Venus: The Forgotten Planet

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.)

Comments

It's not forgotten, just more expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive

[MMaestro]

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.

Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive

[AKAImBatman]

This is partly a question of energy. Rough calculations seem to suggest that the human race will be producing enough power to be able to break down iron oxides on the Martian surface and free oxygen, or to move icy comet cores from the outer system and impact them on Mars, before that many generations have passed.

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

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

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

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

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

Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive

[ajagci]

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.

Re:It's not forgotten, just more expensive

[100lbHand]

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.

The real question is WHY

[KingOfBLASH]

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

Re:The real question is WHY

[Graff]

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.

Re:The real question is WHY

[ajagci]

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.

Mars is a Prospect for Money

[Qweezle]

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.

Re:Mars is a Prospect for Money

[ajagci]

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.

Re:Mars is a Prospect for Money

[jayveekay]

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

[CrystalFalcon]

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:Good reasons to not land on Venus.

[rodgerd]

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

[Threni]

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?

[RoLi]

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.

Probe Eater Plus

[Mulletproof]

"...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."

Terraforming ain't so easy.

[Jafafa Hots]

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.

Re:Terraforming ain't so easy.

[zero_offset]

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.

Re:Venus harbors life?

[JayBlalock]

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.