moon. Not only could it rip off some atmosphere one would think that it could help up the rotation of Venus and shorten the days.
  
  --
  "I'm not high, just stupid" --JY
6. Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive by ajagci · 2004-02-22 15:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's possible that the rapid development of technology as we've seen it over the last century/centuries will allow humanity to meaningfully colonize Mars within the next two to three centuries. I think the space elevator is a piece of the puzzle since it will allow very low cost orbital deployment.
  
  Yes, it may be technologically possible to put a colony on Mars even within a couple of centuries. But that simply has no bearing on where we send our planetary probes today. If Venus were scientifically more interesting, we should be sending probes there despite its tough conditions.
7. Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive by Civil_Disobedient · 2004-02-22 22:44 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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 visibility than a couple of yards, maybe a dozen or so if you're lucky.
  
  If a "lander" had been equipped with airbags ...then they would have melted upon deployment. The surface temperature of Venus is something like 800 degrees. And the atmosphere is highly reactive to metals. Yes, we have the technology to land on it nowadays, and it's certainly a lot closer than Mars, but terraforming and colonization talk just obfuscates what our primary purpose as a civilization should be: to build a large enough ship in orbit to explore the solar system up close and person.
  
  This ship could have planetary re-entry capsules built into it, (much like the missions we're sending to Mars) or we could just build a better Earth-to-Orbit vehicle (which is long overdue). As long as you give it a strong enough power source you can build as ugly and un-aerodynamic a ship as you like. Need more O2? Need more food and water? Just hitch on a big-ass freight box behind the ship. It doesn't matter what the ship looks like (except from a maneuvering point of view -- center of gravity and all that).
  
  But no, instead we waste our money sending fancy probes hundreds of millions of miles away and crossing our fingers. If these Mars missions have taught us anything, it's that scientists are very, very clever at fixing problems. Think of what they could do if they were able to do their observations on-site, instead of troubleshooting technical support problems with a 22 minute phone delay.
The real question is WHY by KingOfBLASH · 2004-02-22 11:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:The real question is WHY by Graff · 2004-02-22 12:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  first thing is first... fixing problems on earth.
  
  Opening up new horizons is part of fixing the problems on Earth. Not only is the space program generating research that is highly applicable to current Earthly problems*, it is also providing for an eventual safety valve where disaffected members of society can go off to a Moon or Mars colony to start a new life rather than remaining on crowded Earth.
  
  An example of this can be seen in the early pioneering days of the United States. Sure it was a tough, difficult, and often deadly trip west but many people did it anyways in order to start off new. Many of those people had been feeling stifled in the eastern cities and so they went west, relieving the social caldrons which were beginning to boil over.
  
  The fact that there was an open frontier allowed people to be innovative and to take a chance that they might get a piece of land of their own and maybe even have their own business. It provided the poorest person with the opportunity to be successful and to pass their success on to their children. When there are no frontiers this is much harder to do.
  
  * Such as medicine, hydroponics, closed ecosystems, energy sources, micro-mechanization, robotics, etc.
  
  --
  Sapere aude!
2. Re:The real question is WHY by ajagci · 2004-02-22 13:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Opening up new horizons is part of fixing the problems on Earth. Not only is the space program generating research that is highly applicable to current Earthly problems*, [...] * Such as medicine, hydroponics, closed ecosystems, energy sources, micro-mechanization, robotics, etc.
  
  What good do lessons about ecology do us when we don't apply them? We have more than enough technology to solve the problems here on earth--the obstacles are purely social and political. Colonizing Mars isn't going to solve that.
  
  it is also providing for an eventual safety valve where disaffected members of society can go off to a Moon or Mars colony to start a new life rather than remaining on crowded Earth.
  
  A six months interplanetary trip followed by enormously expensive life support is supposed to be a "safety valve"? Sorry, but you are naive.
  
  An example of this can be seen in the early pioneering days of the United States. Sure it was a tough, difficult, and often deadly trip west but many people did it anyways in order to start off new. Many of those people had been feeling stifled in the eastern cities and so they went west, relieving the social caldrons which were beginning to boil over.
  
  First of all, the US was, in many ways, a paradise: abundant wildlife, good climate, rich soils. Second, many people came lured by false advertising: despite nearly ideal conditions, life was indeed harsh (as life tends to be without tools and infrastructure). Third, emigration to the US hardly did much "relieving" for the countries where people emigrated from; quite to the contrary, after being a dumping ground for dopes and criminals initially, the US soon took away many of their most enterprising citizens, a "brain drain" that continues to this day. This continues to benefit the US at the cost of everybody else.
  
  Of course, none of that is relevant to Mars: Mars is far less suitable for colonization than the Sahara desert, the top of Mount Everest, or the Antarctic. And in addition to that, it's much more costly to reach.
  
  We either fix things here on earth or we die: colonization of other planets is not a viable alternative over the next couple of centuries at least.
3. Re:The real question is WHY by kamapuaa · 2004-02-22 14:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sci-fi can be a lot of fun to read or see in a movie. But taking concepts out of "Star Trek" and assuming they hold true for real life is false logic.
  Getting in a boat doesn't compare to the difficulty of going to another planet. Life on another planet could never be as an effective a getaway, as moving to a shack in Idaho or Montana. When/if Mars is finally colonized far the in the future, it will be a highly regimented lifestyle - you really think dissaffected weirdos would be the idea type for such a life?
  Missings to space are not leading advances in energy sources & robots. As far as micro-mechanization goes, they're sending IBM laptops into space. And who cares about advances in hydroponics or closed ecosystems?
  
  --
  Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Mars is a Prospect for Money by Qweezle · 2004-02-22 11:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Mars is a Prospect for Money by Bagels · 2004-02-22 11:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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).
  
  --
  --- Bwah?
2. Re:Mars is a Prospect for Money by ajagci · 2004-02-22 13:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:Mars is a Prospect for Money by jayveekay · 2004-02-22 20:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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? Well, we can tell our great grandchildren "Oops, our bad wasting all the oil and stuff. Sorry 'bout all the dead people you're gonna have from all the wars fighting over what's left."
  
  That's the double edged sword of a 70ish year lifespan: It evolves the species but promotes short sightedness.
There's a good reason we choose Mars, not Venus by CrystalFalcon · 2004-02-22 11:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Venus: An Enigma by Shafe · 2004-02-22 11:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yeah but this is 1970's technology that was stripped down as much as possible to save costs on weight. And how can we imagine that our rockets would even function correctly under those terrible conditions? It would be like firing a stream of hot gas within a tank of lava. OK, extreme example, but I never understood that part of the Venus missions. There's a lot to our space exploration programs that have left lots of question marks that scientists have never fully answered for me. Perhaps MJ-12 decreed that we were not ready to handle the truth.
Re:Venus: An Enigma by Draveed · 2004-02-22 11:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't submarines routinely survive pressures greater than 90 atmospheres? Back in 1960, the US Navy sent a specialized sub down into the Marianas Trench. That's about 35,000 ft down. Going by memory (so someone feel free to jump in and correct me), 33ft down in the ocean = 1 atm. So, that's about 1060 atmospheres. I always thought the difficult problem with Venus was its caustic atmosphere. That's what destroyed the Soviet probes, not the atmospheric pressure.

--
Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
Re:Good reasons to not land on Venus. by rodgerd · 2004-02-22 11:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Possibly offtopic, but by Threni · 2004-02-22 11:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Re:Venus harbors life? by RoLi · 2004-02-22 12:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

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? by alkali · 2004-02-22 12:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Re:Venus: An Enigma by groomed · 2004-02-22 12:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

That was the Trieste, designed and built by the Frenchmen Auguste and Jacques Piccard. The US Navy bought it from them. To my knowledge, since that great achievement, nobody has ever gone deeper (or even as deep), so it's not exactly a good example of "not hard".
Probe Eater Plus by Mulletproof · 2004-02-22 12:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

"...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."

--
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Terraforming ain't so easy. by Jafafa+Hots · 2004-02-22 13:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 can't seem to understand our OWN atmosphere enough to know what things (good or bad) we are doing to it even unintentionally. We can't agree on Global Warming, etc...

So what makes us think we will know just the right recipe for a cozy atmophere on Mars? We don't even know the right recipe for one here on Earth yet.

--
This space available.
1. Re:Terraforming ain't so easy. by Waffle+Iron · 2004-02-22 15:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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 this planet larger than a mouse. That is going to face some political resistance, and probably with good reason.
2. Re:Terraforming ain't so easy. by zero_offset · 2004-02-23 01:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:Venus harbors life? by JayBlalock · 2004-02-22 13:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

His entire point was that, if you asked oceanologists or biologists in the 60s about the possibility of life at the bottom of oceanic abyssal trenches, they would have given the exact same arguments about why it was impossible. Just replace "sulfuric acid" with "near-boiling temperatures" or "2,500 PSI of pressure" and you'd be similarly laughed at for suggesting life.
The discovery and study of extremophiles has actually been a huge boon to those advancing theories of life on other worlds. The range of life on Earth is mind-boggling, with many organisms and animals which are at least as "alien" as anything that might be found on Venus or Jupiter or whereever. The basic point being, if they can go into places on Earth where life absolutely, positively, could not possibly be, and find life anyway, it suddenly becomes hard to summarily rule out ANY location.

--
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Re:Venus is a difficult target... by ms139us · 2004-02-22 13:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

They know how to handle the acid.

They routinely handle these kinds of temperature and pressures.

What's the big deal?

Let's go to Venus!
Re:How did the Russians name a crater? by Aardpig · 2004-02-22 16:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Hmmm. Out of idle curiosity, did the Russians also name things after women only? I'm assuming that since they sent so many probes there they must also have claimed some naming rights.

I'm not sure how extensively their Venera missions actually mapped the surface (remembering that you have to do the mapping in radar, not in visible light, due to the dense cloud cover). If you can't see it, then you can't name it -- so their being able to name things really does depend on the mapping capabilities aboard the Veneras.

For that matter, do the Russians refer to the planet as "Venus" or something else?

Something pretty close to "Venus", I imagine, judging from the naming of the Venera missions.

--
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-02-22 20:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Venus will never be very suitable for terraforming by Viol8 · 2004-02-23 00:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

"We will have to speed up the axial rotation of the planet, well, maybe it is possible by using directed nuclear explosions, or by inducing a strong electromagnetic field upon the planet's core (I don't know how to do that.)"

Err yeah. I think you've been watching too many Sci Fi B-movies. Thanks for playing...
Re:Venus is the obvious choice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-23 02:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

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

Increase its rotation a little.

If that's what you call doable, I fear you and I fear for the world you live in. What are you, a god? Not the combined yield of every bomb on earth could significantly alter Venus's rotation. Not all the power produced by every generator in our whole civilisation, assigned to the job for ten thousand years, could do it.

And yet you call it doable. Truly we are in the presence of an awesome power.

That, or the presence of someone with absolutely no clue about kinetic energy and just how heavy Venus actually is. But that would be a nasty thing to suggest about someone who was inexplicably moderated +4 Interesting for such a completely boneheaded idea.