Grinpoon hopes that by then, the unanswered scientific questions will be impossible to ignore. He wants to know why Earth's global climate models break down on Venus, which has an atmosphere composed of 97 percent carbon dioxide—and what that reveals about the hidden fine-tunings of Earth models.
Similarly, Gordon Chin, a project scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, proposed a mission that would explain why the same chemical processes that destroy ozone in Earth's atmosphere stabilize carbon dioxide in Venus's. And Suzanne Smrekar, VEXAG co-chair and a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., wants to follow up on a 2010 finding in which she and her colleagues used Venus Express data to identify hot spots on the planet's surface—evidence for volcanism within the past few million years. A clearer picture of volcanism on Venus and its history could help to explain how the planet's runaway greenhouse effect got going. "We need another laboratory to test what we think we know on Earth," says Chin.
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on September 2, 2011.
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add CommentProbably the most important question in my mind is did life indeed once thrive there earlier in the solar system's history, when the sun was still dim enough for Venus to have potentially had an atmosphere not unlike our own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course the surface conditions would destroy a vast preponderance of evidence we could've hope to find, but even so, this seems to me like a burning question and it's practically our backyard.
It be a positive if the collective word 'scientists' was banned from SA headlines. It implies too much weight to what are often niche groups. Judging from where the funding goes 'most scientists' don't perceive any bias against Venus but see it as a poor choice of limited resources. Their decision is based on rational assessment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGranted it could be more responsible to qualify it as "some scientists", but...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe're easily several decades away from being able to use anything else in the solar system for "resources". I honestly don't expect to see anything within the 50+ years left in my life. If it was even worth addressing we'd be contemplating how to develop hardware right now.
Pretty much everything we're doing is for research, and purely on an information:accessibility ratio Venus strikes me as having a lot more to offer than oh, random craters on meteors in the asteroid belt.
It is interesting the closest planet is not studied but like anything, there needs to be some sort of potential benefit for humans to invest the time and money into something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe amusing comment in here is the one about why climate models break down on Venus when it is 97% CO2. Again the assumption that CO2 is the sole and only cause of global warming is being made, yet it doesn't seem to be the case. Real science would be to simply study the atmosphere of Venus and report the results found. To consider going there to find out how they can prove their bias of CO2 as the cause, is not science and certainly not worth spending money on. If this is an example of the kinds of scientific experiments they want to do on Venus, it is no wonder why there is little interest in it.
How about exploitation of natural resources? There could be all kinds of metals and elements on that planet we could mine and bring back to earth but few government agencies consider something like the productive use of a resource.
The cost to lift anything out of either Earth's or Venus' gravity well is staggering, and would likely outweigh any possible value from whatever we could find on Venus, especially considering that we haven't been able to build anything that is capable of surviving the extreme conditions at Venus' surface for very long at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, the real reason for NASA's bias is much more insiduous -- sexism. Yes, it's hard to believe in this day and age, but it's true. NASA refuses to send a mission to the only female planet in our solar system. NASA accepts Jupiter's female moon, Juno, but it won't countenance an uppity female planet. It's not easy being a female planet in a man's solar system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRational cuts for limited resources. Why spend billions of dollars to develop a lander that will only last 3 hours on the surface of an inhospitable planet? The money could be sent to an asteroid to better understand their composition for resource recovery and to prevent future planetary disasters from an asteroid impact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat usable resources are there on an asteroid worth retrieving? Obviously it has to have a VERY high value per unit mass, because we obviously aren't gonna tow an asteroid here for oh...iron, when it's only the most abundant element on the planet already and weighs too much to be worth flying rockets with heavy mining equipment up and down. Unless you mean to just crash the thing...i'm sure that would go over well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right, bringing a common element back to earth would be pointless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIron as your example and other elements already in space could be mined to build ships, moon colonies or whatever. On a larger scale, I would think a factory built in space to process space mined material for more space based equipment is cheaper than lifting it off earth.
Pridseren you're obviously misreading the author...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientists that want to send probes to Venus DO want to study what's going on with it's atmosphere that makes it operate differently from Earth. That is, besides the obvious fact that its atmosphere is something like a hundred times denser than ours AND has drastically more greenhouse effect. But it's a much more extreme sort of atmosphere and you expect nonlinearities to occur...scientists would like to know why and hopefully even determine where those deviations from the current model would begin to take hold.
Mars has probable life to study, it could host a human outpost, and it is easy access. Even lowly Mercury is more attractive. Venus is hideous. I think we should petition the IAU to change its name to Medusa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"would likely outweigh any possible value from whatever we could find on Venus"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is an impossible statement to make - as NOBODY knows what we would find there of what value it might have.
Also nothing would have to be lifted out of Venus - for research, just send a couple rovers there.
Rovers which would last a matter of hours before being turned into wrecks?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCandide:"for research, just send a couple rovers there."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Just send'
We have no such technology. We're lucky to have a lander survive a short while before it is fried by high temperatures and corroded. There are also no means of landing one securely or powering it.
I keep hearing how inhabitable Venus is. Yet, the data we have collected thus far shows that there is in fact a habitable zone on Venus. It is in the upper atmosphere. It turns out the air pressure and temperature at higher altitudes matches that of Earth's air pressure and temperature at sea level. And, it is mostly made up of carbon dioxide, but there is also enough oxygen and water vapor present to be able to generate breathable air, and drinkable water. There are other important elements present as well such as Sulfur and Nitrogen making it possible to grow plants for food. The density of the atmosphere at this level would allow a balloon filled with breathable air to float in the habitable zone of the atmosphere much like a submarine floating in the ocean. And, the pressure difference between the inside of the balloon and outside would be negligible meaning it would be easy to contain and fix leaks etc. Also, there is a great source of energy. The sun. Venus is closer to the sun; however, the thick atmosphere blocks much of the radiation which is a good thing for safety. But, enough light gets through at the sweet spot in the atmosphere to allow solar panels to do their thing and generate electricity for a sky colony.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is plausible mankind could one day live on Venus in big floating air ships that are kept afloat using breathable air!
So, I personally think Venus should be explored more. If one of the teams could come up with a probe that can stay afloat in this sweet spot of Venus for a year and relay all kinds of data back to Earth wouldn't that be worth the entire NASA budget for a year?
Imagine a space probe from Earth existing in a very Earthlike environment for a year at our nearest planetary neighbor. That would be awesome.
we, Russia, AND CHINA are behind schedule on mining the atmosphere of Venus and seeding N2 into earth's atmosphere from above to maintain constant mean seal level pressure (MSLP). Also re: O2 and the Antarctic ozone hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this==========PS//
HEADER PLACED AS FOOTER
MIGRATE HYDROCARBON FUEL to 50% 2NH3 + 3O > N2 + 3H20 at $2 / gal = $0.20 / mile, or less, for DUAL FUEL TANK LONG HAUL http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150270552646571&set=a.10150255161741571.318145.194572276570&type=1&theater
==========PS
Because of atmospheric pressure, in regards to compressing NH3 for fuel, it may not satisfy Kant's categorical imperative "Do what you do in such a way anyone could do it without harm resulting from the macro-economic effects" [sound (ext.)]
However, in terms of 0.01% to 0.1% as a "starter kit" for putting our hydrocarbons on our balance sheet as PVC irrigation pipe and dwellings instead of expensing them on our income statement as fuel - this direction is not necessarily a wrong turn.
Under a five generation plan to stabilize the US and World Economy for the next 80 million generations until red nova,
We are developing a power and cooling system that can survive for years on the surface of Venus. It allows you to cool all the instruments and provide long-term power. They are talking about cancelling the project since no missions were selected, but based on the comments here it seems there may be a demand for it. At the very least, the public should know we do have options for surviving longer than 3 hours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/ASDT
Detailed examination of the Venusian surface may well reveal the wrecks of ancient oil derricks and the fossilized remains of Republican ideological Neanderthals, who once inhabited their fact-free world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrydson: "We are developing a power and cooling system that can survive for years on the surface of Venus.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's FAR from having the technology. There is no such technology. Nasa's own estimates was 15 years away for a simple lander that could function for more than a few days. Perhaps one day an imaginary lander could survive 'for years' will become reality but it is in the distant future.
As an engineer, Venus is a whole new set of problems that NASA is ill equipped to deal with. They're used to dealing with low temperatures and (almost) no atmosphere. The heat and corrosive density of Venus's atmosphere is a completely different set of problems which are much harder than cold and vacuum (electronics love both!).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe USSR, which was known for its primitive but hardy devices, sent some probes, but even those only lasted a few hours. You have to be willing to completely re-architect everything and send a few sacrificial probes to fix the complications you missed. NASA lacks the budget and will for that these days. I don't blame them.
"And—unlike Mars—Venus is neither a plausible haven for life nor a potential destination for astronauts."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm. What makes Mars a plausible haven for life? Not my life, thank you very much.
Most of these candidate interplanetary projects are pies in the sky for applied science.
I don't know. Maybe it's my dislike of being told what I should think is "beautiful." Perhaps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVenus is nice and all, so don't get me wrong. And, I'll bet, given the chance, most Venusians wouldn't move here.
But, I'd rather search Mars. I think we *could* establish life there. Venus -- not so much.
See, those testy little 90 day battery operated robots are still going on Mars 7 years later. On Venus? Not so much.
Spend precious money on Venus? Umm no.
.
Asteroids possibly can have down the road possible commercial interest due to their metals components and by the way..not a small point..easier to study, get to and align their orbits with. Further, there is the evolution of the solar system to study with these and also not a small consideration is concern for possible close encounters of the dead dinosaur kind that has sparked people's concern and the need, therefore, to develop counter measures that can only be designed once we know how asteroids are actually structured and thus can be predicted in how they would respond to various orbiting changes induced by techlologies. Sure, the commercialisation of asteroid materials might seem far into the future but I suspect that this is very much in the minds of applied scientists and engineers. Realise that the largest nickel/iron deposit on the globe was the result of an asteroid impact some several billon years ago in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada and from it have come a trillion dollars worth of metals. This is no small interest to those that influence NASA. It might not be pure science but this is the way the world works, right or wrong. Venus is difficult to orbit with and the reality is, we will not ever set foot on that planet and the most that we could do is try to seed it with something that might clear its atmosphere and drop its temperature in 250,000 years..not an exactly reassuring scenario for a visit any time soon. Being as it is down the4 gravity well, it is hard to just go directly to Venus and so one must loop around the Solar System to visit it and that adds considerably to the overall cost of ground based control of its systems. Asteroids are most likely our next visit and also the most important target over and above Mars. We will not be living on Mars any time soon what with the radiation on its surface at 100 times a toxic dose for humans, essentially no atomosphere and thus, a colony would have to reside beneath the surface. This is not different really than on an asteroid sans gravity...Asteroids can be much closer at times than any other planet and thus they are a sensible non moon target for the foreseeable future. Venus..not so much...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery good comment, I think and worthy of attention by NASA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs mentioned before the answer is simple... liquid water, life, lots of public interest, public interest equal money. Not likely with Venus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe journey to Venus is a failure
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVenus is Doomed; since it faces the sun with one face like our Moon facing Earth --> and therefore, the hemisphere facing the sun will have a perpetual day, and the other hemisphere will have the perpetual night.
Very high temperature is on the day side, and the extreme coldness is on the other side.
The atmosphere is full of smoke thick forming its perpetual cloud with its suffocating and poisonous gases.
This will make the journey to Venus dangerous.
http://www.quran-ayat.com/universe/new_page_2.htm#The_Journey_to_Venus_Is_Dangerous_
Rechargable batteries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVenus is isothermic. It's rotation is retrograde and although it is very slow, the planet does not keep the same side toward the sun. Its gases are mainly CO2 and sulfuric acid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot sure from where your information is coming.
The cost to lift anything out of either Earth's or Venus' gravity well is staggering, and would likely outweigh any possible value from whatever we could find on Venus, especially considering that we haven't been able to build anything that is capable of surviving the extreme conditions at Venus' surface for very long at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany astronomical data concerning many objects are not correct, and this includes the data concerning Venus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the planets should move with the Sun from left to right: this is the direction of the Sun spinning around itself --> and so dragging the rest of the planets with it to circle around the Sun from left to right.
http://www.quran-ayat.com/universe/new_page_2.htm#The_Reason_for_the_Revolution_of_the_Planets_Around_the_Sun_
So why does Venus rotate in a way different than the rest of the planets? But because it has stopped its axial rotation, they see it move retrograde like the Moon in relation to the Earth.
It seems that NASA is a bit shortsighted in regards to Venus. I understand that the primary push is to find life, and I commend it on that goal, but it shouldn't be its only focus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur knowledge of Venus is very limited, and the only way to gain a better understand is to send spacecraft there. Yes, its an extreme environment, but the challenge of developing equipment survive on the surface and in the upper atmosphere, are reasons to plan a mission (in and of itself).
I can think of numerous things we do not know: interior structure of the planet, surface geology and chemical changes, structure and vertical changes over time in the atmosphere, bright reflections mapped by Magellan, and possibility of life the upper cloud layers.
I can imagine a surface rover, powered by a radioisotope generator, cooled with a Sterling system, and operating with high-temperature diamond electronics, roving across the surface, very similar to the rovers on Mars.
As for humans going to Venus, I can see it happening, and I don't think it has to be either Mars or Venus. At this current moment,one could settle in the upper clouds of Venus. There is nothing technologically stopping people from building floating settlements. I personally would feel a lot safer in a floating city on Venus than a pressurized dome on Mars (given the pressure and temperature difference between the two environments).
As for changing the environment on Venus, it will not take over 200,000, but 200 years. Yes, it requires building a sun shield to block the sunlight, and to let the carbon dioxide freeze out over time. Once that is done, cover up the dry ice, and then alternating the sun shield to give a day and night cycle. The 200 years is based on the idea of not importing water until the atmosphere freezes out, but I think that once the sun shield is in place, water then needs to be added. The water, I believe, will quicken the pace of reaction of carbon dioxide and calcium and magnesium in the surface rocks (given that the water would very quickly from a 300 degree solution of carbolic acid, with a pH of near 1; I might be wrong on these figures).
Venus exploration has the potential for gains in scientific knowledge, and for a possible place for human settlement. Given that its very similar to the Earth in size and composition, isn't it worth exploring more?