APOD: Night on Venus in Infrared from... (2016 Jun 07)

[Evermore]

Venus has been neglected because 'conventional thought' is that life could not ever have existed there so could not exist there now. However .. we all know what conventional thought did.

[geckzilla]

Venus has been neglected because 'conventional thought' is that life could not ever have existed there so could not exist there now. However .. we all know what conventional thought did.

Saved us a lot of time and bother? Really, there's better places to go looking. Life as we know it is gonna be easier to find than life as we don't know it. One time I put ice cream in the cabinet by accident. That one time, the ice cream was in the warm place. All the others it's been in the freezer. Luckily it doesn't take a decade of planning and millions of dollars to find my ice cream.

[MarkBour]

So, is the atmosphere of Venus doing a lot to vent Solar energy off of the planet? In today's image, one gets the impression that the clouds are rotating out of the sunlit side into the night side and the equatorial regions are contracting as they go. I think that might be because the equatorial regions are getting the most heat from the sun, and are losing more heat as they get to the night side. Heat I assume they are radiating into space as a blackbody. Is solar heating the force that drives the atmosphere of Venus to rotate more rapidly than the planet itself?

[cocarhc@outlook.com]

The star when approach the sun I a comet

[neufer]

By my calculation,
the specific impulse necessary to get to Venus is only about 86% that needed to get to Mars.

And a manned flyby could do a round trip to Venus in just 0.80 years ( )
rather than a tedious 1.42 years for a round trip to Mars
(with lots more solar power for their creature comforts).

A manned flyby of Venus seems even more useless than a manned landing on Mars.

But, at least, it might keep Elon Musk out of trouble for a year.

[Ann]

Venus has been extremely neglected by human-made probes. Considering how close it is to us, and how similar it is to the Earth in size and mass, our lack of interest in our sister planet is even more remarkable. Rather than thinking of Venus as our sister planet, however, we seem to treat it as humanity's unpopular step sibling or step world, one we don't want to have much to do with.

It is very good that the Japanese probe Akastuki is studying it.

Of course, it's good to study anything. That said, Venus is much less a "sister planet" than Mars, despite being more physically similar in a very broad sense. And it's very difficult to study- so many modalities are ineffective from space, and landers or rovers are essentially impossible, outside of very brief, sacrificial missions. And dynamically, it's harder to get to the inner planets than the outer ones. So for all these reasons, it's pretty easy to see why the focus has been on Mars for understanding terrestrial planets, and of course on the gas giants for the rest.

The fact that it is harder to get to the inner planets than to the outer ones is an important point.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that we are interested in Mars because Mars is sufficiently Earth-like that we might just maybe, maybe find life there. Venus, on the other hand, has such a scorching and stifling atmosphere that we can be (almost) a hundred per cent certain that there is no life there. And that is the main reason why we couldn't care less.

Personally I think that Venus is interesting precisely because it is so inhospitable. It is far hotter than it "should" be, for example. How did it get that way? And what are the chances that exoplanets that might otherwise be habitable may have exprerienced similar runaway greenhouse effects?

Finally, is there anything that Venus can teach us about climate change, anything that might have any bearing on the situation here on Earth?

My impression (and please contradict me if you you think I'm wrong) is that NASA would much rather spend money on a "success story" like Mars than on the grim reality of Venus, even though the study of Venus might just possibly teach us some hard lessons about the Earth.

Ann

[geckzilla]

Finally, is there anything that Venus can teach us about climate change, anything that might have any bearing on the situation here on Earth?

My impression (and please contradict me if you you think I'm wrong) is that NASA would much rather spend money on a "success story" like Mars than on the grim reality of Venus, even though the study of Venus might just possibly teach us some hard lessons about the Earth.

I think a lot of scientists would love to send missions to Venus. I also think there are a number of people who would send probe after probe to Venus if they thought it would finally get through to the deniers. After all the things that have already been tried, do you think Venus has a lesson to teach those who have every motivation to not accept whatever wisdom it has to offer? There's also really no getting around the fact that only so much can be done with Venus in orbit and on its surface, though. The probes are either short-lived and thus ineffective due to the shortness of their stay or long-lived and ineffective due to their position in orbit. The grim reality of Venus—and our own deniers—is apparent from right here.

And yes, there is success bias. No one wants to fail. They want years of research, discoveries, funding, and things to do. The need for success is part of human nature. And then there is also a good portion of people who want the human species to get off this planet and seed into the cosmos. They're not going to look to Venus for that effort. A lot of people will gamble and hope for the best every single time if the other option is something they already know they won't like.

That said, If they could get the money and the people, there is no doubt that Venus would receive more attention, even if it resulted in more failures than missions to other objects. Not everyone is after the pie in the sky.

[Chris Peterson]

Of course, it's good to study anything. That said, Venus is much less a "sister planet" than Mars, despite being more physically similar in a very broad sense. And it's very difficult to study- so many modalities are ineffective from space, and landers or rovers are essentially impossible, outside of very brief, sacrificial missions. And dynamically, it's harder to get to the inner planets than the outer ones. So for all these reasons, it's pretty easy to see why the focus has been on Mars for understanding terrestrial planets, and of course on the gas giants for the rest.

The fact that it is harder to get to the inner planets than to the outer ones is an important point.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that we are interested in Mars because Mars is sufficiently Earth-like that we might just maybe, maybe find life there. Venus, on the other hand, has such a scorching and stifling atmosphere that we can be (almost) a hundred per cent certain that there is no life there. And that is the main reason why we couldn't care less.

Personally I think that Venus is interesting precisely because it is so inhospitable. It is far hotter than it "should" be, for example. How did it get that way? And what are the chances that exoplanets that might otherwise be habitable may have exprerienced similar runaway greenhouse effects?

Finally, is there anything that Venus can teach us about climate change, anything that might have any bearing on the situation here on Earth?

My impression (and please contradict me if you you think I'm wrong) is that NASA would much rather spend money on a "success story" like Mars than on the grim reality of Venus, even though the study of Venus might just possibly teach us some hard lessons about the Earth.

I wouldn't look at it quite that way. It's just that resources are limited, and scientifically there's a lot more bang for the buck with Mars than with Venus.

[neufer]

Personally I think that Venus is interesting precisely because it is so inhospitable. It is far hotter than it "should" be, for example. How did it get that way? And what are the chances that exoplanets that might otherwise be habitable may have exprerienced similar runaway greenhouse effects?

Finally, is there anything that Venus can teach us about climate change, anything that might have any bearing on the situation here on Earth?

My impression (and please contradict me if you you think I'm wrong) is that NASA would much rather spend money on a "success story" like Mars than on the grim reality of Venus, even though the study of Venus might just possibly teach us some hard lessons about the Earth.

I wouldn't look at it quite that way. It's just that resources are limited, and scientifically there's a lot more bang for the buck with Mars than with Venus.

A 9 month manned flyby of Venus is quite feasible, would get lots of publicity, and (most importantly) would highlight our global warming problem.

It would also be an important test case of extended manned spaceflight before attempting any manned Mars landing.

[Evermore]

Venus has been neglected because 'conventional thought' is that life could not ever have existed there so could not exist there now. However .. we all know what conventional thought did.

Saved us a lot of time and bother? Really, there's better places to go looking. Life as we know it is gonna be easier to find than life as we don't know it. One time I put ice cream in the cabinet by accident. That one time, the ice cream was in the warm place. All the others it's been in the freezer. Luckily it doesn't take a decade of planning and millions of dollars to find my ice cream.

NASA is investigating possibility of life on Venus.

http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/ ... -colonies/

"You scream I scream we all scream for life on Venus."

[Asterhole]

"A manned flyby of Venus seems even more useless than a manned landing on Mars."
Ooh, let's get a human colony onto the surface of Venus! Somehow! And another bunch of pioneers onto the surface of Pluto!
Yes, all such things are goofy nonsense. And yet I hesitate: was having humans land on the Moon also goofy nonsense? It was a triumph!
How I wish I could know what will be happening, say, 100 years from now. Sigh!

I agree - Imagine what it'd be like to live in the 18th Century when even simple manned flight was unimaginable. Who knows what the next few decades, let alone centuries of human technology will bring?

[Ann]

[
NASA is investigating possibility of life on Venus.

http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/ ... -colonies/

NASA is investigating, or NASA was investigating?

Note that the link you provided us with takes us to an article from 2002.

I realize that we have not proved, beyond any shadow of doubt, that there is no life on Venus. But I don't think that the search for life on Venus receives that many tax dollars.

Ann

[geckzilla]

NASA is investigating possibility of life on Venus.

http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/ ... -colonies/

"You scream I scream we all scream for life on Venus."

Considering that it's possible doesn't necessarily mean actively searching for it, though.

[Evermore]

NASA is investigating possibility of life on Venus.

http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/ ... -colonies/

"You scream I scream we all scream for life on Venus."

Considering that it's possible doesn't necessarily mean actively searching for it, though.

Like Ann says, NASA isn't spending much money on it .. but like Geckzilla says there will be ongoing consideration .. and of course Japan's Akatsuki will provide stimulation as well as information .. I very much doubt that NASA does not have a budget and staff looking into Venusian life at this time.

[neufer]

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

NASA is investigating possibility of life on Venus: http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/ ... -colonies/

"You scream I scream we all scream for life on Venus."

Considering that it's possible doesn't necessarily mean actively searching for it, though.

[Evermore]

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

NASA is investigating possibility of life on Venus: http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/ ... -colonies/

"You scream I scream we all scream for life on Venus."

Considering that it's possible doesn't necessarily mean actively searching for it, though.

Hot enough for a nuclear meltdown.

[neufer]

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

[star strukk]

NASA radio telescope surveys of Venus terrain revealed a topography that would be the envy of Earth based cartographers. Aphrodite Terra spans more than half the equatorial distance of Venus. The area of the continent is even more astonishing: nearly twice that of Africa. And, the prominent massif in the north - or south - named Maxwell Montes rises more than 11000 meters above the reference diameter designated as sea level.
Beyond this point efforts to gain further data about Venus are useless because it is a changing and developing world, like the Earth. The genesis of the terrestrial planets will continue. Asteroid impacts on Venus will continue to develop the Venusian datum and atmosphere. If a significant strata of helium accumulates on the planet a cooling of the Venusian atmosphere may occur. The sea level pressure would still be many times that of the Earth but the overall temperature would be cooler. At least 10x10e15 tons of helium would be needed to effect a permanent and prominent cooling of the Venusian atmosphere. As the atmosphere cools the water content of the Venusian atmosphere also precipitates and in time the second planet of the Sun would be transformed into a somewhat habitable recognizable world with a dense but cool atmosphere and oceans galore. Most of the helium and water and rocky matter that would transform Venus will be aggregated from impacting asteroids and comets.
It would be a worth while exercise to compile a list of asteroidal bodies that are expected to impact Venus in the next few years.

[Chris Peterson]

Beyond this point efforts to gain further data about Venus are useless because it is a changing and developing world, like the Earth.

That would seem to suggest that you also find it useless to seek further information about Earth!

In reality, the topography of Venus, like the Earth, changes only over geological timescales. Our best maps of Venus will still be very good in a thousand, or even a million years.