A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 2nd 18, 12:19 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?

Really, Venus may be 800 degrees on the surface, but Mars is just as dead. So a probe to land on Venus would be a welcome change from the idea of spending (it would be) $1.5 TRILLION to go to Mars.
  #2  
Old August 2nd 18, 12:39 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 331
Default Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?

RichA wrote in
:

Really, Venus may be 800 degrees on the surface, but Mars is
just as dead. So a probe to land on Venus would be a welcome
change from the idea of spending (it would be) $1.5 TRILLION to
go to Mars.

The longest a Venus lander has lasted is about two hours.

Curiosity is now in the 7th year of its 90 day mission.

Regardless of how much Mars costs, the return on investment is likely
to be higher.

(There are at least two New Frontiers mission proposals for Venus
landers. If you're going to be this clueless, you should change your
name to Chris.)

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

  #3  
Old August 2nd 18, 12:59 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
Really, Venus may be 800 degrees on the surface, but Mars is just as dead.


If there's liquid water underground on Mars, we can't quite completely rule out
life on Mars any more. Of course, Mars has always been considered as a possible
home of life due to its superficial similarity to Earth - the gas giants, or
some of their satellites, _may_ be much better bets.

Venus is rather more certainly dead, thanks to being 800 degrees hot - and not
only is it less likely to already have life, it's also less useful to Earthly
life, specifically human beings. It might be possible to use Mars as a place to
live. Venus - despite having the right gravity, something one can't reproduce on
a planet's surface - is too difficult to mine, to build habitats on, and so on
and so forth.

Figuring out a way to send a probe to Venus that can survive its harsh
conditions in order to learn from it facts about, say, the origin of the Solar
System, for the sake of pure science would not be a bad thing. But Mars has
potential practical uses, and naturally that attracts more funding.

John Savard
  #4  
Old August 2nd 18, 05:01 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 16:59:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
Really, Venus may be 800 degrees on the surface, but Mars is just as dead.


If there's liquid water underground on Mars, we can't quite completely rule out
life on Mars any more. Of course, Mars has always been considered as a possible
home of life due to its superficial similarity to Earth - the gas giants, or
some of their satellites, _may_ be much better bets.

Venus is rather more certainly dead, thanks to being 800 degrees hot - and not
only is it less likely to already have life, it's also less useful to Earthly
life, specifically human beings. It might be possible to use Mars as a place to
live. Venus - despite having the right gravity, something one can't reproduce on
a planet's surface - is too difficult to mine, to build habitats on, and so on
and so forth.

Figuring out a way to send a probe to Venus that can survive its harsh
conditions in order to learn from it facts about, say, the origin of the Solar
System, for the sake of pure science would not be a bad thing. But Mars has
potential practical uses, and naturally that attracts more funding.


Also, even if Mars is dead now, there's a very real possibility that
it wasn't always so, and that evidence of past life will be found.

If Venus ever had life, it is beyond discovery. And Venus is recently
resurfaced, which means it's much less useful than Mars for
understanding the developmental processes of the Solar System.

There are many reasons for Mars to be the focus of most of our
planetary research at this time.
  #5  
Old August 2nd 18, 05:19 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Davoud[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,989
Default Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?

Chris L Peterson:
Also, even if Mars is dead now, there's a very real possibility that
it wasn't always so, and that evidence of past life will be found.


If Venus ever had life, it is beyond discovery.


Unless it's not "life as we know it." Improbable, but not impossible.

And Venus is recently
resurfaced, which means it's much less useful than Mars for
understanding the developmental processes of the Solar System.


Agreed. Useful mainly to amateur astrophotographers for producing
pretty pictures.

There are many reasons for Mars to be the focus of most of our
planetary research at this time.


Agreed, so long as we don't go and do something really crazy like spend
$billions (or perhaps a $trillion) to try to send humans there to do
what robots could do far more cheaply.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
  #6  
Old August 2nd 18, 05:57 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?

On Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:19:13 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Chris L Peterson:
Also, even if Mars is dead now, there's a very real possibility that
it wasn't always so, and that evidence of past life will be found.


If Venus ever had life, it is beyond discovery.


Unless it's not "life as we know it." Improbable, but not impossible.


Always a possibility. But probably not something to factor too
strongly into mission decision planning in a resource limited system.

Agreed, so long as we don't go and do something really crazy like spend
$billions (or perhaps a $trillion) to try to send humans there to do
what robots could do far more cheaply.


Indeed. But I fear such a think is likely to happen, despite it's cost
and pointlessness from a scientific standpoint.
  #7  
Old August 3rd 18, 05:06 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?

On Wednesday, 1 August 2018 19:59:37 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
Really, Venus may be 800 degrees on the surface, but Mars is just as dead.


If there's liquid water underground on Mars, we can't quite completely rule out
life on Mars any more. Of course, Mars has always been considered as a possible
home of life due to its superficial similarity to Earth - the gas giants, or
some of their satellites, _may_ be much better bets.

Venus is rather more certainly dead, thanks to being 800 degrees hot - and not
only is it less likely to already have life, it's also less useful to Earthly
life, specifically human beings. It might be possible to use Mars as a place to
live.


But is it possible Venus at some point was more hospitable to life than Mars ever was?
  #8  
Old August 3rd 18, 07:55 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?

On Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:19:13 -0400, Davoud wrote:
Chris L Peterson:
Also, even if Mars is dead now, there's a very real possibility

that
it wasn't always so, and that evidence of past life will be found.


If Venus ever had life, it is beyond discovery.


Unless it's not "life as we know it." Improbable, but not

impossible.

And Venus is recently
resurfaced, which means it's much less useful than Mars for
understanding the developmental processes of the Solar System.


Agreed. Useful mainly to amateur astrophotographers for producing
pretty pictures.


Are you saying that you think remnants from ancient life could be
more persistent than geological features?
  #9  
Old August 3rd 18, 07:57 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 21:06:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 August 2018 19:59:37 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
Really, Venus may be 800 degrees on the surface, but Mars is just as dead.


If there's liquid water underground on Mars, we can't quite completely rule out
life on Mars any more. Of course, Mars has always been considered as a possible
home of life due to its superficial similarity to Earth - the gas giants, or
some of their satellites, _may_ be much better bets.

Venus is rather more certainly dead, thanks to being 800 degrees hot - and not
only is it less likely to already have life, it's also less useful to Earthly
life, specifically human beings. It might be possible to use Mars as a place to
live.


But is it possible Venus at some point was more hospitable to life than Mars ever was?


It is certainly possible. But that's not something we're likely to
determine from a surface probe.
  #10  
Old August 5th 18, 05:37 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Sky and Tel: Venus ignored, too much emphasis on LONG DEAD Mars?

On Friday, 3 August 2018 02:57:23 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 21:06:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Wednesday, 1 August 2018 19:59:37 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
Really, Venus may be 800 degrees on the surface, but Mars is just as dead.

If there's liquid water underground on Mars, we can't quite completely rule out
life on Mars any more. Of course, Mars has always been considered as a possible
home of life due to its superficial similarity to Earth - the gas giants, or
some of their satellites, _may_ be much better bets.

Venus is rather more certainly dead, thanks to being 800 degrees hot - and not
only is it less likely to already have life, it's also less useful to Earthly
life, specifically human beings. It might be possible to use Mars as a place to
live.


But is it possible Venus at some point was more hospitable to life than Mars ever was?


It is certainly possible. But that's not something we're likely to
determine from a surface probe.


I just want better pictures. Mars has been imaged to death.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mars: As dead as Venus ever was? Rich[_1_] Amateur Astronomy 0 February 16th 08 01:01 AM
Venus is alive, Mars is dead BradGuth Policy 20 September 18th 07 02:57 AM
Venus is alive, Mars is dead BradGuth History 20 September 18th 07 02:57 AM
Venus is alive, Mars is dead BradGuth UK Astronomy 20 September 18th 07 02:57 AM
Terraforming the moon, long before doing Mars or Venus Brad Guth Policy 21 March 4th 07 01:44 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.