4 ms·

My guess would be that NASA hasn't done this because they feel like they have the traditional "lander" or "descent" type of probe worked out. They've done the e

My guess would be that NASA hasn't done this because they feel like they have the traditional "lander" or "descent" type of probe worked out. They've done the engineering, they know the difficulties involved. What you're suggesting requires more expensive R&D, and means that the new probe has more chance of failing. The conservative thing to do is to stick with what works. I do think you're right that the conditions are very different from Mars and this makes it possible to explore alternative approaches that may be better suited to the planet. I also believe that innovation entails some degree of risk taking. Just gotta get SpaceX onboard.

pavel_lishin 12y ago
I'm not sure that's the case; the latest Mars lander required some pretty incredible engineering - I mean, they basically built a rocket-powered hovercraft, something that's never been done before. I'd wager that the real reason is that Mars is more interesting to explore than Venus's atmosphere. Mars has the potential to have (or have had) life, and it has interesting geological features that may be directly applied to what we know about Earth. Plus, the whole "we might go live on Mars!" mentality doesn't hurt, and Venus is only recently getting this kind of attention.
- userulluipeste 12y ago
  "they basically built a rocket-powered hovercraft, something that's never been done before" They basically built a retro-rocket¹. Rockets existed, the principle of retro-rocket-like descent braking existed too (usually deployed on parachute drops of heavy equipment like tanks). "I'd wager that the real reason is that Mars is more interesting to explore than Venus's atmosphere." As you also noted, it's about public attention, which was fed with a lot of Mars stories. Mars' surface was more observable and thus made it more easily for Sci-Fiction writers to speculate about. It had less to do with practical considerations like those related to its atmosphere. ¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrorocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrorocket
rbanffy 12y ago
Nobody has the Venus lander thing figured out. Soviet landers could only last a short time before being roasted/crushed/corroded. In comparison to the Venusian surface, the religious notion of hell would be a tropical beach.

pavel_lishin 12y ago

I'm not sure that's the case; the latest Mars lander required some pretty incredible engineering - I mean, they basically built a rocket-powered hovercraft, something that's never been done before. I'd wager that the real reason is that Mars is more interesting to explore than Venus's atmosphere. Mars has the potential to have (or have had) life, and it has interesting geological features that may be directly applied to what we know about Earth. Plus, the whole "we might go live on Mars!" mentality doesn't hurt, and Venus is only recently getting this kind of attention.

userulluipeste 12y ago
"they basically built a rocket-powered hovercraft, something that's never been done before" They basically built a retro-rocket¹. Rockets existed, the principle of retro-rocket-like descent braking existed too (usually deployed on parachute drops of heavy equipment like tanks). "I'd wager that the real reason is that Mars is more interesting to explore than Venus's atmosphere." As you also noted, it's about public attention, which was fed with a lot of Mars stories. Mars' surface was more observable and thus made it more easily for Sci-Fiction writers to speculate about. It had less to do with practical considerations like those related to its atmosphere. ¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrorocket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrorocket

rbanffy 12y ago

Nobody has the Venus lander thing figured out. Soviet landers could only last a short time before being roasted/crushed/corroded. In comparison to the Venusian surface, the religious notion of hell would be a tropical beach.