Venus surface missions

[mithridates]

Just out of curiosity, have there been any proposed missions to the Venusian surface that would land on the top of a high mountain? The highest mountain there is about 10+ km above the surface, and the temperature there is about 80C cooler than the surface, with a pressure of "only" about 50 bars compared to the 92 or so on the surface. Aside from the difficulty of landing on a mountain, shouldn't this prove to be an easier mission than just a surface lander? Even an altitude of 5 km has a significant difference in pressure (25 bars less) and a slightly lower temperature, and it shouldn't be difficult to find a plateau-like area at that altitude or higher that could be landed on without too much difficulty. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

With all the unknowns in atmospheric pressure and winds, I suspect that landing on a mountain plateau is much more difficult than you think.<br />Look at the size of the landing ellipses for the Mars missions that have landed. And we have had orbiting missions measuring these things for decades.<br /><br />Especially for early attempts, landing on another surface aims for very safe, flat, boulder free locations, so the lander is not destroyed and the investment in time, money, and science is not wasted.<br /><br />After a few successes, we can get a little rskier, but a mountaintop landing isn't likely for a long time, IMO <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]

mithridates,<br /><br />With a surface temperature at the equator of about 800 degrees Farenheit, even a drop of 200 degrees is still going to leave us out in the crispy critter zone. And this is not like the Moon, where exposed surfaces can reach 400 degrees, but anything in shadow will fall to minus 200. With an atmosphere conducting the heat to everywhere, there is no way to get rid of the excess heat. (Excess being any heat inside which raises the temp. above nominal. Not only do we have to get rid of heat generated by bodies, equipment, and such, but the heat that conducts through the shell of the ship.)<br /><br />Venus presents an attractive site for planetary engineering, as we can hardly make it worse, and learning how to cool the planet down will teach us a great deal about environmental systems. Of course, we will have to do said engineering from space, at least until the latest stages of the process.<br /><br />Far better to devote our energies to a survey of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Such a mission offers an oppurtunity to experiment with closed system life support technologies on long duration missions, and information vital to understanding how the Solar System was formed. The asteroid belt is likely to be rich with metals, some of them of the lightest kinds known. We may also find water ice, which will be vastly important for our efforts all over the Solar System, and possibly even hydrocarbons, which could have great importance as the Earthly sources of these wonderful compounds become to difficult to recover. Along with Mercury, the asteroid belt is one of the premier areas for exploitation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[yevaud]

Absolutely agreed. Not only will solving the problems inherent in travelling the distance to the Belt and back be important to us, the resources of Minerals and volatiles present in the Belt be crucial to our expanding out into the Solar System. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Hi. Well, I'm not arguing for the validity of a surface mission of this type in this thread, just wondering if it has been proposed before and if not, what the reasons why were. For example, one or more early probes cut out about 18 km above the surface due to the pressure and possibly heat, but afterwards a few were able to land and transmit for almost an hour. Had one of them landed on top of a high mountain would it have stayed alive for much longer? This is the sort of thing I'm wondering about. I think the first response probably has the reason why: because it's so hard to try to land in exactly the place you want to. On the other hand, missions up to now have been landing on Mars and that has pretty much no air pressure which makes it really hard to steer compared to other locations.<br /><br />Personally the unmanned missions I want to see on Venus are solar flyers about 50 - 60 km above the surface because they can go on forever and would be quite cheap to make. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[thalion]

To my knowledge, there have been no planned missions to Venus's high terrain. I still think it's a good idea, though; Lakshmi Planum is very high, and fairly flat. Then again, I'm someone who'd like our knowledge of Venus to approach that of Mars, something which is a ways off, unfortunately.

 

[rybanis]

The Belt?<br /><br />Y, it sounds like you've been reading Larry Niven <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kane007]

How about a laser diode heat sink? Could also be used for communications.

 

[halman]

Kane007,<br /><br />Well, now there's a thought! We could zap straight up every few milliseconds with a 5 kilowatt laser, and get rid of some energy. Which is what heat represents, energy. When there is a surplus, it is hard to dump it in an energy intensive environment.<br /><br />However, I think the idea of a high altitude winged probe, which cruises near the top of the atmosphere might be more informative. But one has to wonder, just how much is there to learn about Venus, beyond the topography and the composition and interactions of the atmospehere? Any kind of a probe to anywhere represents a large chunk of money, by the time the thing is delivered to where it needs to go. Venus is a planet that we can put on the back burner for a while, so to speak, as we learn more about the places that are more immediately accessable, and more conducive to life as we know it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

Rybanis,<br /><br />I have read some of Niven's works, but I have considered the asteroid belt to be an ideal source of materials since long before I heard of him. Objects in the asteroid belt can be moved fairly easy, compared to getting anything off of a body, even one as small as the Moon. We will need resources for zero-gravity processing fairly early in the development of the Solar System, and we are likely to find just about everything that we need in the asteroid belt. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

Or just use a thermotunnel or thermoelectric cooler and a giant mofo radiator? I know they're not that efficient, but on venus you're going to want something that's not going to break.

 

[mithridates]

Venus has been on the back burner for a long time though. Considering it's the easiest area to get to besides the moon, only one mission in the 12 years since Magellan couldn't be described as anything but.<br /><br />There atmosphere at that height is actually the part of Venus that we know the least about - nobody's exactly sure why there's such a disparity between the sluggish winds at the surface and the superrotation in the cloudtops, because simple thermal conduction could never create such conditions on Earth. We have readings from the surface as well as readings from orbit, but the only mission to study the cloudtops was a Russian one that only lasted two days, if I remember correctly.<br /><br />Given that all we need is a small one metre flyer to accomplish the task and that given the slow rotation there would be 24 hours of sunlight to power the craft, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't get sent. It would be the first flying craft outside of Earth too, as Mars has too thin an atmosphere, too little sunlight and 12 hours of darkness each day as well to make it feasible. The proposed Venus solar flyer would be able to stay at an altitude of 60 km indefinitely, with occasional dips down to about 45 km for a few hours at a time to check things out. Given how light it would be I don't see it costing any more than one of the rovers we have on Mars now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[kane007]

halman<br /><br />Yes, a 5 kilowatt SOLID STATE laser - no need to lug propellant for it, just needs electricity. <br /><br />A Ytterbium doped glass laser operates at 1.03 um - somewhat lower than chemicle lasers and therefore prone to less atmospheric interference, read telecomunications - is optumised for optical refrigeration. <br /><br />Good LINK at Wikipedia ofcoarse.

 

[3488]

Land several craft with cameras & seismometers on Venus. <br /><br />These will answer the perrenial question, Is Venus Active Today??<br /><br />The cameras will provide panoramic images for site characterization, seismometers to measure Venusquakes.<br /><br />A microphone would be interesting too, to listen out for potential thunderclaps.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Even at that distance you are not safe.

 

[mithridates]

Nice, and on my birthday too!<br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060911_venus_images.html<br /><br />"Old Soviet Images of Venus Yield Fresh Surprises <br /><br />Beefed up imagery taken from the hellish surface of Venus nearly 25 years ago is offering new glimpses of that strange landscape.<br /><br />Don Mitchell of Redmond, Washington is a retired researcher from Bell Labs and Microsoft Research. He has matched his computer science and image processing skills with a passion to study old Soviet spacecraft data. <br /><br />One result of this high-tech harmony of interests has been a relook at imagery relayed via twin Venera-13 and 14 probes that landed on Venus in 1982. <br /><br />Mitchell obtained the original data from the two landers with the help of the designer of the Venera cameras, Yuri Gektin. "<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Here are the two images:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060911_venera13_sfc_02.jpg<br /><br />http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060911_venera14_sfc_02.jpg <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Great images. It certainly looks nothing like Mars. <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>

 

[mikejz]

I forget the link but JPL did a study about the possibility of a long-term Venus lander. The reason is that we do not know if Venus is geologically dead and so some long term data from a seismograph would help shed some light on this.<br /><br />The proposed design was RTG powered (and highly inefficient due to the low temperature differential) about 240 of the 250 watts would be used to power a refrigeration system that would cool a very small payload.

 

[bushuser]

Its a great engineering question...electricity for the surface of Venus. <br /><br />1] Solar cells?--despite the thick clouds, Venus is half our distance to the sun, and that might enough to compensate.<br /><br />2] High temp batteries--I remember Ford once toyed with liquid sodium batteries for automobiles. They operated at Venusian temperatures.<br /><br />3] Windmills! [could be problematic near a seismograph]

 

[halman]

mithridates,<br /><br />Something occured to me regarding a flying vehicle operating in the atmosphere of Venus: How is it going to communicate with Earth, and Earth with it? A large parabolic dish is going really screw up the aerodynamics of the vehicle, not to mention the difficulties involved in keeping lockon of Earth. It seems to me that an orbital relay/master computer would be required to provide local control, data transfer, and other tasks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[alokmohan]

I wonder you are talking about spacecraft to venus which is so risky.Why not go to mars at much lower cost?Venus is good as evening star and let it remain so.

 

[3488]

Hi guys, try this.<br /><br />Hi alokmohan. Venus is a window to the early Earth in many respects. You are correct that Mars is much less risky, as would 1 Ceres or 2 Pallas.<br /><br />Personally, I think a crewed expedition to Venus is not currently feasible, but unmanned exploration must continue. <br /><br />Both Venus & Mars have much to tell us.<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=575111&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[mithridates]

If we're talking about unmanned missions the cost is pretty much the same. Venus is also much closer, and launch windows to the planet are more frequent.<br /><br />See, here it is, nice and close. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[bushuser]

An orbiting relay will be the way to go for the "aircraft" mission. However, you can put a parabolic dish on a dirigible!