Manned mission to Venus

[scipt]

I know crushing pressures, high temps and corrosive acid rain aren't fun... but it'd be exciting right? I guess a return mission is the hard part. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jammers]

There was a manned orbital mission proposed in 1967, using Apollo level technology. The crew would spend 40 days in a highly eccentric (0.9) orbit carrying out observations, and possibly sending probes to the surface.<br />If you want to read more about it, the report can be found here<br /><br />I'd imagine that in addition to the harsh environment you mentioned, the Venusian gravity (0.9 that of Earth) and dense atmosphere would make lifting off extremely difficult, since the rocket would need to be around the same size of a rocket needed to lift off from Earth, and getting a rocket that size to Venus would be difficult, even if some kind of ISRU were used. <br /><br />It would be nice to see though.

 

[vogon13]

High atmospheric pressure on Venus impairs efficiency of rockets.<br /><br />An unloaded Saturn V (impervious to heat) could not achieve orbit (IMO).<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

A better Venus mission, IMHO, would be a balloon-station high in the atmosphere. THere is a level in Venus' atmosphere that has Earth-normal pressure and is above most of the haze. JPAerospace's Darksky technology could evolve to this type of structure. Interestingly, a few years ago some researchers claimed to find a bio-chemical imbalance at that atmospheric level above Venus, and claimed to identify an Earth bacteria that would cause it. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Manned mission to Venus?Catch life convicts and send them there.They die for a noble cause.iIn Hindu scriptures sinners go to narak.(hell)I understand they were sent to Venus.

 

[scipt]

Very interesting link! It's such a dynamic planet... Mars seems so dry and dusty. I think mercury would be easier than Venus. If the surface pressure is 90 times that of Earth then you need either a submarine type landing craft with a new form of propulsion, or carbon nanotubules (C also unreactive to the atmosphere) to give a reasonable power/weight ratio. Would Mercury be geologicaly interesting? How long would a mission to Mercury take... aiming for a shorter rahter than longer trip. The Sun would look awesome from Mercury. Personally, Neptune is my 'favourite' planet though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nexium]

I believe it takes more delta v to Mercury than to Saturn or Uranus, so we likely will not soon do a manned mission to Mercury. Likely not possible without sling shot manuvers with present rocketry, so two years plus. A return trip also requires lots of delta v.<br />While most of Mercury is very hot in the Sunlight; permanately shaded crator bottoms (near the poles) are at about -133 c and thus could be a colony. The planets would often be below the crator rim due to the 9 degree tilt of the orbit of Mercury, but Venus would usually be brighter than she appears from Earth.<br />Earth and it's moon would often be brighter than Mars appears from Earth. The other planets would look about the same. Neil

 

[spacester]

It is amazing how much dV it takes to meet up with Mercury. I'm thinking the minimum is around ~15 km/s IIRC approx. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> The little orb is just <i>whipping</i> around Sol and the only way around gravity assist with Venus and Earth is to build multiple stages into your interplanetary probe.<br /><br />To get to Mercury in less than 2 years? Maybe one small tough as nails rover at the end of a stack of 5 stages from LEO, with propellant tanks topped off maybe. <br /><br />Hmmm . . . I wonder if there is an Interplanetary Superhighway solution? Need to Google 'Weak Stability Boundry', and um 'low energy trajectory'. Maybe later.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

with such a temperature difference and the closness to the sun power would be less of a problem than this farther out into the solar system.

 

[Aetius]

I think that Venusian orbit would be a great place to dump all the Near Earth Asteroids that we may experiment with moving. Just as rocket technology is no longer the exclusive preserve of wealthy nations, asteroid-moving technology will eventually follow suit.<br /><br />A small asteroid, just big enough to obliterate New York City or London, which might <i>possibly</i> hit <i>somewhere</i> on Earth, could be nudged just enough in the right vector to <i>definitely</i> strike a city.<br /><br />As long as secrecy could be maintained, deniability would be total.<br /><br />The good news is, moving the most dangerous Near Earth Asteroids to highly elliptical Venusian orbits (whenever feasible) might make them more accessible to Earth colonists. Perhaps the ready supply of asteroidal resources would even allow dirigible cloud settlements to be built in the Venusian atmosphere.

 

[Aetius]

Having said that, I'd still rather build a town in the Mercurian polar regions. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[scipt]

If you wanted to come to Eath from Mercury, could you lift off towards the Sun - burn engines to gain some V, then slingshot round the Sun to Earth? I'm a molecular biologist/ genetics huy so i don't know how to work that out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Yes, the first thing we'll need are some solar flyers that can stay at around 65 km and drop down to maybe as low as 45 km or so, small planes that can stay in the air indefinitely due to the day that never ends as long as you stay moving. Venus looks a lot more fun in that way, how the air pressure, continuous sunlight and slightly lower gravity makes for a much easier planet to fly around in. After a few years of that I hope public interest would be raised enough so that the average person would know that the atmosphere up there is actually pretty ideal for human exploration.<br /><br />In the meantime I'm doing my part my writing articles on the atmosphere of Venus in as many Wikipedias as I know the language of. I just finished a draft in Korean and after I get it looked over for small errors I hope to put it on the front page.<br /><br />I don't suppose anybody else feels like joining me? Every Wikipedia has a "did you know" section for new articles that are well written and well sourced. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

No you can't slingshot around the sun to gain orbital energy with respect to the sun. You have to use another object.<br />Similarly if you are in e.g. Jupiter orbit you can't perform a Jupiter slingshot, it won't give you any extra dV. But you can use a slingshot maneuver around one of Jupiter's moons.

 

[pompousd]

I'd like to see NASA get aggressive, approach other nations for financial backing, turn the International Space Station into the equivalent of a shipyard, build a couple large interplanetary vessels and head for some of the moons in our solar system.<br />With our planet heating up, fresh drinking water is getting harder to come by around the globe. Some of the moons may supposedly have more fresh water than our own planet, which is but one resource that can be tapped to meet our needs.

 

[darkenfast]

There is plenty of water on the Earth, it's just that there is not enough in some areas to support growing populations. Improved methods of desalinating salt-water would be FAR easier to implement than shipping bulk cargoes of water to Earth. If we had the technology to ship water from space, we would definitely have the technology to solve water transport and associated ecological problems on Earth without that horrendous expense. It would be like building a nuclear-powered can opener; sure you could, but why?

 

[baktothemoon]

Still, an interplanetary fleet could get us far.

 

[alokmohan]

We may not have inter planetary journey to venus.Lets go to mars.

 

[halman]

scipt,<br /><br />In many respects, Venus and Mercury are the most interesting destinations in the Solar System. Venus is almost identical to Earth is size and density, yet has an environment which is the most inimical to life in the Solar System. What happened differently on Venus? Could what happened to Venus happen to Earth? Unfortunately, high temperatures in a thick atmosphere are one of the hardest life support challenges there is, because there is no way to get rid of heat.<br /><br />Mercury is possibly the most important body in the Solar System, because it is apparently composed almost entirely of heavy metals. This, combined with the abundant solar energy available, make it likely that Mercury will be extensively mined. Now, if we could figure out a way to build a processing station for metal from Mercury where it would interdict sunlight from hitting Venus, we could do some real planetary engineering! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Well you have an optimistic view, I'll say that! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />While Mercury may have the densest metallic materials, the energy cost of both landing there, and getting back to earth are amazingly large.<br />Yeah there is LOTS of solar energy available, and maybe we can exploit that somewhere in the future.<br />Right now, we haven't even been back to the moon in 34 years.<br /><br />Doing anything useful on Mercury is a century away at least, IMO.<br />I know I'm a pain, but dreams should not be confused with reasonable (which is the only one we'll pay for) reality.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[halman]

MeteorWayne,<br /><br />In the face of huge popular support for manned missions to Mars, I tend to focus on the most financially rewarding possibilities, simply because financial reward has (usually) been a greater incentive than moral, romantic, or intellectual reward. I also believe that if we can get back to the Moon, to stay, that the whole Solar System will be opened up shortly after, simply because developing the Moon will require creating a cheap, reliable launch and re-entry system. The greatest obstacle in our way is our atmosphere, which prevents us from getting to and from space with ease and economy. Once we are in space, with some kind of industrial capacity, the possibilities increase tremendously.<br /><br />Large changes in delta v will not be intimidating once we have developed nuclear powered ion or plasma drives, and solar sails would be highly effective in lifting mass up in the Sun's gravity well with Mercury as a starting point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yeah, but Mercury just isn't that easy to get to or from.<br /> As I say, I don't think a century is too high an estimate for when humanity will decide to spend that money.<br />Mars, on the other hand, is cheaper, in my estimate, and most of the casual taxpayers would be more likely to be induced to ante up for it. It may not be for logical reasons.<br />As you say, the financial benefit is there for private enterprise to give it a try, but where will they get the several hundred billions in capital to invest?<br />I hope you're right, but I ain't holdin' my breath (which would be required on mercury <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> )<br /><br />It's certainly worth talking about!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"t is amazing how much dV it takes to meet up with Mercury. I'm thinking the minimum is around ~15 km/s IIRC approx. The little orb is just whipping around Sol and the only way around gravity assist with Venus and Earth is to build multiple stages into your interplanetary probe."<br /><br />The delta vee is high, but so is the solar flux which is very promising for solar-electric rockets, solar-sails and hybrid systems. With the very high ISP from electric propulsion, from the 3,000 ISP of the Deep Space 1 engine to the 20,000 ISP of recent 4-grid ion-rocket experiments, getting to Mercury may actually be easier.

 

[mithridates]

IMO Venus along with the Moon and Mars are the three destinations we should focus on. The Moon because it's so close, Mars because of all the attention it's receiving as of late and because it's not too bad as far as planets go, and Venus because a colony can be built in the upper atmosphere as well as the fact that it's the closest body to Earth besides the Moon. Besides that I don't see much benefit in other locations. If I were to put all my money on one location I would still go to the Moon first even though I prefer Venus because as the other poster said once you take one step (a permanent step, that is) the rest becomes that much easier. I think we need a permanent presence somewhere outside of LEO (doesn't matter where) so that people can begin to get used to the idea that we're going to be in space and that other countries had better start catching up if they want to participate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[halman]

MeteorWayne,<br /><br />Your estimate of a century is probably pretty close, for just about everything beyond a permanent base on the Moon, in my opinion. Somehow, I just can't believe that we will make any significant progress on Mars until we have better propulsion systems, and it wouldn't surprise me if perfecting a life support system up to several-year long missions turns out to be the biggest challenge. <br /><br />The way that I see things, developing the Moon is going to generate so much wealth that we will be able to pursue multiple goals without too much trouble. And people constantly ignore the rising costs of resource extraction here on Earth when figuring how long it will take for off-planet investments to pay off. For instance, there are several companies (not U. S. based) which are mining gold in the American West. The method being used involves removing several tons of material for every ounce of gold recovered, and requires bathing the ore in cyanide to leach the gold out. Of course, the cyanide cannot be reused, so it is dumped into convienant streams to runoff where it will. Some mines in South Africa are over a mile down, which means temperatures of 120 Farenheit everywhere you touch. Just about anywhere on Earth you go, someone is already there, and won't move on unless you pay them a good lump sum. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>