The many faces of Venus

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:40:32 GMT

Ok this is great information about Venus but lets face it, it's dead, insanely hot, and impossible to land on to carry out any meaningfull science. I hope these missions close the book on Venus so NASA can get on to financing better projects in the solar system.

The many faces of Venus

Lars J, Sweden — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:55:22 GMT

Venus is a rather nasty place for any carbon-based lifeform right now.
400+ Centigrades warm, sulphur and acids worthy of a Datescian drama.
But it is a nice good solid planet with a decent gravitation suitable for humans to colonize.
So I have always thought. Why don´t we do something about it?

Some very large mirrors in the L1 Lagrange point maybe to let the planet cool off?

What do you think?

The many faces of Venus

Robert - Madison, New Jersey — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:02:18 GMT

Lars - this is a very interesting idea. I've herd solutions for this also involving injecting reflective materials into the atmosphere to help promote the range required for life (as we know it). I'm curious though - with the temperature range required for life so narrow, what are the odds that we could pull something like that off?

Also, I think the gravity would be substantially different from Earth - I'm not sure how that would impact humans, and if it would make creating an atmosphere all a mute point

The many faces of Venus

Jim, L., Chevy Chase, MD — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:43:25 GMT

"Rotten egg" gas is hydrogen sulfide, not sulfur dioxide. The two are not chemically compatable, as they react to form elemental sulfur and water. Science articles suffer when they get basic science wrong.

The many faces of Venus

Joseph Basile, Worcester, MA — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 03:46:47 GMT

Lars,

I'd be all for an attempt at terraforming Venus, and I hope it happens (or starts to happen) before the end of my life, but its quite a challenge. It also raises ethical questions for some people, concerning the possibility of disturbing any life that may be present.

The many faces of Venus

Vernon Jenewein — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 05:27:44 GMT

The article above stated: " At lower altitudes, the planet's atmosphere is predominantly carbon dioxide, with small amounts of water vapor and sulfur dioxide ("rotten-egg") gas." This is a false statement! Sulfur Dioxide does NOT smell like rotten eggs. Hydrogen Sulfide smells like rotten eggs. SO2 aka Sulfur Dioxide is used universally in the winemaking industry as part of the preservative of the product from oxidations and microbial growth. It is also used in food insdustry as a preservative, such as in dried apricots.

To some people, who know that Sulfur Dioxide is used in the making of wine and this article saying it is the "rotten egg" gas is misleading to the wine industry, and should be corrected.

Vern
Associate Winemaker
Fenn Valley Vineyards

The many faces of Venus

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 06:06:53 GMT

When the topic of Venus comes up, it's absolutely vital that we consider the claims being made by the Electric Universe Theorists. We'd be wise to expand our inferential options in explaining this "haze". The "splitting" and "migration" of planetary atmospheres and rings can just as likely be the result of electromagnetic plasma effects engulfing the entire planet as chemical explanations. And if astrophysicists consider such a possible explanation, they will find it far easier to explain the rapid rate at which these things can change.

And there's good reason to consider such lines of investigation because *both* of Venus' polar regions harbor a double vortex that one can legitimately argue represent cross-sections of twisting Birkeland Currents. We'd be wise to consider *everything* we know about the planet Venus rather than just the inferences that we claim to be confident in. Attempts to understand Venus in a piecemeal or patchwork band-aid fashion will not be very successful. We must also be willing to consider alternative paradigms that would more naturally explain our observations of Venus if we are to succeed at identifying the correct interpretation for what we're seeing there. There is no harm in considering and testing for such against-the-mainstream claims. If the EU Theorists are right, then we should be able to reproduce what we see on Venus with physical terrella-style experimental apparatus.

For more information on the polar vortices, see http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051207venusdipole.htm.

and

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060717doubleeye.htm

If you don't mind, I'd like to excerpt some of these pages:

[begin excerpt]

Leading Electric Universe proponent Wal Thornhill identified the dipolar configuration of the polar vortex as a cross-sectional view of a cosmic electric current. Within the solar system, as in every observed region of space, electric currents flow over vast distances by means of filaments of plasma that tend to organize themselves into "twisted pairs." A common name for this "doubleness" in current-conducting plasmas is a "Birkeland current". All the features shown above suggest that the two hot spots are the footprints of twin Birkeland currents. The "giant vortex" and its "surprisingly complex structure and behavior" are the energetic effect of the twin currents flowing into the planet’s atmosphere at the poles. In fact, the Venusian dipole shows both the configuration and the motion of Birkeland current pairs in plasma discharge experiments and in super-computer simulations, including the surrounding spiral vortex. It is the classic spiral nebula shape.

What baffles mainstream theorists is most often predictable under the electric model. In February 2005, Thornhill predicted that a similar configuration would be found in the region of Venus' south pole. He wrote: "We should expect to see evidence of the twisted pair configuration at both poles of Venus, if the input current is sufficiently strong and this model is correct.” And that is precisely what has now been discovered at the south pole of Venus. The hot spots are due to electrical heating and upwelling of the atmosphere.

While the electric model accounts for the anomalous features of the vortex, the ad hoc explanations of mainstream theorists are at best incomplete. A July report from Geotimes.org reads, "The process that forms Venus' polar vortexes is similar to the process forming Earth's less-defined vortices at its poles, in which a warm equator drives high equatorial winds up toward the cooler poles, where the winds become unstable. On Venus, the vortex resembles the enormous mass of turning air that we see in hurricanes, except that instead of hundreds of kilometers across, Venus' structures span thousands of kilometers."

But this "explanation" ignores the radical difference between Venus and Earth. On Venus, the polar vortex is “inexplicably” hot, and Venus’ rotation (supposedly a primary force driving atmospheric motion) is extremely slow and in the retrograde direction (opposite the normal rotational direction of planets). Thus, Professor Fred Taylor of the University of Oxford Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department wrote of this latest Venus surprise: "The absence of viable theories which can be tested, or in this case any theory at all, leaves us uncomfortably in doubt as to our basic ability to understand even gross features of planetary atmospheric circulations."

Or perhaps the nature of the phenomena is not as mysterious as it may appear from archaic vantage points. The twisted filaments and other features are a trademark of electrical (Birkeland) currents. And while Taylor expected there could be a similar structure at the south pole, he had no basis for predicting details. Thornhill, on the other hand, could offer a specific interpretation, and a specific prediction, which has now been validated. The ESA report says: “ESA's Venus Express data undoubtedly confirm for the first time the presence of a huge 'double-eye' atmospheric vortex at the planet's south pole.”

In his earlier discussion of the north polar dipole, Thornhill noted the irregular motion, which also defies standard models: “The polar dipole has a variable rotation rate and it varies the position of its axis of rotation with respect to that of the planet. It was observed to move 500 km from the Venusian pole in less than a day and return just as quickly. The variable nature of the electrical input to Venus via the Sun and the snaking about of the Birkeland currents explain both these characteristics.” The NASA movie now confirms the same irregularities at the south pole.

We can confidently predict, therefore, that no model of Venus’ atmosphere that ignores the electrical input at Venus’ poles will ever explain the observed structures.

Attempts to model such atmospheric anomalies by references to planetary rotation and increasingly complicated thermodynamics will typically expose one layer of confusion after another. Noting that the upper atmospheric winds on Venus take only four days to complete a rotation, the ESA story continues, “This 'super-rotation,’ combined with the natural recycling of hot air in the atmosphere, would induce the formation of a vortex structure over each pole.”

The authors then ask, “But why two vortexes?” Their limited field of view does not allow them to see that the same force that answers this question answers the question they did not ask: What is driving the spectacular upper atmospheric winds on a planet that barely rotates at all—and in the “wrong” direction? At some point, meteorologists will surely realize that such things will not occur on an electrically isolated body.

[end excerpt]

[begin excerpt]

The polar dipole exhibits an enhanced infrared emission, a predictable effect of the dissipation of electrical energy in the upper atmosphere of Venus. It has a variable rotation rate, and the position of its axis of rotation with respect to that of the planet varies as well. It was observed to move 500 km from the Venusian pole in less than a day and return just as quickly. These movements find a ready explanation in the variable nature of the electrical input to Venus via the Sun, and the snaking about of the Birkeland currents—again, a predictable feature of electrical input.

Of particular interest are the linear filaments sometimes seen connecting the opposite sides of the hot spots. Taylor writes: “It is virtually impossible, even with complete license, to begin to speculate in any detail as to what mechanism could give rise to such a curious effect.” But here too the “curious effect” is no surprise to the cosmic electricians. As observed by plasma physicist Anthony Peratt, in simulations of two interacting Birkeland current filaments plasma becomes trapped in the elliptical core between them and produces precisely this effect. (See Physics of the Plasma Universe, page 120.)

It should be noted that Peratt’s simulations were done before the discovery of the Venusian dipole and were offered as an explanation of the electrical forces that produce spiral galaxies, the grandest cosmic plasma discharge phenomena in the universe. But the enormous scalability of plasma phenomena demands comparisons of this sort. The currents that form the Venusian polar dipole exhibit the same features apparent in the formation of a spiral galaxy from the interaction of two intergalactic current streams. The fact that a filamentary connection between two current “hot spots” occurs in laboratory discharge experiments, in computer simulations, on the planet Venus, and in galaxy formation suggests that a more unified picture of the universe is now possible.

[end excerpt]

The many faces of Venus

Frank Weigert — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 13:23:51 GMT

"At lower altitudes, the planet's atmosphere is predominantly carbon dioxide, with small amounts of water vapor and sulfur dioxide ("rotten-egg") gas."

Not really. The rotten egg odor is hydrogen sulfide. Sulfur dioxide has a choking odor. Both are highly poisonous.

The many faces of Venus

Gary-O — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:30:42 GMT

Wait. I have it on good faith that L. Ron Hubbard (writer of Dianetics, founder of Scientology, actually visited and walked on the surface of Venus. He said so himself. 400+ centigrade? Impossible. How could Ron have survived?

The many faces of Venus

The Wombat — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:34:49 GMT

YuP, some sun shades, plus lots of bateria to convert co2, etc. to O2.

Terraforming is not anew thing, tho it does take a while.

Lots of SF stories have dealt with a number of the challenges. Some of the homework needed has already been done.

Wombat
ALBACON 08 Chairman
+1-518-456-5242
<wombat@sff.net>
www.albacon.org

ALBACON 08, 10 - 12 OCT 08, Albany, NY, USA; www.albacon.org ; GoH: Anne & Todd McCaffrey; AGOH: Barclay Shaw; FGoH: Gary S. Blog

The many faces of Venus

Wade, El Paso — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:42:16 GMT

Like so many other planets and moons, Venus is uninhabitable, but that doesn't mean we forsake it's value. From a scientific perspective, accumulating knowledge about our solar system isn't always with the goal of looking for another planet to inhabit. In knowing only that every world in our neighborhood is different in size, composition and temperature is not enough if we are to better understand the cosmos in general. In many ways, we still don't even understand the workings of our own planet yet, haven't identified every single living organism, but by chance, one of those other planets out there may help put the pieces of the puzzle together.

The many faces of Venus

Jerry M. Weikle, — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:22:47 GMT

What is really needed for terraforming Venus, is first establishing lunar mining colonies. There are deposits of Aluminium on the Moon. Using a rail gun and projecting transport vehicles with Aluminium towards Venus. Aluminium will interact with the Sulphuric Acid in the Atmosphere, releasing some water vapor in the process. Unfortunately, the concentration of hydrogen may not be sufficient to extablish a hydrogical cycle, i.e. rain, yet water vapor would be in the atmosphere. The next stage, is to divert comets towards Venus, using ion propulsion and a space based internet to target the comet towards Venus. Once the comet has entered Venusian atmosphere, the water vapor will be released. This process would have to be repeated, to supersaturate the Venusian atmosphere with water, to begin a condensation cycle, effectively raining the Carbon dioxide, Aluminium Sulfate to the surface. Initially the oceans would be highly acidic. However, bacteria and extremophils would enjoy the environment. As rain would wash iron, mg, and other compounds into the oceans, the initial oceans wouldn't be quite as "salty" as Earths oceans are. Therefore, it would take some time, to completely establish a functional biosphere within the Venusian aquatic environment.
As soil, doesn't exist, the rocks would have to be broken down, through chemical weathering processes. Yet, sand may exist, because of prior asteroid impacts, and it would therefore be possible to establish some terrestial life, flora to start the terrestial life processes.
Even then, the atmosphere will have high concentrations of carbon dioxide and oxygen. It might be possible to establish a functional biosphere with a 60% carbon dioxide, and 30 percent oxygen, with 10 % nitrogen. Over epochs, lowering the Carbon dioxide to 40%, and increasing the nitrogen concentrations to 40 % with the remaining being oxygen, would a fully terrestial habitable world could exist.
So, what are humans going to do for the next 50-75 thousand years--wage war on Earth, fight over the little remaining oil? Or begin the greatest engineering project of humanity, the terraforming of Venus and Mars into habitable planets.

What do you think? Is humanity as intelligent and technologically capable of truly evolving into a semi Trekian existance with Venusian, Terrans, and Martians?

I with Star Trek or the History Channel would create a visionary documentary on how the process of Terraforming worlds could occur. Maybe they need a writer to write the script.

The many faces of Venus

John Powell — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:58:46 GMT

Venus is the most interesting planet in the solar system. Mars is waaaaay overrated. Let send a rover down to the surface.

JP
www.jpaerospace.com

The many faces of Venus

Brandon Galler, Lewisville Texas — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 19:53:29 GMT

"...close the book on Venus so NASA can get on to financing better projects in the solar system".

It is clearly stated in the article several times that this is an ESA mission. Nothing is mentioned of NASA (nor Canada for that matter). It is a bit presumptuous to limit "meaningful science" solely to manned missions. The vast majority of space science has been derived from unmanned operations such as this.

The many faces of Venus

Bryan Bartlett, Lexington, KY — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:46:07 GMT

Oh, just LAND ON IT, for crying out loud!

The many faces of Venus

Raymond Belanger — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 01:03:51 GMT

The thing about Venus is that it's day is seven hours longer than it's year, in other words it's not really spinning. which also means it probably didn't form in it's present orbit around our sun by gathering it's parts into a ball. It also means that it might be a realative "new-comer" to this solar system,We don't have to colonize this planet, but it still is interesting.

The many faces of Venus

Alan Boyle — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 04:46:35 GMT

Boy, was that a stinker! Of course it's hydrogen sulfide that's the rotten-egg gas, not sulfur dioxide! At high enough concentrations, sulfur dioxide has a characteristic pungent odor, much like what you smell from a burnt match. I've fixed the reference in the item and will air out that corner of my brain. Sorry about the error!

Vern, I owe you a drink ... and will gladly buy you a glass of Washington Chardonnay if you're ever in the Seattle area.

The many faces of Venus

R. Gebo, Mons, Belgium — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:10:59 GMT

Lets not forget however that the pressure on the Venusian surface is a little over 90 times that of Earths, making mechanical exploration a little difficult. Lets also not forget that venus spins in retrograde and very slow at that, so this in turn would probably also have to be corrected in order to even begin to think about terraforming venus into a human habitat.

The many faces of Venus

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:31:56 GMT

Brandon: Yes I realized after it is ESA. I can't speak for Europeans but I would bet there is a plenty of american know how in that Venus probe. Also, I didn't mention anything about manned missions in my OP.

Chris Reeve: Give it up will ya??!

The many faces of Venus

Bob, Washington DC Metro Area, USA — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:46:21 GMT

As a location for human colonization, despite the extremely unriendly environment, Venus offers something that neither the Moon nor Mars can offer. The gravity of Venus is much closer to that of earth. Terrestrial life has evolved in a 1G environment, and we know that extended periods of time in 0G are generally not good for terrestrial organisms (including people). Pending actual research on the subject, there is every reason to suspect that humans could not live indefinitely on the Moon or Mars, and it may be that such low G environments are too unhealthy for humans until their skeletons have fully developed through adolescence and into adulthood. Where the gravity of Mars is (as I recall) in the area of 2/5 that of Earth (and the Moon's is lower), the gravity of Venus is more like 4/5. While the Moon and Mars are likely to be preferred destination for scientific research, Venus may be better for those who dream of long-term human colonization of other planets in the Solar System. Despite the harshness of Venus's atmosphere, it may actually be more feasible for humans to settle Venus (e.g., in man-made subterranean environments) than the Moon or Mars. Other locations where appropriate gravity could be found on the gas giants, where it may be possible to construct platforms that float in the atmosphere at a range above the planet where the ambient gravity is in the 1G range. This, however, leaves one at the mercy of prevailing winds. If possible, however, there might be an economic reason for embarking on such a venture. The gas giants (Uranus in particular) contain vast quantities of methane, also known as natural gas. If an appropriate business model could be found (product is delivered 10-20 years after extraction?) and a technology is developed for getting the commodity from Earth orbit to Earth surface, then this could be a viable energy source. And the search for such an energy source could provide a reason for developing a technology of floating habitation platforms in a gas giant's atmosphere. Other than that, Venus offers the best analog to terrestrial gravity, which is likely to be necessary to terrestrial life.

The many faces of Venus

jim quinn — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:52:52 GMT

The biggest problem with Venus is the incredible pressure on the surface. You would have to get ride of the extra atmosphere if you ever expected to live there. converting it to water would work if you could come up with the billions of pounds of hydrogen you would need to mix with 02 component in Carbon dioxide.

As for the temperature, the article I read said that it would take hundreds of years to cool off even given a complete blockage of the sun. Venus is like its own insulated hot box.

The many faces of Venus

Bill Edwards — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:26:48 GMT

We have children starving to death throughout 40% of our planet's land masses. We have wars going on throughout the world, terrorism, failing economies, and a host of other situations that require our immediate attention.
We can't even solve the problems we have on this planet, resolve hunger, illiteracy, social unrest, crooked politics and we want to expand our reaches into space?
Why don't we put our vast resources, both physical and intellectual into taking care of our own house before we start moving our ills onto other worlds, or perhaps peering into extra-terrestrial windows like conquering colonists?
All this space stuff is all well and good, and can make for an interesting read, but at the end of the day, we are still a fractured planet of societies unable to get our own acts together, let alone qualify for the right to expansion.
I really don't give a tinker's damn about what's going on on Mars, Venus, or in outer reaches of the known universe.
I do care about the soldier who died in a senseless war brought on by the greed and corruption of others in the name of so-called democracy, and who, by his/her death may have cost us the next great leap forward in medical science, a wonderful, inspiring teacher, a business leader with a gift for giving our youth the ethics and morals to conduct business in a clean manner, or perhaps the one person who could figure out how to bring humanity under an envelope of world peace.
I do care about the children who died of startvation in the world while I was reading this article, and who followed them into death while I am writing this response.
I do care about illiteracy that is uncalled for, and religious fervor that excludes, rather than enlightens.
I care about the ills of the world that are being ignored in favour of burying our heads in the sand in the name of science, knowledge and expansion of the human realms of influence.
Eventually, increased world populations, and the diminishment of finite natural resources required for the sustainment of humanity will require us to look outward toward the untapped resources of outer worlds. Of that, I have no doubt, and concur with those who qualify the need for this type of science.
But, I think that beofre we get ourselves carried away with finding new worlds, it'd be a good idea to fix the one we are already charged with looking after.
Sorry to throw a wrench into the equation, but the more I hear about space related science, and read about the dollar costs, the more I think about how military budgets, and these science budgets could serve humanity far better in real time, rather than in the hopes, dreams and projections of those whose energies, and vast intellects should be better focused on our world's immediate needs.
It's just my humble opinion.

The many faces of Venus

Don, Seattle — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:30:50 GMT

Let's not forget that most of the investigation of Venus was carried out by the Soviet Union.

http://www.mentallandscape.com/V_Venus.htm

The many faces of Venus

R.G.Soule, Inver Grove Heights, MN. — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:31:09 GMT

All the talk of terraforming Venus seems a bit premature to me. It will probably be a hundred years before we can even send anyone there with enough knowledge and resources to start the job. Someone quoted a time of 75,000 years for it to be accomplished. Ha. Some of the geological processes that created the conditions we have on Earth took millions of years.
I really believe that humankind will conclude that it is more feasible, and vastly more practical, to construct artificial habitats orbiting the planets and the sun. There may be no limit on the number of orbital positions in the life-zone of our sun. In fact, given the premise of pressurized habitats, the life-zone would no doubt be considerably larger than any would realize. Size limits of habitats would be problematical, but I can picture habitats large enough for millions.
On that premise, it would seem that Star Trek, and all of the other science fiction TV series and movies have missed the idea. When the Enterprise crew returns to Earth after one of its lengthy missions, they will not find clear, dark space around Earth, but will see a vast, silvery cloud. It's more likely they will not even be able to approach Earth orbit due to the millions of artificial satellite habitats already occupying those orbital positions.

The many faces of Venus

mike — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:58:34 GMT

venus is great but i like her sister more. go serena

The many faces of Venus

Joe, Mpls — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:59:41 GMT

What planet is closest to us? If it is Mars then why not go there and try and make that habital? It appears that is is closer to our Earth why not find a way to make life happen there? Maybe send chemicals to jump start the atmosphere? But what do I know? Nothing. Just a shot in the dark.

The many faces of Venus

Jager, Vancouver, BC — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:31:21 GMT

Venus is useless.

If you could somehow cool that fireball down to an acceptable temperature, you'd still have to deal with the lack of hydrogen to make water.

...oh and did I mention the seas of sulfuric acid? I think I did...

my point is - Venus: case closed. At least until we develop enough as a civilization that we need the other planet, and have the funds to terraform it.

The many faces of Venus

Wayne — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:42:36 GMT

Terraforming would be a bad idea. If we cannot survive there without causing extreme change to allow us to survive, why should we be there in the first place and much more, change it so we can?

Terraform for money or for science? Money always seems to be the driving factor unfortunately.

The more I participate in these discussions, the more I think we should focus on bettering humanity here first, then, as a global community, reach further out into space. Only when we can live together peacefully and in some form of harmony would the returns of such adventures benefit the whole of humanity, and not just the science minded and money grubbing.

The many faces of Venus

eric,elgin,tex. — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:47:31 GMT

OK! Does anyone have the specs on this STAR GATE thing??

The many faces of Venus

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:04:52 GMT

Bill Edwards: If you care so much to that degree about all those human issues then what have you done about them? You didn't say what you are doing for humanity.

Aside from the pure knowledge gained about space, the real reason why we must keep going is to answer questions about earth and all that it is. The prospect of not finding life or evidence of past life in any form elsewhere in the solar system I find terrifically problematic if not downright scary.

The many faces of Venus

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:06:40 GMT

Don in Seattle: Thanks for the link, its very informative!

The many faces of Venus

TQ, Chicago, IL — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:33:28 GMT

Actually, NASA had a manned Venus flyby mission on the drawing board in the late 60's using Apollo/Skylab hardware (under the Apollo Applications program). Had the Saturn V not been scrapped in favor of the Shuttle, this mission may have occurred in the late 70's.

For anyone who thinks that Venus is not a worthy candidate for further exploration and/or eventual colonization simply because of the surface conditions, I would counter that Venus is at least as important as Mars if not more so, as the conditions in the atmosphere at 50km altitude are more Earth-like than anything on Mars, or the Solar system for that matter...

Temps stable at 0-50 degree Celsius
nearly 1G of gravity
Abundant solar energy for the taking

Check out Geoffrey Landis' research for NASA, as he makes a compelling case that we should be paying at least as much attention to Venus as we currently are to Mars.

The many faces of Venus

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:26:31 GMT

"Ok this is great information about Venus but lets face it, it's dead, insanely hot, and impossible to land on to carry out any meaningfull science. I hope these missions close the book on Venus so NASA can get on to financing better projects in the solar system."

So...decades of work observing the Sun (not to mention other stars) was also without merit?

Space science isn't always about places machines (or humans) can physically land on and function for extended periods.* It's about...understanding.

Precisely because it's diffult to observe and measure directly (much the same could be said of the gas giants), it may be a long time before we can say we have the 'last word' on Venus.

(* Of course, science isn't the only reason for *any* manned or unmanned space operations, but that's another story...)

The many faces of Venus

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:44:29 GMT

"It's just my humble opinion."

And you're entitled to it, Bill.

So, with that opinion in mind, why DO you come to a space blog?

I have no doubt that everything you describe, that we should be doing 'instead,' (as if money and talent aren't already being directed at them...are we a civilization that can't walk and chew gum at the same time?) have many relevant Internet sites of their own.

However, this tends to support an assertion I've made before...those who say we should be spending more effort and resources on machines vs. manned space flight (as if it wee truly an either/or issue) because it's allegedly so much 'cheaper and effective,' should *always* remember, there are those who really don't care *at all,* and even an unmanned probe isn't pocket change in their eyes (trust me, when one fails, the news media WILL always state the cost, as if it were part of the probe's name)...

In the worst case, the only space-based probes would be Earth-observation platforms (and MAYBE a few studying the Sun). Don't even think about the Moon, much less probes to anything farther away.

Then they will come for your ground-based telescopes (why, the cost of that observatory could feed X number of starving children) and (as has already been implied here)particle accelerators....

Be careful what you wish for.

And support *cheaper access* to space for any purpose.

The many faces of Venus

R.G.Soule, Inver Grove Heights, MN — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:14:29 GMT

I see a comment on this article in which someone suggested a mirror at the L1 Lagrange point. If I understand the general idea of Lagrange points, you need a moon like ours to have any lagrange points at all. Is that not so? Venus has no moon, therefore there are no Lagrange points about Venus

Another question about Lagrange points: As I understand it, there are a number of points in which an object will be in orbit around both the moon and the Earth. These are supposedly easy to get to and very stable once you get there. If this is so, is it not reasonable to assume that, in the billions of years the Earth and moon have been orbiting one another, many bits of rock and debris would have fallen into and occupy those points? Yet there do not seem to be any objects in any of them. Why is that?

The many faces of Venus

SC, Klamath Falls, Oregon — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:31:35 GMT

If one takes a long enough view into the future I see it being a reasonably practical matter to have robotic skimmers collect atmosphere from Venus, compress it into dry ice balls and lob them to impact Mars. Venus has too much atmosphere, Mars doesn't have enough. With new materials being developed all the time, and nanotech advancing at a rate that is hard to follow, it seems more like a distant possibility than an impossible scenario. If this was done, we could end up with two worlds being terraformed at once.

The many faces of Venus

Rodney Sibert, Trussville, Alabama — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:17:41 GMT

I love the thought of colonizing, just not Venus.
My problem with Venus is it is closer to the Sun than we are.
We are in for a real treat when our moon finally moves far enough out that the Earth's tilt is affected. This will cause weather chaos everywhere, but still we may be able to adapt.
But, when the Sun begins to grow (nearing the end of its life) we will be forces out. Out, meaning Mars, one of Saturn's moons, or Jupiter's moons.
In the guesstimated time it would take us to terraform, we would have to look further out.
And even that will need to be done again, as eventually all terrestrial worlds would be engulfed in the sun.
We should probably be spending a little more time thinking space craft, thinking about colonizing a spacecraft, thinking about who will be getting the pass to live and carryout our way of life?
As much as I would hate to see this place go, I would love to know that we refuse to give in and / or give up.
Rodney...

The many faces of Venus

Octavio Camino, Darmstadt, Germany — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:32:29 GMT

Venus is a planet with many similarities to the earth where life as we know it is impossible. It offers a unique chance to know how life conditions can go wrong and help us to better identify the selection of planets for the future of human being. So instead of just going around to take "nice pictures", let's keep investigating planets where things are happening today, like Venus.

The many faces of Venus

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:12:08 GMT

Too bad Venus can't be turned into garbage dump and place to dispose of all the nuclear garbage we have accumulated here.

NOT IN MY BACK YARD ! hehehe

The many faces of Venus

R.G.Soule, Inver Grove Heights, MN — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:03:10 GMT

Someone mentioned using Venus as a garbage dump to dispose of our nuclear waste. If we have the ability to move our garbage to Venus, we can just as easily lob it into the sun, which would be infinitely better. Any planet or moon we use for a garbage dump just makes a worse problem for a future generation.

Someone else mentioned that we're going to need a home more distant from the sun when it begins to expand. You know of course, that's not going to happen for several billion years. By that time, it's likely that the human race will no longer exist - at least, not in its present form. By then we probably will have evolved into some form that will be able to protect itself from almost anything any star could do.

The many faces of Venus

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:47:36 GMT

"Too bad Venus can't be turned into garbage dump and place to dispose of all the nuclear garbage we have accumulated here."

Earth's Moon would be far better. Easier to reach but still easy to isolate, no biosphere to threaten, access to the stuff if someone comes up with a good use for it.

And energetically it's NOT so easy to send stuff into the Sun...

The many faces of Venus

Randy Campbell — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:18:52 GMT

John Powell wrote:
>Venus is the most interesting planet in the solar
>system. Mars is waaaaay overrated. Let send a
>rover down to the surface.
>JP
>www.jpaerospace.com

A rover is an eventual thing I'd like to see on Venus, but first we have to get to know her a bit more intimatly. Which is where YOU come in :o)

Given the focus of JPAerospace how's about putting together some prliminary concepts for LTA and free-flying Venus Exploration vehicles? Up to the challenge?

Randy

The many faces of Venus

peter yates, orlando, fl. — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:32:35 GMT

december 23rd, 2008, flying south from NYC, to Fla., at lets say 10pmish, a bright light teardrop, comet, flew past in all of its brilliant resound, due west. what was it? , it had exploded into sight just above eye level and disapearred at horizon. it would be likened to a molten drop of liquified glass, takers?

The many faces of Venus

Frediano, allentown, pa — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:47:53 GMT

Before we go nuts trying to cool off Venus surface with 'space mirrors' and so on, maybe we should go look into simple 'lapse rate.'

And, before we go off half cocked about 'CO2' (too late), maybe we should ponder where the Triple Point of water is, and how that impacted atmospheric development on Venus vs Earth.

When in the history of the surface atmosphere of Venus was massive pooled liquid water ever physically possible?