/sci/ - Science & Math

Surface pic from Russian Venera probe.

Venis is a pussy planet, that's why.

Because its gravity and acidic atmosphere make it impossible for anything other to really get done on the planet. and the green house effect is rampant which means we wont be checking it out anytime soon since boiling lead and all.

Mars and Ganymede are both much, much better prospects to study since they hold the best chances of stastainibility for life. and they both hold some kind of water.

Any point in suiting up to check out venus would probably be a waste of time, even the russians found that out after several of their probes just slammed into venus, or burnt up in the thick as fuck atmosphere

Threads over.

>>4812944

for anything other than probing*

>>4812944

We have more than the technology, it just hasn't been put to use yet. And many scientists believe that life can exist in the upper atmosphere about 50km above the surface where the atmospheric temperature and pressure is almost identical to that of Earth.

http://www.universetoday.com/12082/how-to-keep-a-venus-rover-cool/

>>4812953
> Citation needed

>>4812944

Ameritard detected

>>4812957

They included one you fuckwit

MESSENGER did some analysis on its way to Mercury and I think the ESA has an orbiter there now. Russia might send another mission in 2017 I think.


The main issue is that pretty much anything we could build as far as a surface mission goes wouldn't last very long in the environment on Venus. When you're pitching a multi-billion dollar mission "might last 30 seconds longer than the last one" isn't exactly a selling point. Not when you can get a lot more science for your buck sending missions to outer planets or studying deep space.

Because exploring Venus would be an exciting technical challenge, and NASA just wants to keep slamming rover after rover into Mars so they can keep on discovering that it's a bigger, redder version on the Moon.

Are there any good models for the underground temperature of Venus?

>>4812963
Yeah he totally included a reference for the venusian life claim. Fuck off.

>>4812936

I find pictures like this so beutiful.

>>4812953

If any of you bothered to read this article, it says that a rover powered by a "nuclear stirling engine" can stay cool enough to operate for up to 50 days. I would absolutely fund this mission.

>It comes closer to the Earth than any other planet except the Moon

>the Moon
>a planet

duh op

> Yet we know very little about it.
That isn't an argument, it is said about everything. Planetary missions are expensive, very expensive. There is one orbiter there and another in transit. Surface missions have no appeal, it's made of roughly the same stuff as earth and has no possibility of surface life that we could identify quickly. The idea of a balloon has often come up, the soviets sent one which survived for some time but there is little to learn. Instrumentation is quite specific you actually need to know what you are looking for before you go.

We understand it's composition unlike the outer planets. We know it wouldn't have life as we know it, unlike Mars and moons in the outer solar system. We can study it's composition and formation by studying earth, being earth's "sister planet" has draw backs. The formation of the outer planets still has questions.
So you're very keen, the question isn't "why should we go to Venus?", it's "why should we go to Venus and not somewhere else?". So why is it more interesting than anywhere else?

Don't mind me, I'm just having a shower in BOILING SULPHURIC ACID

>>4812994
The IAU is going to be forced once again to redefine what's a planet and it's largely because

1. their current definition sucks
2. their current definition isn't inclusive of objects now being discovered

By their current definition Earth, Jupiter, and Neptune aren't planets because there are objects in their orbital path. Hell Neptune contains Pluto in its path. 'but they dominate their orbit'. Your definition doesn't say that bitch, go rewrite it you fucking morons.

We've found planets that orbit ... nothing. Two Jupiter mass objects orbit each other but no star and a Jupiter mass object with moons that just free floats in space with no companion star.

So far we just call those 'Rogue' planets but according to the IAU they're, by definition, dwarf planets because they haven't cleared their orbits, which they don't have, of other objects.

There may very well be more rogue planets than regular planets because planets can easily be thrown from their parent star especially as a star dies and loses mass.

They're forced to define them as planets anyway because duh, something larger than Jupiter has got to be a fucking planet.

The whole reason they made their definition was to kick Pluto out of the club but it sucks because, after the sun devours its fuel Pluto will lose orbit and hurray hurray, it'll become a planet again! As it flies through inter stellar space as a rogue planet. They simply delayed the inevitable.

There should be only one way to determine what is and isn't a planet, it's composition. If an object is within 5% of being a sphere and is not burning deuterium it should be a planet. Otherwise it's an asteroid or a star.

This leaves us with 3 types of planets. Regular planets, satellite planets (like the moon), and rogue planets.

>mfw no one realizes that the upper atmosphere could easily contain organic life at near room temperature

>>4812999
this guy has it figured out

> 'but they dominate their orbit'. Your definition doesn't say that bitch, go rewrite it you fucking morons.
But the definition of "cleared its orbit" is that it is gravitationally dominant.

First off I have no knowledge of a isolated binary system of low mass companions And would really be interested to see how they were detected, if you could provide a source. But that's what they are low mass companions. A planet goes round the Sun, there is no rigours definition for extra-solar planets, the IAU definition doesn't apply.

And no by the same argument (they don't orbit the sun), rogue planets are not planets, that's why they have their own name.

For the record planets have been observed to survive even the most violent deaths of their parent stars and remain in orbit as seen with pulsar planets.

>>4813059
This was supposed to link to this:
>>4813022

>>4813022
Using and modifying the existing IAU definition we can get:

>A PLANET is an object which orbits a star, is massive enough to become rounded under its own gravitational force, and is the dominant mass in its orbit around the star.
>A DWARF PLANET is an object which orbits a star, is massive enough to become rounded under its own gravitational force, but is not the dominant mass in its orbit around the star.
>A ROGUE PLANET is an object which is massive enough to become rounded under its own gravitational force but does not orbit any body.

Seems like a pretty concise set of definitions to me.

>>4813038
Well design a mission which can detect it. There is currently no such proposal, the idea of detecting different to ours is almost a significant challenge. No such experiment has been flown to Mars either.
The mission would be expensive so you would need a lot of other science. If we had life detecting technology Venus wouldn't top the list of likely places.

>>4813067
That would be superior but unnecessary. We do not have the technology to distinguish if exoplanets are "dwarf planets". The strict definition of a planet only applies to the solar system so you really only require planets, dwarf planets, extra-solar planets and rogue planets.

>>4813067
> does not orbit any body

Everything orbits something.

>>4812958

>i cant find anything wrong with your argument but look at my insults

I thought this was the smartest board.....

Bumping this thread to piss people off.

>>4812944
>Mars and Ganymede are both much, much better prospects to study since they hold the best chances of stastainibility for life.
But that's not even true, dumbass! The gravity on Mars is too far below Earth's. It will fuck up your skeleton and your muscles. How about we send YOU to Mars, you piece of shit?

Hey, those sandniggers aren't going to go Allah Ackbar all by themselves, you know.

>>4814481

>life only exists in the human form. Disregard all microscopic and other forms of life.

Why are you so hostile? Does stupidity make you acts this way?

Cmon /sci/ tell me youre better than this

>>4814491
I am referring to the idea of colonizing planets, which is what I assumed some people were talking about. I meant Mars is not able to sustain human life; even in artificial habitats (well, it CAN, but it who would want to live in that shithole in a glass dome forever because their skeleton and muscles got fucked by the low G?).

If we're talking about research in terms of extraterrestrial life forms, Venus is STILL better than Mars, but the best would be Europa or Titan.

>>4813038

This.

Well Mars is 100% more interesting, so I don't blame NASA for using its limited budget to send things there instead. Or other places that aren't well known yet.

We pretty much know everything we want to about Venus already. It's not a very interesting or promising place, and it's a much more difficult/expensive place to explore yet will offer little of interest in terms of discovery for our troubles.

>>4814512

This.