Why don't we send probes to Venus anymore?

Why don't we send probes to Venus anymore?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BepiColombo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

To the surface? It's a hellhole that requires extremely tough probes just to survive for an hour. Much much more cost effective to send landers elsewhere, like Mars rovers that last a decade longer than their planned mission.

If you mean to orbit, ESA deorbited one in 2014 that was there for 8 years, and there is a JAXA one there right now.

Basically we (the human species) actually achieved it, landed probes, did some science, and got off some cool proof-photographs like pic related. On top of this due to its oppressive atmosphere which we cannot yet ameliorate, Venus does not appear to be the most attractive target for colonization over the next century or two (assuming we even survive that long): the moon and Mars are far more hospitable and readily conquerable places.

That's why we don't send probes to Venus anymore. We've done it, we know we've done it, and what we've learned is that the target is a less desirable immediate property for projects such as habitation. So it's something to put on the shelf, for now.

That said, for me personally, the venus landings are among the most impressive things that the Russians did in their space program, although they flung like twenty of the fucking things at the planet, with half crashing (typical Russian approach, but still): they landed, they got off photos,and communicated the information /back/ under the incredible high pressure and atmosphere of a Venus. That is fucking impressive, and all praise to the Russians for managing it.

>people call this the love planet
absolutely dogshit

>Women are from Venus
>Men are from Mars
>Venus is an inferno and an acidic nightmare
>Mars is possibly colonizable in the near future

I thought Veeky Forums was supposed to be a board of smart posters?

Funding really. NASA was considering a mission for venus, but they decided to fund two fucking bitching asteroid missions.

Although we are starting to get electronics that can survive that hell hole. This means we could do important long term science lile installing a seismograph network on venus.

Often you have self proclaimed geniuses coming in to confirmation bias their fallacious emotionally charged ideologies and philosophies, some from Veeky Forums, mostly from /pol/.

There are many interesting things to find out about venus, but it doesn't really sell well. With mars you get a whole decade of science from a lander. With venus you can be happy about a single photo.

Anyway, what I'd be interested in would be a floating lander. A lander isn't intended to reach the surface but instead floats above the atmosphere. It can drop very compact landers to the surface (I really believe that is the big advantage we have today, the electronics are way smaller than they used to be). The floating lander can move through the clouds, collect data about the atmosphere and weather and even examine details on the surface using microwave imaging.

Venus' upper atmosphere is colonizable if you have big floating colonies.

>living in a floating inflatable castle
what happens if it gets perforated

this pic is so fake its unbelievable

keep drinking the jew koolaid goyim

Compartmentalization. Even primitive ww1 zeppelins wouldn't fall out of the sky just from a few holes because they had multiple redundant gas bags that could each keep them aloft.

Same thing that you would have to do with a Mars colony, because Mars doesn't support a breathable atmosphere and you don't want to lose all your air to a hole in the side of your colony.

It's much more viable at this point that we could have cloud cities on Venus, before we figure out getting to Mars at a timely manner that doesn't weigh us down as well not considering all the background radiation on Mars that will kill any human within a short amount of time.

Mars looks nice and all from a distance, but as chaotic as Venus is, it's more possible our first human experiments in habitability and stability may be on upper atmosphere of Venus.

what material would these bouncy houses made of? how could you safely walk, drive, launch and land planes and spacecrafts on them? what happens if a fire breaks out?

because there are better options
and there are missions that are going to fly by venus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BepiColombo

The general idea most NASA scientist have is an paper thin alloy, sort of like the light sails they try to construct.
This material is extremely durable and would be used in the same Mars missions eventually, however because weight is everything when trying to put objects into orbit and distance is a huge factor. Venus being closer will probably be the testing ground to these functions.

I hear they're too busy probing Uranus!

The idea of floating above Venus is nice an all, but what the hell is the point? It'd be entirely reliant on shipments of supplies to do anything, there's no resources on the planet you could possibly access.

this talk about floating

how viable would it be to send a probe capable of extended flight to venus to study its atmosphere, and would there be any scientific merit for it?

I think nasa has had that as an idea both for mars an venus for quite some time. Probably Roskosmos and ESA as well.

And the biggest thing Venus has going for its is its gravity which is around .9 earth g's, compared to Mars's less than .4 earth g's of surface gravity. Yes we can theoretically terraform Mars to make it more livable but what is that worth if living there for too long would put you at risk for sever osteoporosis levels of bone loss, and yes I know that this bone loss can be delayed by frequent and vigorous resistance training but this inconvenience is much less necessary on Venus.

Just read Nasa's HAVOC Plan

Still pointless to be there at all though. At least the weak bones don't matter as much if you never actually leave

Ok, so are you looking at this from an "earth is fucked so we need to leave and never come back" scenario? Because I wasn't, but yeah I guess if permanent one-way colonization on our first attempted is the stated goal then you have a good point.

Nah wasn't my assumption at all, rather that those that do leave find it inconvenient and undesirable to return. Brittle bones are one thing, but imagine what would happen if someone born and raised in a remote mostly sterile environment comes to earth and their weak immune system is bombarded with unfamiliar diseases. Sure there's ways around that, but it's still a barrier.

And who knows what the cultural factors would be by then.

The Soviets had a couple of balloons there but the limiting factor was battery power.

Looks wet.

The atmosphere gives you most of the resources you would need, then you mine on the surface for whatever else

The CO2 at the surface isn't a gas (or a liquid), it's under so much pressure that it's a supercritical fluid. The pressure is comparable to being 900m below the surface of the ocean on Earth.

It's also ~460 celsius and any of the sulphuric acid rain from much higher in the cloud has long since evaporated.

But user, how do you get resources?

The only real problem is keeping the electronics working at high temperatures

That problem will likely be solved pretty soon anyways. So its all a non-issue
Obviously you have to build your machine out of materials that can all handle 450 celcius, but thats nothing special

I wish I knew. There's plenty of places in the solar system that could benefit from a modern probe, but everyone's obsessed with Mars.

Everyone's opinion of the surface of Venus as a hell-hole doesn't help. Things that successfully landed on the surface did not fail due to the heat or pressure; they failed through running out of battery power or the relay flying out of range. It's an unpleasant environment, but it's not the insurmountable challenge people make it out to be.

Not as wet as your mom last night when I watched her fuck your papa.

>actually landing on other planets
>taking pics of it
this will never not be cool

>The atmosphere gives you most of the resources you would need
Water and O2?

>actually going to the planet and seeing it with your own eyes

Nobody's gonna care about stupid little pictures once this becomes mainstream.

>people taking selfies on Venus
Until people treat it like Disneyland

We pay the nigger tax, so there's not enough money left over for all kinds of nice science experiments.

>That said, for me personally, the venus landings are among the most impressive things that the Russians did in their space program,

This. Mad props for that.

First landing ever on another planet, and it just happens to be the one with a hellish surface.

There is water that can be extracted, would need more exploration to get a more accurate quantity of H2O, and the whole atmosphere is CO2 so there is no shortage of O2

...

Because it's funnier to send the. To Uranus.

This is a picture of Venus captured by NASA’s Magellan spacecraft. It shows the entire surface of the planet, imaged by the spacecraft’s radar instrument, which can penetrate the thick clouds to reveal the surface below. Magellan was launched from the cargo bay of the space shuttle Atlantis in May 1989, and arrived at Venus on August 10, 1990. It orbited the planet for 4 years before plunging to the surface.

so you got cucked?