Venus Probe Set to Reach Target

Accommodate Students writes "The BBC is reporting on the first space mission to Venus in a decade, which is about to reach its target. From the article: 'On Tuesday morning, a European robotic craft will perform a 50-minute-long engine burn to slow its speed enough to be captured by Venus' gravity. Venus Express will orbit our nearest planetary neighbour for about 500 Earth days to study its atmosphere, which has undergone runaway greenhouse warming.' If all goes well, it could shed important light on climate change here on Earth."

Comments

Re:Moons

[slavemowgli]

Doesn't the existence of pirates *counteract* global warming, though? If anything, the fact that Venus is such a furnace indicates that there aren't any pirates on there.

If this mission confirms that this is indeed the case, it'll be further evidence that the gospel of the FSM is indeed correct.

Global warming and the Republican Denial

[iendedi]

And oh, is the Republican Party responsible for Global Warming now? That is such a tired cliche.

I don't think he was implying that the Republican Party is in any way responsible for global warming. I believe he was implying that the Republican Party is responsible for denying that there is any such thing as global warming. And yes, that denial is very tired even if it is cliche.

Re:Global warming, beside the point

[BigDogCH]

"Yet global warming is a fact, no-one disputes that (anymore)."

That is what I thought too, then I took a little survey. Very few of my coworkers, none of our distributors, and few of my family members believe it is happening.

One distributor said something which everyone really agreed with. "I can't imagine our temperature measurements from 100 years ago were all that accurate. What did they do, stick a thermometer down in a hole, light a match to read it, and estimate the temperature?"

I have no idea what the hole was for, but everyone seemed to agree with him. Plus, anyone who sees global warming for what it really is, is chastized as some crazy person, an untrue American, and a probably a terrorist.

I have tried clouding the issues with facts and figures, but they seem meaningless. I would guess it is just denial, so they don't have to feel guilty for driving their SUV's and Minivans over an hour to work.

Re:Climate on Venus

[BigDogCH]

While I do agree with some of your post........this really stands out.

"Maybe if the enviro leftist nuts shut the hell up and let real science speak we all would see that this is a part of the normal cycle in this tiny little planet and Solar system."

Maybe? Maybe? Don't you think that even if there is a slight chance that global warming is caused by humans, it should be confronted and fixed.

Ah what the hell, we have lots of other planets to live on.

Obligatory statement about Earth climate change

[amightywind]

If all goes well, it could shed important light on climate change here on Earth.

It is difficult to see how. Venus slow rotation rate, massive atmosphere, tiny inclination (-3 deg), and lack of a hydrologic cycle should make the climate very stable. The mission has a lot of merits on its own. Why make tenuous comparisons?

Re:Obligatory statement about Earth climate change

[nutshell42]

Why make tenuous comparisons?

Because it's an easy way to get more money.

In times of huge deficits and out-of-control spending politicians want to appear tough on budgets but without cutting any pork. Pure science projects are therefore a prime target.

By touting each probe as huge opportunity for important advances in climate science, medicine or whatever people (people with the power to approve budgets) care about they try to ensure continued funding of current and future projects

Why don't we have

[slapout]

permanent satellites orbiting all the planets and giving us constant feedback?

Re:Why don't we have

[Damek]

Cost, as another poster mentioned. Not just the cost of building/launching/deliverying said satellites - but at the rate technology is improving, the satellites would be outdated incredibly soon, prompting scientists to want to send new satellites to answer new questions.

It's more cost effective to send cheaper (less permanent design needs) single-shot probes to answer specific questions and gather specific data. Then when new questions arise from the data collected, and you would have to design & send a new permanent satellite, you can just design & build another cheaper short-term probe.

I'm not sure there'd be any benefit to long-term satellite data anyway. What would we be looking for, alien outposts?

Moon's creation not that improbable

[amightywind]

Does the atmosphere somehow leak away on geological timescales through the Lagrange points somehow? I've got no idea. Does anyone know?

Some gases escape like H and He. Heavier modecules like N2, O2, CO2 do not. This talks about the process. The moon plays absolutely no role in helping earth retain atmosphere.

According to the impactor theory of the moon's origin, the moon's creation was a very improbable event.

I don't see why it is so improbable. Pluto has a much larger moon relative to its size than Earth in Charon, and it orbits in extreme isolation in the outer solar system. Many Kuiper belt objects that may be larger than Pluto also have moons. Saturn/Titan and Neptune/Triton are significant planet/moon pairs. Jupiter has tons of moons. Binary pairs are an extremely stable configuration. Nature likes them.

Re:Moons

[SigILL]

Since wind is driven by temperature differences within the atmosphere, wouldn't a faster spinning earth have more consistent temperatures across it due to a more even heating?

You have a point. That sounds a lot more plausible than my explanation. I tried to find sources to back up my initial claim, but the only one I did find compared Earth to the much-faster rotating Jupiter and concluded that a faster-rotating Earth would have stronger surface winds. Doesn't sound like a very valid comparison to me, what with the size difference and rock- vs. gas-planet.

Another reply here mentioned the Coriolis effect, but I think it's much too small to be the primary cause.

However, there are plenty of other reasons why the presence of the Moon is considered important. There's even a book about it: What If The Moon Didn't Exist? .

Re:Moons

[Viol8]

The earths magnetic field extends for thousands of miles. You'd
have to extend it more than a fraction. Yes , the moon causes
tides but at the very most they're about 10 metres. Take that as
a percentage of average ocean depth (about 5km) and its nothing.
At best the moon might make the atmosphere rise a few miles
which is nothing like enough to pull it out of the magnetic field.

Re:fp

[krakelohm]

You guys are dorks.