ESA Venus Mission Delayed

MrShaggy writes "The BBC is reporting that the ESA has announced that they have to hold the Venus Mission. According to the article, contamination is being blamed. From the article: 'Esa said the delay had been prompted by the discovery that insulation from the rocket launcher had contaminated the Venus Express spacecraft. "The satellite is contaminated, so they will have to dismantle and re-mount it again," a spokesperson for the space agency told the BBC News website.'"

Comments

At least they're doing it right.

[CyricZ]

It's good to see that they're doing the right thing, regardless of the financial costs.

It'll tell us something about greenhouse gases

[Cerdic]

From the article:

Composed chiefly of carbon dioxide, Venus' atmosphere generates intense greenhouse warming, whereby trapped solar radiation heats the surface of the planet to an average of temperature of 467C.

Experts think Venus could teach us more about how the Earth's climate will respond to the release of greenhouse gases resulting from human activities.

It will tell us what many of us know - that putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere will heat up the planet. Unfortunately, those with real power to do anything about it will continue to aim for quick gains with little regard for the future.

I know someone will respond about how the earth naturally spews CO2, but many of our processes that produce CO2 also produce pollutants such as CO, arsenic, and PCBs. These other pollutants are proven to be dangerous. Why does nobody (hello media?) ever mention that?

Re:It'll tell us something about greenhouse gases

[cnettel]

Of course, nature is not all good. However, any statement regarding the natural emissions of CO2 also relates to the question of how different the levels in the biosphere (and atmosphere) have actually been and how it seems somewhat likely that, to some degree, this is an equilibrium system on Earth where, over time, a shift will cause other factors to counteract that shift.

To me, this only means that the risk that we would be able to turn Earth into a Venus-like state is rather small. The problem just happens to be that (current) human cilization and activites are severly affected long before that. The current state of the climate might not be optimal, but many things rely on it. The worst thing is when that reliance on things being a certain way isn't even obvious to those most closely affected by any change, and/or those in power.

Re:It'll tell us something about greenhouse gases

[biryokumaru]

Actually, there is evidence concerning this very fact. The research is something like 10-15 years old (heck, I did a report on it in middle school ten years ago and it was old news).

Here's some links, Google for more if you want:
http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/icecore2.h tm
http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/icecore2.h tm

Here's some good images of analyses of the Vostok core samples from
http://www.androidworld.com/prod60.htm - http://www.androidworld.com/Vostok_Ice_Core.jpg
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm - http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vost ok.co2.gif

Ultimately, the data is generally interpretted two ways.

1. We're increasing faster than ever before, so it'll be worse than ever before.
2. We're not increasing faster than ever before, thus so-called "global warming" is part of a natural cycle.

Just thought I'd mention that =]. Personally, I think it's part of a normal cycle, and that it's pure egotism that humanity can think they're powerful enough to inadvertently destroy a massive ecosystem that has been in place for millions and millions of years. I mean, Australia isn't a whole lot worse off than it was when us Westerners got there, and most people say we really bungled that one.

Re:It'll tell us something about greenhouse gases

[biryokumaru]

You might be interested in a process known as "Global Dimming," which some claim as the cause of the equitorial African droughts for the past twenty years. I believe the Indian government funded a few projects concerning this effect.

Re:It'll tell us something about greenhouse gases

[biryokumaru]

It is my (perhaps misguided) understanding that there are extremophiles and such which might likely be closely linked to our very most primordial ancestors. Were we to kill off all land-based life on earth, within them would lay enough evolutionary basis to rebuild the oxygen breathing world (over the course of a billion years, maybe). As you seem to be more well versed in this than I, could you confirm this as fact or fiction?

Also, I think Australia is an excellent example. I do not know how long it normally takes humanity to destroy entire species, but we've fairly easily wiped out the dodo and the carrier pigeon. Australia is still teeming with life. It may be much unlike its previous design, but we haven't killed off the whole place. It's just found a new ecological balance, as I understand it. Is this incorrect? Are native species continuing to decline amongst the human-introduced predators?

Re:It will never go

[MrShaggy]

I have a book. Men are from Mars, women are nuts.

More info at the wikipedia

[Saiyine]

Interestingly enough, the mission has a pretty complete wikipedia article.

But even better are these pictures of the surface of Venus from the old Venera missions.

Re:Could somebody please explain

[amightywind]

I used to work at Hughes Space and Communications (now Boeing). All satellites used to undergo a vibration test on a giant paint shaker-like device. Ostensibly it was to verify that the satellite could handle vibrations during launch. The joke was on the factory floor that it was really to clean out screwdrivers and ham sandwiches left behind by the technicians who assembled the satellite. They actually put a white sheet under the rig to catch any parts that fell off.

Re:It's not just the CO2

[Vilim]

No, it actually is because of CO2, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Atmosphere.