Why did the Soviets launch so many Venus Probes?

[fredinno]

Does anybody here have any idea why the Soviets launched so many Venus probes? I mean, I'm not complaining, but they did launch a LOT of Venera and Vega probes- with over 14 missions logged between the two programs (not all being successful)- not to mention the Soviets launched the majority of Venus probes, and made the first Venus landers. I'd wonder why they would spend so much tim and effort there, while other space agencies have generally given it much less attention (especially NASA).

[AngelLestat]

It was the space race, both (USA and Russia) launched probes to Mars and Venus, but USA had many fails in Venus USA did not try, and Rusia had many fails in Mars. So they started to focus in what they did best, because if USA try it in venus and failed, it was seeing as a superiority of Russia, the same for the opposite.

Venus is equally important as Mars.. (I personally think that Venus is more important than mars), but USA always was more mediatic, and taking into account their fails in Venus, they started a campaign labeling Mars like "the man destiny", and Venus like "the hell planet". 

But the true was, that even in that time, Russia already knew that you will be able to live in the clouds with floating cities with many advantages vs a Mars colony. But nobody hear those ideas until an US scientist "Geoffrey A. Landis" review the possibility. 

Now NASA, already knows, that is more feasible and cheap, a manned mission to Venus than Mars, but after so many years of propaganda and missions on Mars.. it will be very difficult to change direction now.

 

Edited January 8, 2016 by AngelLestat

[A35K]

13 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

It was the space race, both (USA and Russia) launched probes to Mars and Venus, but USA had many fails in Venus, and Rusia had many fails in Mars. So they started to focus in what they did best, because if USA try it in venus and failed, it was seeing as a superiority of Russia, the same for the opposite.

Venus is equally important as Mars.. (I personally think that Venus is more important than mars), but USA always was more mediatic, and taking into account their fails in Venus, they started a campaign labeling Mars like "the man destiny", and Venus like "the hell planet". 

But the true was, that even in that time, Russia already knew that you will be able to live in the clouds with floating cities with many advantages vs a Mars colony. But nobody hear those ideas until an US scientist "Geoffrey A. Landis" review the possibility. 

Now NASA, already knows, that is more feasible and cheap, a manned mission to Venus than Mars, but after so many years of propaganda and missions on Mars.. it will be very difficult to change direction now.

 

Sorry, but how exactly is a manned mission to Venus easier and cheaper than one to Mars? You do realize Venus has gravity similar to Earth's and an atmospheric pressure of over 90 atm. You would need a ridiculously huge rocket to get off of there! Not to mention the atmosphere is acidic, which will cause all sorts of problems. Now, that does not mean Venus is not an interesting planet to explore, in fact it has quite a few unique characteristics, such as its retrograde rotation, and its volcanic activity. But to be able to explore it, any probe has to handle extremely hostile conditions (it is also the hottest planet in the solar system), no probe sent there has ever lasted long, so a manned mission is out of the question. That being said, the probes that were send were vital to our understanding of the planet, and while it is almost impossible for life to exist nowadays, it may have once been very similar to Earth, which makes it a very interesting place to explore (it is also the most similar planet to Earth in terms of size and position, making it a very likely candidate for finding traces of previous life).

Edited January 8, 2016 by A35K

[SargeRho]

Getting from Venus to Venus is easier than getting to Mars, but getting from Mars to Earth is considerably easier than from Venus to Earth..

[fredinno]

19 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

It was the space race, both (USA and Russia) launched probes to Mars and Venus, but USA had many fails in Venus, and Rusia had many fails in Mars. So they started to focus in what they did best, because if USA try it in venus and failed, it was seeing as a superiority of Russia, the same for the opposite.

Venus is equally important as Mars.. (I personally think that Venus is more important than mars), but USA always was more mediatic, and taking into account their fails in Venus, they started a campaign labeling Mars like "the man destiny", and Venus like "the hell planet". 

But the true was, that even in that time, Russia already knew that you will be able to live in the clouds with floating cities with many advantages vs a Mars colony. But nobody hear those ideas until an US scientist "Geoffrey A. Landis" review the possibility. 

Now NASA, already knows, that is more feasible and cheap, a manned mission to Venus than Mars, but after so many years of propaganda and missions on Mars.. it will be very difficult to change direction now.

 

No, NASA had a 1:5 ratio of failed Venus to successful Venus Missions from 1960-1979, while the Soviets had a 15:8 ratio. Meanwhile, NASA Mars missions had a fail to sucess ratio of 2:6, while the Soviets had a fail to sucess Mars Mission ratio of 10:5- both in the timeframe of 1960-1979.

 

And no, Venus' surface is hellish compared to Mars. Otherwise, there would be serious proposals to land on the surface. Venus is important scientifically-and a manned mission to its atmosphere would be cheaper, but there is less science you can get from the atmosphere than the surface- also, Mars has the highest ESI rating in the solar system that is not the Earth. A Mars colony also has more access to resources (able to mine the soil) and the advantage of humanity's 'landism'- people like to be able to step on a surface, and put a flag on it.

 

A Venus colony might be cheaper- but it's less economically and scientifically viable. Technically Phobos/Demios is a better destination for the difficulty of Venus.

[The Yellow Dart]

I'd say it is because government organizations gravitate toward what they have already done and know. Like the US got one successful Mars rover, so let that expertise go to waste? Send more rovers! If you put a bunch of money and research into landing on Venus, then change your mind and go for Mars or elsewhere, most of that money and time and research was useless and you are mostly starting from "scratch" (apart from a large space program and a bunch of smart people in your employ). It would seem easier and more attainable to go for what you already started on, even if you have had multiple failures already like Venera. Just a guess though.

Edited January 8, 2016 by The Yellow Dart

[Robotengineer]

29 minutes ago, A35K said:

Sorry, but how exactly is a manned mission to Venus easier and cheaper than one to Mars? You do realize Venus has gravity similar to Earth's and an atmospheric pressure of over 90 atm. You would need a ridiculously huge rocket to get off of there! Not to mention the atmosphere is acidic, which will cause all sorts of problems. Now, that does not mean Venus is not an interesting planet to explore, in fact it has quite a few unique characteristics, such as its retrograde rotation, and its volcanic activity. But to be able to explore it, any probe has to handle extremely hostile conditions (it is also the hottest planet in the solar system), no probe sent there has ever lasted long, so a manned mission is out of the question. That being said, the probes that were send were vital to our understanding of the planet, and while it is almost impossible for life to exist nowadays, it may have once been very similar to Earth, which makes it a very interesting place to explore (it is also the most similar planet to Earth in terms of size and position, making it a very likely candidate for finding traces of previous life).

Any manned Venus mission won't be a landing, at least not in the Mars mission or Apollo sense. We would have to use blimps or blimp like things in the upper atmosphere until Venus' was brought down to a more manageable temperature. So there would be no need to get off of the surface. 

Edited January 8, 2016 by Robotengineer

[fredinno]

29 minutes ago, A35K said:

Sorry, but how exactly is a manned mission to Venus easier and cheaper than one to Mars? You do realize Venus has gravity similar to Earth's and an atmospheric pressure of over 90 atm. You would need a ridiculously huge rocket to get off of there! Not to mention the atmosphere is acidic, which will cause all sorts of problems. Now, that does not mean Venus is not an interesting planet to explore, in fact it has quite a few unique characteristics, such as its retrograde rotation, and its volcanic activity. But to be able to explore it, any probe has to handle extremely hostile conditions (it is also the hottest planet in the solar system), no probe sent there has ever lasted long, so a manned mission is out of the question. That being said, the probes that were send were vital to our understanding of the planet, and while it is almost impossible for life to exist nowadays, it may have once been very similar to Earth, which makes it a very interesting place to explore (it is also the most similar planet to Earth in terms of size and position, making it a very likely candidate for finding traces of previous life).

He's talking about a HAVOC Venus Airship mission. And life might still exist in the clouds and upper atmosphere, like it does on earth.

27 minutes ago, SargeRho said:

Getting from Venus to Venus is easier than getting to Mars, but getting from Mars to Earth is considerably easier than from Venus to Earth..

The return leg does not matter if you're a space probe- unless it happens to be a sample return mission.

[SargeRho]

12 minutes ago, fredinno said:

The return leg does not matter if you're a space probe- unless it happens to be a sample return mission.

Or if you're on a manned mission, which is what I was referring to, in response to A35K's post.

[Karriz]

58 minutes ago, Robotengineer said:

Any manned Venus mission won't be a landing, at least not in the Mars mission or Apollo sense. We would have to use blimps or blimp like things in the upper atmosphere until Venus' was brought down to a more manageable temperature. So there would be no need to get off of the surface. 

Reaching orbital velocity, even from the upper atmosphere, would be really difficult as the delta-v requirement is at least the same as when launching from Earth.

It's hard to see the usefulness of a manned Venus mission, because the astronauts couldn't do anything other than sit inside their capsule. I really doubt Russians had any real plans for that. The concept that NASA released a while back just seems to have caused this idea that it's a better than Mars.

[fredinno]

29 minutes ago, Karriz said:

Reaching orbital velocity, even from the upper atmosphere, would be really difficult as the delta-v requirement is at least the same as when launching from Earth.

It's hard to see the usefulness of a manned Venus mission, because the astronauts couldn't do anything other than sit inside their capsule. I really doubt Russians had any real plans for that. The concept that NASA released a while back just seems to have caused this idea that it's a better than Mars.

Venus actually has a slightly lower gravity well. And fuel-producing ISRU is possible by using CO2 in the atmosphere and ammonia in the airship balloon (used to keep the ballon floating- ammonia floats in the upper atmosphere.

[K^2]

2 hours ago, A35K said:

Sorry, but how exactly is a manned mission to Venus easier and cheaper than one to Mars?

There is one very important distinction that makes Venus a better destination for manned missions. Much shorter mission duration.

[AngelLestat]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

No, NASA had a 1:5 ratio of failed Venus to successful Venus Missions from 1960-1979, while the Soviets had a 15:8 ratio. Meanwhile, NASA Mars missions had a fail to sucess ratio of 2:6, while the Soviets had a fail to sucess Mars Mission ratio of 10:5- both in the timeframe of 1960-1979.

 

Ok, wrong data, I mix some old memories that I have with other related discussion on how hard is to reach (Venus vs Mars).  USA does not have fails on venus because they just try it only once.
But If you really want to count missions related to planets, you can not count fly-by or problems with launch.  You need to count atmosphere insertions or landings that are related to the planet difficulties.
In that matter we have that Russia on Venus has 15 missions 2 failures and 1 partial failure Vs USA with 1 mission and 0 failures.
On Mars we have that Russia has 6 missions with 5 failures and 1 partial failure Vs USA with 7 missions and 1 failure.
But the main difference is the year in which these things happens, Russia started Venus attempts in 1965 to 1984, on mars since 1971 to 1974.
On the other hand USA only try once on Venus in 1978, and Mars in 1975 with the 2 vikings, then 1966 to 2011 with the other five.
 

Quote

And no, Venus' surface is hellish compared to Mars. Otherwise, there would be serious proposals to land on the surface. Venus is important scientifically-and a manned mission to its atmosphere would be cheaper, but there is less science you can get from the atmosphere than the surface- also, Mars has the highest ESI rating in the solar system that is not the Earth. A Mars colony also has more access to resources (able to mine the soil) and the advantage of humanity's 'landism'- people like to be able to step on a surface, and put a flag on it.

Venus' surface is not important, its atmosphere and climate is. There is hide the key to solve all our climate models errors and gaps. This will be a terrible goal to improve our climate predictions and know with certainty the issues with the global warming. 
Also the fact that conditions at 52km height are very similar to earth and how easy is to float there. I can mention at least 40 points why Venus is better than Mars for manned missions. 

By the way.. you can put a floating flag in the atmosphere too

Quote

A Venus colony might be cheaper- but it's less economically and scientifically viable. Technically Phobos/Demios is a better destination for the difficulty of Venus.

Phobos-Deimos?  Those rocks??    Not sure what people find interesting on those small stones orbiting mars, what difference it makes vs the space station?
Any other moon on the solar system seems more interesting.
In venus you can go out just using a plastic or latex cloth and oxygen mask, there would not be more closest earth sensation than that in the whole solar system.

[Sanic]

/notamod

Keep it on topic people, the last thread about Mars/Venus manned missions died due to flamewar. This is about the Venera/Vega program.

IMO, the Soviets sent probes to Venus because it was closer and a shorter transit, and the Soviets knew they tended to lose contact with their probes, so they had a better shot doing stuff at Venus than anywhere else.

Edited January 8, 2016 by Sanic

[fredinno]

6 minutes ago, AngelLestat said:

Ok, wrong data, I mix some old memories that I have with other related discussion on how hard is to reach (Venus vs Mars).  USA does not have fails on venus because they just try it only once.
But If you really want to count missions related to planets, you can not count fly-by or problems with launch.  You need to count atmosphere insertions or landings that are related to the planet difficulties.
In that matter we have that Russia on Venus has 15 missions 2 failures and 1 partial failure Vs USA with 1 mission and 0 failures.
On Mars we have that Russia has 6 missions with 5 failures and 1 partial failure Vs USA with 7 missions and 1 failure.
But the main difference is the year in which these things happens, Russia started Venus attempts in 1965 to 1984, on mars since 1971 to 1974.
On the other hand USA only try once on Venus in 1978, and Mars in 1975 with the 2 vikings, then 1966 to 2011 with the other five.
 

Venus' surface is not important, its atmosphere and climate is. There is hide the key to solve all our climate models errors and gaps. This will be a terrible goal to improve our climate predictions and know with certainty the issues with the global warming. 
Also the fact that conditions at 52km height are very similar to earth and how easy is to float there. I can mention at least 40 points why Venus is better than Mars for manned missions. 

By the way.. you can put a floating flag in the atmosphere too

Phobos-Deimos?  Those rocks??    Not sure what people find interesting on those small stones orbiting mars, what difference it makes vs the space station?
Any other moon on the solar system seems more interesting.
In venus you can go out just using a plastic or latex cloth and oxygen mask, there would not be more closest earth sensation than that in the whole solar system.

So? Flyby missions still count, since many orbiters and landers fail in the transit phase. And the soviets never stopped sending their robotic pals there, no matter how much they failed.

 

I can also list 40 points why Mars is a better place to study than Venus. But that would start a flame war, so no.

 

And no, nobody wants to put a floating flag in the atmosphere. It needs to be planted firmly in the ground to count. Humans has a bias towards solid ground.

 

And the number of Phobos-Deimos Mission proposals, along with Flagship ones, AND Phobos-Grunt, say there is interest to going there. Besides, you can also refuel there, and do teleoperation on Mars' surface.

[SargeRho]

1 hour ago, AngelLestat said:

Phobos-Deimos?  Those rocks??    Not sure what people find interesting on those small stones orbiting mars, what difference it makes vs the space station?
Any other moon on the solar system seems more interesting.
In venus you can go out just using a plastic or latex cloth and oxygen mask, there would not be more closest earth sensation than that in the whole solar system.

Those rocks is exactly what's interesting about them: Easily accessible resources that don't require multi-billion dollar ultra-high temperature mining equipment.

Venus has:
-1g gravity
-1 bar atmosphere and resulting radiation protection
-

Phobos and Deimos have:
-Easily mineable resources
-Close to Mars
-Low gravity, making carrying them away easy
-Radiation shielding can be made from the local materials
-High Tech materials allow the manufacture of spacecraft, without having to carry them out of a large gravity well
-The proximity to Mars provides a potential future customer for the materials
-Easiest place in the solar system to reach, aside of some NEOs, as far as DV goes.

 

tl;dr: Venus is like Spain. Hot, and probably nice for living, but the economy is garbage..

Edited January 8, 2016 by SargeRho

[Kerbart]

Discussions on the feasibility of manned missions are cute, but seem to ignore the fact that we base that feasibility mainly on the data we got from those unmanned missions. It's not like the Russians were insane and decided to scout out a planet with a 90 atm, 400°C atmosphere because they wanted to go there. We learned about that atmosphere because they sent those probes.

I read somewhere that the ways they operated, the Russians tended to to better at Venus where simple pre-programmed autonomous probes lasted longer, and the Americans did better at Mars (because of atmospheric conditions) where remote controlled probes (like Viking) did better, which is why both countries had different success at the different planets, but I'm not in a position to gauge the validity of that statement.

 

[K^2]

43 minutes ago, SargeRho said:

Phobos and Deimos have:
-Easily mineable resources
-Close to Mars
-Low gravity, making carrying them away easy
-Radiation shielding can be made from the local materials
-High Tech materials allow the manufacture of spacecraft, without having to carry them out of a large gravity well
-The proximity to Mars provides a potential future customer for the materials
-Easiest place in the solar system to reach, aside of some NEOs, as far as DV goes

Most of these we have on the Moon, which is much closer and easier to reach. Yet we're still to build any mining facilities there. And before you say anything, 10km of rail @ ~30g is enough to launch cargo directly from Moon to Earth (or LEO) for pennies on the pound.

Edited January 8, 2016 by K^2

[PB666]

5 hours ago, fredinno said:

Does anybody here have any idea why the Soviets launched so many Venus probes? I mean, I'm not complaining, but they did launch a LOT of Venera and Vega probes- with over 14 missions logged between the two programs (not all being successful)- not to mention the Soviets launched the majority of Venus probes, and made the first Venus landers. I'd wonder why they would spend so much tim and effort there, while other space agencies have generally given it much less attention (especially NASA).

Putin has a Venusian obsession?

Venus is really hot, you need mechanical devices, electronics would largely fail you. Other than that, you can get away with low tech panels, less worry about electronics freezing up in route, landings might be hard but major equipment failure and your craft might still land. On mars if you mess up your reentry or retro, your craft is just a bunch of pieces scattered over miles of martian surface. Basically you can land on venus with some good spoilers and good landing gear. (something capable of taking a 20 m/s impact speed). On mars you will hit the surface at a couple 1000 miles per hour.

[SargeRho]

23 minutes ago, K^2 said:

Most of these we have on the Moon, which is much closer and easier to reach. Yet we're still to build any mining facilities there. And before you say anything, 10km of rail @ ~30g is enough to launch cargo directly from Moon to Earth (or LEO) for pennies on the pound.

True, but we weren't talking about the Moon, but Phobos and Deimos vs Venus in this case. Though, if I'm not mistaken, Phobos is easier to reach once you're at Mars, since you can pretty much "dock" with it, instead of having to do a full propulsive landing.

Edited January 8, 2016 by SargeRho

[PB666]

2 hours ago, AngelLestat said:

Ok, wrong data, I mix some old memories that I have with other related discussion on how hard is to reach (Venus vs Mars).  USA does not have fails on venus because they just try it only once.
But If you really want to count missions related to planets, you can not count fly-by or problems with launch.  You need to count atmosphere insertions or landings that are related to the planet difficulties.
In that matter we have that Russia on Venus has 15 missions 2 failures and 1 partial failure Vs USA with 1 mission and 0 failures.
On Mars we have that Russia has 6 missions with 5 failures and 1 partial failure Vs USA with 7 missions and 1 failure.
But the main difference is the year in which these things happens, Russia started Venus attempts in 1965 to 1984, on mars since 1971 to 1974.
On the other hand USA only try once on Venus in 1978, and Mars in 1975 with the 2 vikings, then 1966 to 2011 with the other five.
 

Venus' surface is not important, its atmosphere and climate is. There is hide the key to solve all our climate models errors and gaps. This will be a terrible goal to improve our climate predictions and know with certainty the issues with the global warming. 
Also the fact that conditions at 52km height are very similar to earth and how easy is to float there. I can mention at least 40 points why Venus is better than Mars for manned missions. 

By the way.. you can put a floating flag in the atmosphere too

Phobos-Deimos?  Those rocks??    Not sure what people find interesting on those small stones orbiting mars, what difference it makes vs the space station?
Any other moon on the solar system seems more interesting.
In venus you can go out just using a plastic or latex cloth and oxygen mask, there would not be more closest earth sensation than that in the whole solar system.

Average Venusian surface temperature is above the decomposition point of most organics including the latex protein. It would simply turn brown and crumble choking the astronaut in about 20 seconds. The Venusian atmosphere is around 90 times more pressurized than that of earths; for surface density at that pressure and heat the oxygen inside the space suit would instantly begin burning the skin. 160 feet is the practical diving limit which is about 6 atm of pressure, So no, humans would never be walking around on Venus. The best that might be obtained is a heavily fortified rover with an unknown type of air conditioning system, that can leave the surface within a few hours.

Phobos-Deimos is an achievable land and return by standards in which Mars is too difficult for re-ascent.

If you can imagine that the CO2 that is trapped in limestone formations on earth suddenly became vapor, along with alot of the sulfate in seawater, becoming sulfer dioxide, and imagine anything that is volatile at 1000F is suddenly now in the atmosphere, imagine what sulfate alone would do. 0.2% of sea water, at roughly 2 miles deep, that is 21.12 feet of sulfate at a density about 3 times that of water. That alone would 2 atm of pressure, then factor all the carbon locked up in soil and oxidize it with the oxygen in sea water and blow off the hydrogen in space. Thats a good start, then drive the sulfate and carbon out of the earths crust, the crust becomes extremely basic and the atmosphere vaporous acid, whenever the surface cools sufficiently the gases react violently with the surface heating it up again, the turbulation eventually flattens the terrain.  Dropping hardened criminals through Venuses atmosphere with a latex mask would be an unmatched form of capital punishment.

[K^2]

1 hour ago, SargeRho said:

True, but we weren't talking about the Moon, but Phobos and Deimos vs Venus in this case. Though, if I'm not mistaken, Phobos is easier to reach once you're at Mars, since you can pretty much "dock" with it, instead of having to do a full propulsive landing.

And I'm saying that we're obviously not interested in something like Phobos or Deimos, because we'd industrialize Moon long before these rocks would become of any use. We are looking for places where we can place a long-term human habitat and do some science. Phobos and Deimos aren't it, because as people pointed out, we might as well just put a station in orbit with same success. As far as interesting places go, we're back to Martian surface or Venusian clouds.

And a cloud base on Venus has a lot of advantages. Once built, it can be pretty much self-sustaining. The fact that internal pressure matches external means that a small leak isn't an instant suffocation risk to everyone on board. That means that we could build fairly extensive greenhouses without requiring special materials, and patch them up as necessary. There is also a matter of exploration. Building flying vehicles on Mars is tricky, and you can't exactly go at highway speeds on the surface. Meaning you'd be limited to working in immediate proximity of the base. You'll run out of interesting things in a hurry. Whereas on Venus, your options for flight are pretty much the same as on Earth, meaning you have access to large area for study. You wouldn't be able to land anywhere, but you'd be able to fly to location of interest and simply drop off a probe. If you need to retrieve something from the surface, all you need is a weather balloon.

[Yourself]

35 minutes ago, K^2 said:

And a cloud base on Venus has a lot of advantages. Once built, it can be pretty much self-sustaining. The fact that internal pressure matches external means that a small leak isn't an instant suffocation risk to everyone on board. That means that we could build fairly extensive greenhouses without requiring special materials, and patch them up as necessary. There is also a matter of exploration. Building flying vehicles on Mars is tricky, and you can't exactly go at highway speeds on the surface. Meaning you'd be limited to working in immediate proximity of the base. You'll run out of interesting things in a hurry. Whereas on Venus, your options for flight are pretty much the same as on Earth, meaning you have access to large area for study. You wouldn't be able to land anywhere, but you'd be able to fly to location of interest and simply drop off a probe. If you need to retrieve something from the surface, all you need is a weather balloon.

And perhaps the most important advantage: cloud city was cool as hell.

[AngelLestat]

7 hours ago, Karriz said:

I really doubt Russians had any real plans for that. The concept that NASA released a while back just seems to have caused this idea that it's a better than Mars.

Year 1970: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/QSBItX9n3YIxITmGp_mT7IGLxq-UWy-dIwcvv-fhxbgQhcFrYlYoZCULm8OiFwREL_sTEGyFHg1HsSyFfi8TjZzmEttSdpjI1TXx1ggyVAA-ZXfFLFQZugtcOMDkkjSg7g

 

6 hours ago, fredinno said:

So? Flyby missions still count, since many orbiters and landers fail in the transit phase. And the soviets never stopped sending their robotic pals there, no matter how much they failed.

Unless the orbit insertion is through aerobraking or aerocapture (as the Magellan mission on venus), then not sure what difference it is between a normal orbital insertion maneuver on Mars vs Venus, in any case Venus is bigger so gravity assists will help more.
So orbits and fly-by are not a pattern we need to follow to understand differences between planets.

 

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

Average Venusian surface temperature is above the decomposition point of most organics including the latex protein. It would simply turn brown and crumble choking the astronaut in about 20 seconds. The Venusian atmosphere is around 90 times more pressurized than that of earths; for surface density at that pressure and heat the oxygen inside the space suit would instantly begin burning the skin. 160 feet is the practical diving limit which is about 6 atm of pressure, So no, humans would never be walking around on Venus. The best that might be obtained is a heavily fortified rover with an unknown type of air conditioning system, that can leave the surface within a few hours.

Read...  also..  try to take few minutes before answer.

-------------------------------------------------------

By the way.. many mention the gravity well "problem", but make a reusable rocket in venus is a lot easier than earth.
Lower deltaV needed, there is no need to leave "fuel" in the tanks for a propulsive landing or go back to a pad..  the stages just go back and float waiting for being pick up. Other types of nuclear rockets can be used (no problem with pollute that atmosphere). At that point the cost to send something to orbit is just the cost of fuel... and the fact you can make aerocapture maneuvers with ease, it means that any low gravity rock without atmosphere would require a lot of deltav.

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, SargeRho said:

Those rocks is exactly what's interesting about them: Easily accessible resources that don't require multi-billion dollar ultra-high temperature mining equipment.

Venus has:
-1g gravity
-1 bar atmosphere and resulting radiation protection
-

Phobos and Deimos have:
-Easily mineable resources
-Close to Mars
-Low gravity, making carrying them away easy
-Radiation shielding can be made from the local materials
-High Tech materials allow the manufacture of spacecraft, without having to carry them out of a large gravity well
-The proximity to Mars provides a potential future customer for the materials
-Easiest place in the solar system to reach, aside of some NEOs, as far as DV goes.

 

tl;dr: Venus is like Spain. Hot, and probably nice for living, but the economy is garbage..

Actually Venus Orbit and Lunar Orbit are Easier than Mars Orbit/Mars Moon, but I digress.