Russian Venus lander

[slidelock]

Can somebody help me with this? I seem to remember an early russian lander on Venus. IIRC, they put the electronics in the fuel tank to protect them from the heat. Am I off base?<br />

 

[vogon13]

Yeah.<br /><br /><br />Retros not needed near surface, atmosphere is so thick, the probes don't even need parachutes.<br /><br />btw, if a retro rocket had a chamber pressure less than the atmospheric pressure would it even work?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />{think about it}<br /><br /><br /><br />The Soviet era Venus probes while attached to their carrier craft did use a cooling mechanism to chill the probes prior to contact the Venusian atmosphere. IIRC, most of their probes were basically 1 meter insulated spheres to withstand the pressure and the heat. Phase change salts were used to increase heating capacity.<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>

 

[JonClarke]

The USSR sent a whole series of highly successful missions to Venus in the late 60's to late 80's. Landers were included on the Venera 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, & 15 missions, and on VeGa 1 & 2. There were two different lander designs and Vega 1 & 2 also released balloons, both of which were successful (contraty to some web sites!).<br /><br />The later landers precooled a pressurised instrument compartment and used a fluid boil off to keep this cool, resulting in some landers lasting a couple of hours. An extraordinary technical achievement that has provided us with much of what we know about the surface of Venus.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Another good website: The Soviet Exploration of Venus <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Indeed! Maybe some sort of refrigerated rover, rather like a submersible on wheels. Or an airship in a more hospitable part of the atmosphere which lowers or drops instruments to the surface. But people on the ground? It's hard to imagine.<br /><br />But certainly the Soviet exploration was an amzing program. Atmosphere probes, landers, balloons, orbiters, flybys, radar mappers, there was an extrodinary diversity of technology employed. They deserve to be better known.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[ace5]

"...Landers were included on the Venera 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, & 15 missions, and on VeGa 1 & 2. There were two different lander designs and Vega 1 & 2 also released balloons, both of which were successful (contraty to some web sites!)."<br /><br />Venera 3 to 7 also carried another lighter, type of landers; As well as Zond 1 Venus flyby mission.<br />Venera 15, as well 16 were only radar-mapping orbiters.<br />It was Venera 14 the last Venera-named lander, Jon.<br /><br />

 

[brandbll]

I love seeing these kinds of lander pictures. They are truly awesome! I have a question though. Why weren't any of the pictures aimed towards the horizon? Was it just the way teh craft landed, like on an angle? I can see the point of looking down at teh rocks but some horizon photos would have been very interesting. <br /><br />Also, if they were going to do it again, don't you thinkk they would be smart to some how use all that heat to some how power the lander? Or are we really far away from being able to do something like that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[brandbll]

I love seeing these kinds of lander pictures. They are truly awesome! I have a question though. Why weren't any of the pictures aimed towards the horizon? Was it just the way teh craft landed, like on an angle? I can see the point of looking down at teh rocks but some horizon photos would have been very interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Thank you! I was working for memory. 15 & 16 were indeed radar missions, including them was a slip. I left the early landers off as they were primarily descent probes, with landing an optional extra.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Why weren't any of the pictures aimed towards the horizon? Was it just the way the craft landed, like on an angle? I can see the point of looking down at teh rocks but some horizon photos would have been very interesting.</i><br /><br />You have to envisiage how the system worked. The instruments were housed in a and cooled spherical pressure vessel. the optics protruded from the lower side of this at an angle of 45 degrees on a cyclindrical mounting. The cyclinder rotated, taking a succession of images that could be jointed together into a semicircular pan that went from the horizon on one side to the landing ring and deployed instruments in the foreground, the up again to the horizon. See the sticked image below. The bright sky is visible at both ends of the pan. A very clever system that could capture everything essential in a single pan and with only one axis of movement. Remember the appalling temperatures and pressures, and the very limited time available meant that the system had to be as simple as possible and collect data as quickly as possible.<br /><br /><i>Also, if they were going to do it again, don't you thinkk they would be smart to some how use all that heat to some how power the lander? Or are we really far away from being able to do something like that?</i><br /><br />That is a fascinating idea! Could it work? I don't know. The big problem is that heat engines require a temperature differential to work, and I can't see how we are going to get it on the surface of Venus.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

To power the lander from the heat of Venus you'd need to take a cold sink with you in order to do work, a very tricky prospect.<br /><br />There was an interesting pop sci BBC series called Space Odyssey where the prospect of a manned Venus landed was explored, as well as landings on variouse other bodies.

 

[baktothemoon]

Sometimes I think that Venus is one of those "forgotten" planets. You know what I mean, the planets we hear and know most about are Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. We have five other planets to study. It seems like we were placed a huge plate of food in front of us that is the solar system, we took a few bites of almost everything, but then we started eating lots of a few selective foods and pretty much ignored everything else. We have had armies of space craft visit Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn but hardly anyone is aware of us visiting Venus and Mercury, and we just breezed by Uranus and Neptune, we won't even see pluto until 2015. I hope that we see more of the forgotten planets in years to come and they see more than just a blurb on page 14 of the newspaper. Is there a Venus or Mercury lander, Uranus or Nepture orbiter even on the drawing board? I wonder if it would be easier if there was a seperate space agency whose sole purpose was robotic planetary exploration. I wonder if it would be better having a different agency with it's own budget rather than having to compete with manned space flight for dollars, and then manned space flight could focus all of it's energy on one thing without having to cut robotic exploration.

 

[brandbll]

I would kill someone to have a Neptune orbiter. It is undoubtedly my favorite planet besides our own. And i totally agree with you. We should be pumping these orbiters and landers instead of Hummer H2s. <br /><br />On a seperate thought, how "theoretically" easy would it be to put a lander on Mercury? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[mikejz]

The issue would not be the landing---it would be getter to Mercury in terms of the energy needed.<br /><br />Personally, I really wish for more Venus Balloon missions. The conditions are apparently quite terrible. ESP since that would enable very high data rates from launders so we could get more data during there short life.

 

[bobw]

Thanks again Jon for the link to the Venus mission website.<br /><br />It took a long time but I did read it all and learned a lot too.<br />I saved the pages to another hard drive and will burn a CD<br />so I don't lose them. It was a great read; a dramatic story <br />behind each probe and I especially liked the details about the<br />cameras and other instruments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[brandbll]

So did they lose radio contact soley because of cloud cover and what not? Or did the orbiter get out of range?<br /><br />Also, do you think it is theoretically possible with our current technology to put a lander on Neptune? <br /><br />Also, besides Mars, what would the easiest planet be to put a lander on and function for the longest period of time? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

brandbll:<br />do you think it is theoretically possible with our current technology to put a lander on Neptune?<br /><br />Me:<br />I doubt it at this time simply because we still have to develop the technology to be able to determine with a high degree of reliability whether Neptune or any gas giant planet has a solid surface to be mapped and then landed on. And this would have to be accomplished on unmanned orbiter probes that could carry landers from the start but considering our step by step approach, mapping probes would go out before landing missions.<br /><br />brandbll:<br />besides Mars, what would the easiest planet be to put a lander on and function for the longest period of time?<br /><br />Me:<br />IMO, most any asteroid or rocky moons. Next up would be Io, icy moons, , Venus, Titan. This particular order however, is subject to change particularly lander endurance where Venus and Titan are concerned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[brandbll]

What about Mercury. If you don't consider the length of getting it there, wouldn't it function fairly well due to no atmosphere, or is it too hot on that planet still? Doesn't that planet cool down a lot when it isn't facing the sun? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[bobw]

I hate to spoil it for you about the Venus probes. If you follow Jon's link it links to about fifteen pages, long ones, which tell a really compelling story. It is almost like a small book. I don't think clouds interfered with the radios.<br /><br />I suppose if someone threw enough money at the problem humans could build something for Neptune. For starters basically a solid sphere of titanium with nooks and crannies for a reactor, sensors, and a radio would probably survive the trip. It might shatter if it hits an ice or liquid layer too fast and too cold. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Phase change salts were used to increase heating capacity. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Do you mean "cooling capacity"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Only Mars has what I would call an "army". Since Voyager 2 imaged Neptune, only one probe has gone to Jupiter, Saturn, and (now) Pluto.<br /><br />As for Mercury, it does not have a lander, but look up "Messenger". Unlike Mariner 10, Messenger, as I understand it, will go into orbit around Mercury. (It probably has a major heat shield to let it get that close to the Sun.) The reason that Mariner 10 only photographed about 1/3 of the surface was orbital mechanics. Each flyby it made just happened to be over the same area.<br /><br />As for Venus, the ESA is sending Venus Express. It has a version of the camera system on Mars Express that can image the clouds in something other than visible wavelengths. (Restricting it to what we see would be dumb given the lack of features.) Again, no lander, but would you rather twiddle your thumbs and complain? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Yes, considerably. However, I think most talk of the first lander will be for the poles. There may be water ice there.<br /><br />I should also note that in at least one sci fi novel (<i>Green Mars</i> by Kim Stanley Robinson), a colony on Mercury survives by riding rails around the equator. As the rails heat up, they expanded -- pushing the colony further into the dark side. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

As I recall, early Soviet lander missions to Venus read like either a plot for a Sci-Fi parody or a Sci-Fi sitcom. With the first lander, they believed the "paradise" myth. So they made the lander capable landing in oceans. The "water" would dissolve some sugar that held the antenna in place which would float connected by a cable. I will leave it to your fertile imagination as to what happened for real.<br /><br />They were only able to get a working lander after they built a chamber to reproduce the temperatures and pressures of Venus. They put the first probe they wanted to test (by then improvements had been made from the "paradise" probe), activated the chamber, opened it up, and watched heads roll. There was nothing in the chamber after the test. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

A Mercury lander IMO is definetely doable with present day tech. Its hot enough on Mercury to require a lander to have some thermal protection such as a sun shading system. And as far as cool down at sundown. I do not recollect the night time temps but I would say since it has no atmosphere, night time would be around -250. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

bobw:<br />I suppose if someone threw enough money at the problem humans could build something for Neptune. For starters basically a solid sphere of titanium with nooks and crannies for a reactor...<br /><br />Me:<br />That would be a pretty good solution and the chances of landing would be enhanced with a landing gear system that would keep it stable once it landed.<br /><br />And yes, it would take considerable funding. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>