/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4009318]

Why the fuck does NASA hate Venus? It comes closer to the earth than any other large body except the moon. They havent sent a mission there since 1989 and so far they've been beefing all their other missions to mars, jupiter, pluto and mercury. Their new mars rover curiosity is as big a a camry and mercury is pretty much a useless knock-off of our own moon. Mars and pluto I can understand but we pretty much know mercury inside and out at this point. Venus, meanwhile remains mostly unstudied dispite it's proximity. It's atmosphere could provide and excellent model for study of our own planet's climate change and it's basaltic surface could also tell us more about our own. And in addition to that, venus's uper atmosphere is essentially the most earthlike enviornment in the solar system; the barometric pressure and temperature at 50km up are pretty much room temperature by our standards, so this would be the ideal place to hunt for microbial life. I find it pretty retarded that the soviets were the only ones to send landers to the surface and color images along with them. So does anyone else think that nasa needs to get off their asses and start considering future Venus missions?

[Anonymous No.4009322]

because it rhymes with penis

[Anonymous No.4009326]

because anything we try to land on it basically melts by the time it reaches the surface, while we can send rovers to mars and keep them running for a couple hundred days. I would say it's a manner of "useful knowledge gained vs. money spent"

[Anonymous No.4009332]

>>4009322

[Anonymous No.4009331]

>send something to another planet for millions upon millions of dollars to study earth's own climate

ironclad logic

[Anonymous No.4009349]

I wanna know the answer to this as well. Mars is fucking boring, and anyone who still believes life ever existed there is retarded.

LET'S EXPLORE VENUS

[Anonymous No.4009361]

NASA is planning a lander mission. Then again, NASA plans a lot of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_In-Situ_Explorer

[Anonymous No.4009362]

>>4009326

That was back when government supercomputers were less powerful than sound-playing birthday cards today. We have advances in material and computing power that could easily do the job.

[Anonymous No.4009401]

>>4009318

>russians were the only ones to send landers and color images back from the surface
>implying there is anything on the surface to photograph
>pic related

[Anonymous No.4009407]

>>4009401
>yfw you can just tell from that photo and the chemicals that are found present on venus that somewhere on venus there is some form of microbial life.

[Anonymous No.4009419]

>>4009362
i think melting landing craft has more to do with the materials it is made of

not how much computing power it has

[Anonymous No.4009425]

>>4009326
>>4009362
The problem isn't the landers themselves melting, its the circuitry getting overheated.

Surface temperature on Venus is like 750 K. Even the Russian landers, stuffed with insulation and heat sinks couldn't keep the circuits from overheating for more than a couple minutes.

[Anonymous No.4009432]

Not really. Microbial life will never exist in an atmosphere composed of 97% CO2 and the surface temperature is roughly 800 degrees.

Little would be gained by sending anything there. Our technology would burn quickly, so that we can find a desolate, geologically dissimilar landscape?

No, Mars could actually be habitable by humans.

[Anonymous No.4009438]

>>4009432
But you could put the cool pictures in a NatGeo magazine

[Anonymous No.4009448]

>>4009432
Atmospheric balloons suspended 50 km up in the dense Venusian atmosphere would be perfectly habitable.

[Anonymous No.4009450]

bump

[Anonymous No.4009454]

>>4009318
Well if we really want to study climate change, why don't we just launch the Deep Space Climate Observatory. It's been sitting around in a box for something like 10 years now:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-03/lost-satellite?page=2

Some other country even offered to launch it into space for us for free.

[Anonymous No.4009464]

>>4009448
>Life inside a balloon suspended over a vat of molten lead

SOUNDS FUCKING GREAT SIGN ME UP!

[Anonymous No.4009478]

>>4009464
>Living on a gigantic airship floating high above another planet, where the clouds reflect so much light you can put your solar panels on the underside

Sounds pretty damn neat.

[Anonymous No.4009493]

>>4009478
How about using the interior of your airship's envelope as one big solar-thermal reflector, to concentrate sunlight on a collector? It'd be lighter AND more efficient than PV cells.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4009494]

This might be tangent.

How easy is it to convert CO2 into oxygen and carbon? I read that venus is mostly CO2. I dont suspect its plausible to terraform venus, but if we wanted to, how hard would it be to convert a large portion of the Venusian atmosphere into oxygen? At that point, how habitable would the surface be?

[Anonymous No.4009508]

>>4009494
Sabatier reaction + water-gas shift reaction + electrolysis, + pyrolysis if you want to recycle your hydrogen to repeat the process again instead of manufacturing methane.

Done.

[Anonymous No.4009507]

>>4009493
Making it a heliostat? That's a very good idea.

[Anonymous No.4009510]

>>4009494
>>4009494
...Photosynthesis? Make that CO2 into glucose water and oxygen

[Anonymous No.4009515]

>>4009507
Why thank you.

You can also use it to heat your lift gas for buoyancy control as well.

[Anonymous No.4009534]

I am an ignorant in this matter, does the scientific community agrees on a (even if remote) chance of existing life on Venus?

Cause fuck, man, if life has hit our solar system TWICE than I'd guess it's not that fucking special and that tons of 'evolved' species exist "nearby"

[Anonymous No.4009557]

>>4009534
Nothing is there now, there is no reason to think it was, and there is no way with current technology to gather evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.4009609]

>>4009604
pic didn't upload

[Anonymous No.4009611]

>>4009557
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Atmosphere_and_climate
>Studies have suggested that several billion years ago the Venusian atmosphere was much more like Earth's than it is now, and that there were probably substantial quantities of liquid water on the surface, but a runaway greenhouse effect was caused by the evaporation of that original water, which generated a critical level of greenhouse gases in its atmosphere.
So, why would the ONE planet in the whole system aside from Earth that ever had a truly Earth-like atmosphere be an unlikely candidate for life? Why would a puny rust-bucket like Mars be a more likely place for life to have existed?

Face it, NASA just irrationally hates Venus and that's all there is to it.

[Lunatic !!h/HxpkvWDAR No.4009604]

>>4009362
Venusian surface landers, Venera 9 and 10 were launched around 1975. At that time government supercomputers were capable of doing rudimentary Computational Fluid Dynamics. Birthday cards are incapable of doing CFD.

So, while we there have been advances in computations power, we can't really apply them on Venus surface landers, at least not for long. Venus is WAY too hot for semiconductors to work. So all computers that work at Venus temperatures must be mechanical. Pic related it's a NEMS relay.

It would be pretty cool to make a NEMS based surface lander, but it'd be far cooler to do something like >>4009361 suggested. As the Mars rovers demonstrated mobility gets you a lot of science.

Plus we haven't really searched the Venusian upper atmosphere for life yet.

[Anonymous No.4009632]

>>4009604
Refrigeration is an existing technology, you know.

Pic related: Proposed stirling-cooled Venus rover with 200-degree-C internal temperature and 500-degree radiator.

[Anonymous No.4009651]

>>4009611
Seems like NASA has sent a fair amount of probes to Venus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observations_and_explorations_of_Venus#
And not to mention Venus is hotter than an autoclave and we've not detected any weird potential biosigns like we've detected on Mars

[Lunatic !!h/HxpkvWDAR No.4009657]

>>4009632
True enough. Though NASA's a little low on the Plutonium necessary to power that thing.

NASA had to use solar panels on a recent Jupiter probe, because they running out of plutonium.

[Anonymous No.4009673]

>>4009632
I think the problem has just as much to do with the sulfuric acid in the atmosphere and the atmospheric pressure (almost 100 times Earth's).

You're right, if it were just heat, that'd be pretty trivial.

[Anonymous No.4009683]

>>4009651
>weird potential biosigns like we've detected on Mars
Name one. And "Derp, bubbles in these rocks are round just like bacteria are!" doesn't fucking count.

[Anonymous No.4009694]

>>4009657
Well, proper insulation should significantly reduce power demands... depending on the design lifetime, the powerplant could potentially be rather modest.

And hell, a boiloff-cooled lander could survive for hours or even days with nothing but a tank of water for cooling, if you wanted to build something a little less challenging.

[Lunatic !!h/HxpkvWDAR No.4009698]

>>4009673
It's only like 9.2 MPa. Oxygen tanks are pressurized to higher than that. Some sulfuric acid chemical reaction tank are probably at higher temperature than that.

That being said, a nuclear powered "Hell Rover" would be pretty fucking cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oet63vzBvkg

[Anonymous No.4009702]

>Why the fuck does NASA hate Venus?

More like Venus hates everything.

>We have advances in material and computing power that could easily do the job.

Do we? Perhaps you could point them out because I'm pretty sure we don't. Venus is a very unpleasant place.

[Lunatic !!h/HxpkvWDAR No.4009713]

>>4009683
Methane.
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-methane-mystery.html

Some possibilities for Methane include some sort of lifeform or sort sort of underground geologic process that involves liquid water and heat. Even a geologic source of methane would be pretty weird

[Lunatic !!h/HxpkvWDAR No.4009730]

>>4009694
The problem is, NASA could very well produce plutonium if they had the money to start producing it. It's not a limitation of technology, it's a limitation of policy. And if we want to explore the outer solar system, we're going to need plutonium(or a nuclear reactor that can work in space). We really need to start producing more plutonium 238.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4009741]

Does the venusian atmosphere create any complications in communicating with anything on the surface? Such as a lander craft?

[Anonymous No.4009750]

>>4009730
The problem with using nuclear reactors in space is one of mass, cost, and politics, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.4009759]

>>4009741
I don't think so. Radar can penetrate it, and I can't find anything about communications difficulties, aside from a bit about hardware failure on one of the Soviet landers.

[Lunatic !!h/HxpkvWDAR No.4009764]

Actually, why even use plutonium? The russians designed a Venus Rover(pic related) that was WIND POWERED. On venus, you've got a really dense atmosphere, so much so that it's about as dense as water.

[Lunatic !!h/HxpkvWDAR No.4009798]

>>4009750
More politics and the fact that we don't really have many nuclear reactor designs that work in space.

And there've been a couple incidents with Russian nuclear powered satellites....

[Anonymous No.4009824]

>>4009698
It's true that the pressure itself isn't insurmountable, but I think the problem is getting your tech, like your cameras and computers, to function in it.

[Lunatic !!h/HxpkvWDAR No.4009916]

>>4009824
So you cool them. Using a nuclear powered stirling cooler.

[Anonymous No.4009991]

>>4009764
Brilliant. I'm ashamed I didn't think of it.

What sort of wind dynamic pressures are there on the surface of Venus? Might not need that large of a turbine at all, come to think of it.

[Anonymous No.4009999]

Gee, lemme think: 90 atmospheres of pressure, and 900F degrees of temperature. Gee, why WOULDN'T anyone want to go there?

Fact facts: Venus is totally useless to Humanity unless it's cooled.

Let me check the plans for cooling Venus, with NASA:

.

.

.

.

OH GEE, THERE ARE NO SUCH PLANS.

[Anonymous No.4010004]

>>4009999
>Venus is totally useless to Humanity unless it's cooled.
ANY other planet is totally useless to humanity if you're not willing to accept and deal with the challenges inherent to exploration and/or colonization.

[Anonymous No.4010010]

>>4010004
> ANY other planet is totally useless to humanity if you're not willing to accept and deal with the challenges inherent to exploration and/or colonization.

Oh, I agree, but our governments are doing their own thing, and that largely involves a lot of posturing, leaving the real government efforts devoted towards preparing for the Resource Wars.

[Doctor Robert No.4010025]

The problem with studying Venus is that anything you put there dissolves within a few hours.

[Anonymous No.4010297]

I love this thread,

[Anonymous No.4010313]

>>4009494
I think you would need loooots of water.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.4010314]

So, now that we've determined Venus is nearly ideal except for that pressure and heat, why not discuss how to reduce those to habitable standards?

[Anonymous No.4010317]

>>4010314
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.4010319]

>>4010317

[Anonymous No.4010323]

Venus has no magnetic field.
How do you solve that?

[Anonymous No.4010324]

Maybe because Venus looks most like hell, than a planet. Giving the name of the goddess of beauty to Venus, and the name of the god of war to mars... What the fuck is wrong with human.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.4010326]

>>4010323
Artificial planetary magnetic field. You're receiving more than twice the solar radiation on Earth, power is in no short supply.

[Anonymous No.4010329]

>>4010324
Venus is very beautiful to look at from earth but it's a bitch when you get too close.

[Anonymous No.4010338]

>>4010323
>Bring massive amount of iron to the core of the planet
>wait
>enjoy your magnetic field

[Anonymous No.4011638]

>>4010324

The ancients could only see the planets as bright stars, not up close. If the Romans knew what Venus was really like, they definately never would have named it that.

[Anonymous No.4011653]

because it is full of women dip shit.
imagine a planet full of nagging... no thanks!

[Anonymous No.4011661]

because that is where Russia sends its probes.

[Anonymous No.4011906]

dem russians
450°C, 90 bar
survived 2 hours
did photos

[Anonymous No.4012359]

>>4009401
>>4011906

>mfw it looks exactly like mars and titan

[Rage Emitting Diode !RaGERRuxPQ No.4012466]

Venus? Fuck venus.

Europa is most important place to go next.

[Anonymous No.4013153]

>>4009322

WHY THE FUCK DID I NEVER NOTICE THIS BEFORE???

[Anonymous No.4013444]

>>4010010
Venus is NOT useless for colonization!
With how fucking DENSE the atmosphere is, we could just drop in bubble colonies and be perfectly fine floating about somewhere about halfway down!!

[Anonymous No.4013498]

>>4013153
Because you're a shitty poet.

[yeep !HCCDB7tu.A No.4013523]

>>4010317
bombing the shit out of if with hydrogen
I'm ok with this.jpeg
>>4010338
No convection currents. Wouldn't work

[Anonymous No.4013563]

>>4013444
> With how fucking DENSE the atmosphere is, we could just drop in bubble colonies and be perfectly fine floating about somewhere about halfway down!!

False.

Halfway down in such an atmosphere, without an energy source? And what happens when catastrophic failure happens with the buoyancy? It's not like you actually canceled out gravity.

Just join a church or something. You don't have the mind for real physics. Churches are good places to park people like you who can't THINK.

[Anonymous No.4013741]

>>4013563
OH wow I'm actually excited to answer your problematic statements.

>Halfway down in such an atmosphere, without an energy source?
Wind power. The Atmosphere of Venus is actually moving at super-rotational speeds, and with that thickness it's bloody easy to get power.
>And what happens when catastrophic failure happens with the buoyancy?
What catastrophic failures? The whole point is that the atmosphere is so dense that a regular Zeppelin could quadruple it's load with no extra stress. (I did not use math, that's a guess)

>Just join a church or something. You don't have the mind for real physics.
Amusingly enough I HAVE joined a church, several in fact. I'm trying to find one where the pastor doesn't just preach, but actually logically extrapolates on the meanings of each passage according to it's context.

[Anonymous No.4013770]

>>4013741
> Wind power.

When we'd be doing that NOW in Earth's atmosphere. Notice how nobody's actually LIVING IN AIR HABITATS. Why then go to Venus to do that? Because you falsely believe that there will be magical free energy available to get there?

> What catastrophic failures?

Thank you for proving that you don't understand engineering at all. GO BACK TO COLLEGE.

> Amusingly enough I HAVE joined a church, several in fact.

We're not surprised, since science and logic and reason aren't your strong points. Stay in church; it suits you to remain in the company of IGNORANT PEOPLE WHO CAN'T FUCKING REASON.

[Anonymous No.4013801]

>>4013770
>We're
You're not speaking for anyone else, buddy.

[Anonymous No.4013807]

>>4013801
He's speaking for me, bro.

[Anonymous No.4013813]

>>4013563
>>4013741
>>4013770

excerpt from wikipedia

"...breathable air (21:79 Oxygen-Nitrogen mixture) is a lifting gas in the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere, with over 60% of the lifting power that helium has on Earth.[2] In effect, a balloon full of human-breathable air would sustain itself and extra weight (such as a colony) in midair. At an altitude of 50 km above Venusian surface, the environment is the most Earth-like in the solar system – a pressure of approximately 1 bar and temperatures in the 0°C–50°C range.[3] Because there is not a significant pressure difference between the inside and the outside of the breathable-air balloon, any rips or tears would cause gases to diffuse at normal atmospheric mixing rates, giving time to repair any such damages. In addition, humans would not require pressurized suits when outside, merely air to breathe, a protection from the acidic rain; and on some occasions low level protection against heat. Alternatively, two-part domes could contain a lifting gas like hydrogen or helium (extractable from the atmosphere) to allow a higher mass density.[4]"

Sounds pretty fucking doable to me. Given a large enough volume, it would be about as safe as a habitat floating on earth's oceans. In case of damage it would sink very slowly so there would be plenty of time to deal with it.

[Anonymous No.4013852]

>>4013813
Furthermore, if that's not buoyant enough (contrary to popular belief, the gigantic Zeppelins of old had terrible lifting capacity), you could use a hydrogen chamber (with around 50% MORE lifting capacity than on Earth) as well to do the heavy lifting.

[Anonymous No.4013899]

Hey guys let's build a space elevator on Venus!!