3 ms·

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. It’s not just about the cost, but about what science could be done. Much of the basic science has already been done by V

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. It’s not just about the cost, but about what science could be done. Much of the basic science has already been done by Venera, Mariner, Pioneer, and Magellan (Magellan providing a gravitational map of the entire surface of Venus). Here’s a list of the many missions to Venus [1] So future missions not only need to justify costs, but actually overcome some pretty extraordinary engineering problems of doing science in such conditions. If you look at Mars for instance, where conditions are placid by comparison, we still have failures. The Insight lander for instance failed to dig into the Martian surface due to underestimating the friction of the surface material. So think of Mars as a learning tool for future space exploration. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus

bpodgursky 6y ago
Given that we're dozens of landers down on Mars — many of them modern — and we still have a ton to learn about the soil and history (ie, we are still landing science rovers there, as recently as this week), it doesn't really make sense to me that a few probes from the 80s have done all the on-the-ground science we want to do on Venus.
- est31 6y ago
  Even on earth we have still lots to learn about its geology, and 100% of our geologists live on its surface. It never stops. Each answered questions opens two new ones.
- crazydoggers 6y ago
  It’s not that we’ve done all the on ground science. It’s that we’ve done the simple stuff that you can do given the conditions. Staying longer and doing more complex science are harder engineering problems. And I’m not saying it’s not worth it... it is. It’s just sometimes learning before you leap is valuable. Let’s say we spend $3 billion on a Venus lander, and it survives 12 hours. Compare that to just the engineering knowledge that was gained from the Curiosity rovers for the same price operating for 5 years. On top of which, humans stepping foot on another planet has incredible value in motivating all of humanity to do something greater. That’s certain to happen on Mars first. Of course I’d love if we did it all together... but you all have to keep calling your Senators to make that happen. :)
himinlomax 6y ago
> It’s not just about the cost, but about what science could be done I'd argue that's not the issue either. We can keep a probe on Mars or in any orbit for years and gather data over that time. Anything that we land on Venus can only ever operate for a few minutes. Maybe there's stuff we could learn on Venus if we could stay there long term, but we can't. Any other target (Mars, Mercury, gas giant satellites, asteroids, dwarf planets ...) will have a better ROI, by several orders of magnitude.
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Heck I'd argue you'll get more science from trying to build something that survives on Venus than from Venus itself. Faint recollection, but I think at some point there were SiC semiconductors mentioned to try and survive longer.
f6v 6y ago
Space isn't just about the basic science. We could advance engineering with projects like HAVOC [1] That could be indispensable if we ever need to use it on a more "interesting" planet. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operational_Concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operationa...

bpodgursky 6y ago

Given that we're dozens of landers down on Mars — many of them modern — and we still have a ton to learn about the soil and history (ie, we are still landing science rovers there, as recently as this week), it doesn't really make sense to me that a few probes from the 80s have done all the on-the-ground science we want to do on Venus.

est31 6y ago
Even on earth we have still lots to learn about its geology, and 100% of our geologists live on its surface. It never stops. Each answered questions opens two new ones.
crazydoggers 6y ago
It’s not that we’ve done all the on ground science. It’s that we’ve done the simple stuff that you can do given the conditions. Staying longer and doing more complex science are harder engineering problems. And I’m not saying it’s not worth it... it is. It’s just sometimes learning before you leap is valuable. Let’s say we spend $3 billion on a Venus lander, and it survives 12 hours. Compare that to just the engineering knowledge that was gained from the Curiosity rovers for the same price operating for 5 years. On top of which, humans stepping foot on another planet has incredible value in motivating all of humanity to do something greater. That’s certain to happen on Mars first. Of course I’d love if we did it all together... but you all have to keep calling your Senators to make that happen. :)

himinlomax 6y ago

> It’s not just about the cost, but about what science could be done I'd argue that's not the issue either. We can keep a probe on Mars or in any orbit for years and gather data over that time. Anything that we land on Venus can only ever operate for a few minutes. Maybe there's stuff we could learn on Venus if we could stay there long term, but we can't. Any other target (Mars, Mercury, gas giant satellites, asteroids, dwarf planets ...) will have a better ROI, by several orders of magnitude.

raverbashing 6y ago
Heck I'd argue you'll get more science from trying to build something that survives on Venus than from Venus itself. Faint recollection, but I think at some point there were SiC semiconductors mentioned to try and survive longer.

f6v 6y ago

Space isn't just about the basic science. We could advance engineering with projects like HAVOC [1] That could be indispensable if we ever need to use it on a more "interesting" planet. 1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operational_Concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Altitude_Venus_Operationa...