3 ms·
Did you read the rest of the post? The author acknowledges the lander issues as well
by roer 5mo ago
Did you read the rest of the post?
The author acknowledges the lander issues as well
- dingaling 5mo agoYes, but he only looked at Venus from the aspect of research which is missing half, or more, of the point of a Mars mission. The advantage of Mars is that it is ( hypothetically ) acceptably compatible with persistent surface-based habitation. Not an easy life, certainly not compared to Earth, but more sustainable than balloons floating in sulphuric clouds. Venus doesn't offer an 'alternative cradle' option unless we invent anti-gravity. Until then the emphasis will be on finding a way to improve human civilisation's resilience.
- decimalenough 5mo agoThe point of the blog post is that while flying humans across the solar system to Venus so they can float in clouds of opaque sulfuric acid above a hellscape of certain death sounds and objectively is ridiculous, it's still easier and arguably more sensible than trying to send humans to Mars and back.
- childintime 5mo agoSo they solved the refueling problem you'll have when "floating" in the Venus atmosphere? Seems to me going to Venus is a one way trip.
- decimalenough 5mo agoThe same problem exists on Mars and is even harder because you're at the bottom of a gravity well.
- curiousObject 5mo agoYes, that is the point. It’s a good point. But, if our airship in the Venusian atmosphere finds nothing interesting (no life signs), then there’s not much more to do at Venus, because atmosphere is all mixed and all the same. Going to the surface, even for a day or two, is hard and very expensive. OTOH Mars - that can be explored for many years, on the surface and below the surface. We might still find nothing, but it’ll take hundreds of years to be sure.