Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Soviet Venus Images (2004)

mentallandscape.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Soviet Venus Images (2004)

#51

Post by cherryturnover »

gus_massa wrote: post #50
cletus wrote: post #15

It's wild we have any images of the surface of Venus at all given how hostile Venus is. Given how hostile it is, it seems unlikely we'll go back anytime soon. These images were really a product of the Cold War where the US focused on Mars. It's worth noting that Venus is still probably a better terraforming target than Mars [1]. This romantic notion of Mars has rooted itself deeply at this point (eg with Elon Musk) b…

> And abundant CO2 means oxygen is abundant. Oxygen combined with other atoms is not rare. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_Mars > Based on these data sources, scientists think that the most abundant chemical elements in the Martian crust are silicon, oxygen, iron, magnesium, aluminum, calcium, and potassium. The problem is separating the Oxygen from the other materials to get Oxygen molecules that y…

What is stopping us from launching seed payloads to these planets with some way to continually water them? Wouldn't that be a way to theoretically test the survivability of the planet without sending people?

Re: Soviet Venus Images (2004)

#52

Post by belter »

belter wrote: post #31
cletus wrote: post #15

It's wild we have any images of the surface of Venus at all given how hostile Venus is. Given how hostile it is, it seems unlikely we'll go back anytime soon. These images were really a product of the Cold War where the US focused on Mars. It's worth noting that Venus is still probably a better terraforming target than Mars [1]. This romantic notion of Mars has rooted itself deeply at this point (eg with Elon Musk) b…

We should not have ignored Venus. Its easier to get to than Mars and the top of the atmosphere has reasonable temperatures. Why would a certain type of life would not be possible under 400 C or acid sulfuric environments ? It might be very different from what we have on Earth, but is there anything specific to Venus current environment that makes us believe it is not possible, with the exception it would be very, ver…

The Planetary Society has these with post processing for better quality:

"Every Picture From Venus' Surface, Ever"

https://www.planetary.org/articles/every-picture-from-venus-...

Re: Soviet Venus Images (2004)

#53

Post by melling »

u801e wrote: post #47
melling wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology developed fast. Sputnik was in 1957. 20 years later we had: The United States landed probes on Mars in 1976. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_program The Voyager program: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_1 The Space Shuttle was developed in the 1970’s Supersonic commercial flight… bullet trains in Japan and France… As a kid in the 1970’s, I imagined 2021 would be much more futuristic.

> As a kid in the 1970’s, I imagined 2021 would be much more futuristic. In the 1970s, we had calculator watches. Now we have smartphones. So that's one way to look at it :)

If we are thinking in half a century, the Wright Brothers first flew in 1903 and Chuck Yeager went faster than sound in 1947.

Sure, some things have greatly improved in the last 50 years.

Color television was a big thing in the late 60’s. Now we’ve gone from analog to digital at 4K on huge flat panels.

Re: Soviet Venus Images (2004)

#54

Post by ericbarrett »

sandworm101 wrote: post #21
cletus wrote: post #15

It's wild we have any images of the surface of Venus at all given how hostile Venus is. Given how hostile it is, it seems unlikely we'll go back anytime soon. These images were really a product of the Cold War where the US focused on Mars. It's worth noting that Venus is still probably a better terraforming target than Mars [1]. This romantic notion of Mars has rooted itself deeply at this point (eg with Elon Musk) b…

Mars is closer than the moon, at least in terms of fuel. It takes less velocity/delta-V (aka space gas) to get to the surface of mars than it does the surface of the moon. We can use parachutes/aerobraking at Mars whereas at the moon we have to burn rockets all the way down. So mars is the easier and more dramatic stage for anyone wanting to demonstrate thier rocket tech. Venus is even closer still, but as a hell pla…

It takes a lot more to get back, though—Mars is a deeper gravity well (5 km/s escape velocity versus 2.4 km/s for the Moon). Then you are spending hundreds of days on the return journey, versus a week or less from the Moon. And humans are definitely going to want to come back, because to stay on Mars is to be doomed to radiation poisoning, and not on long timescales.

"Recent data from ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter showed that on a six-month journey to the Red Planet an astronaut could be exposed to at least 60% of the total radiation dose limit recommended for their entire career."[0]

Maybe for robots, but I think human colonization of Mars without first mastering the Moon is very unlikely.

[0] https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Ex...

Re: Soviet Venus Images (2004)

#55

Post by sandworm101 »

cherryturnover wrote: post #51
gus_massa wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And abundant CO2 means oxygen is abundant. Oxygen combined with other atoms is not rare. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_Mars > Based on these data sources, scientists think that the most abundant chemical elements in the Martian crust are silicon, oxygen, iron, magnesium, aluminum, calcium, and potassium. The problem is separating the Oxygen from the other materials to get Oxygen molecules that y…

What is stopping us from launching seed payloads to these planets with some way to continually water them? Wouldn't that be a way to theoretically test the survivability of the planet without sending people?

We already know that plants will not survive in martian soil regardless of watering them. For the amount of effort/energy/consumables needed to turn martian soil into something that can grow plants, it would be easier to just send some soil. Or, skip all that and go totally hydroponic. Hydroponics makes economic sense here on earth already. On mars, hydroponics is exponentially easier than traditional farming methods.

The first habitats will probably not use any martian resources. First uses will probably be as construction materials. Then possibly as a fuel source. Those are the high-mass uses. Things like growing food/oxygen don't require much mass and so are far down the list.

Re: Soviet Venus Images (2004)

#56

Post by canadianfella »

belter wrote: post #31
cletus wrote: post #15

It's wild we have any images of the surface of Venus at all given how hostile Venus is. Given how hostile it is, it seems unlikely we'll go back anytime soon. These images were really a product of the Cold War where the US focused on Mars. It's worth noting that Venus is still probably a better terraforming target than Mars [1]. This romantic notion of Mars has rooted itself deeply at this point (eg with Elon Musk) b…

We should not have ignored Venus. Its easier to get to than Mars and the top of the atmosphere has reasonable temperatures. Why would a certain type of life would not be possible under 400 C or acid sulfuric environments ? It might be very different from what we have on Earth, but is there anything specific to Venus current environment that makes us believe it is not possible, with the exception it would be very, ver…

Why do you put spaces before punctuation?

Re: Soviet Venus Images (2004)

#57

Post by canadianfella »

eloff wrote: post #46
dougmwne wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure what that gains us over just having a habitat in orbit though. Critically, it gains us raw materials. Space is empty. The upper atmosphere of Venus is full of elements we can use to sustain life.

You mean CO2 and small amounts of nitrogen? That doesn't seem like a great resource. If you value CO2 so highly there is plenty right here on earth that nobody wants and people will actually pay you to remove from the atmosphere. No need to go all the way to Venus. Even on the surface of Venus, inhospitality notwithstanding, the resources are at the bottom of a gravity well equal to earth's. It is way more viable to…

Who said anything about mining?

Re: Soviet Venus Images (2004)

#58

Post by harph »

nomdep wrote: post #39
pmlnr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just the question of paying. There are so many movies, series, etc, especially dubbed ones, that only exist in closed, offline archives, and licensing prevents them from being digitalised at all.

Even blockbuster movies. Does anyone remember the movie “Cocoon”? Is impossible to watch it now unless you can find it in an old VHS tape

You mean the one from 1985 about those oldtimers bathing with lifegiving alien artifacts? Such memories! Also ofc I found it in one google search.

Re: Soviet Venus Images (2004)

#60

Post by dredmorbius »

m4rtink wrote: post #41
audiometry wrote: post #40

Why did USSR pursue Venus? Surely a far harder target for success than Mars. (At least given the nasty planetary conditions). Imagine how cool it would be to have worked on something that landed on Venus. Whew.

AFAIK mainly probe lifetime - at least early on the Soviets had a lot of issues with that. For Venus you only have to keep the probe working for a month or tu max, for Mars it needs two survive for almost a year at the minimum.

The successful Venus landers had operational lives on the ground ranging from 23 minutes to 2 hours. Months would have been phenomenal successes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera

Post reply on HN