Why don't we have a Venus rover by now?

[MBobrik]

No gas turbine runs that long between overhauls. You're normally looking at somewhere between 1500-5000 hours.

Yes I know that the 50000+ figure is not maintenance-free lifetime. But regular jet engines weren't designed to work like that to begin with. And even so. 5000 hours is almost seven months !

Lol, I make no apologies for that, it's a ludicrously common trait amongst engineers. I would go as far to say it's the default setting. Identifying your constraints is a legitimate way to explore a problem space.

It's not the "finding potential problems" part that is your problem. Everyone who has to design/develop stuff has to do it, otherwise they could never make something that actually works. It's the part where you omit/skip/give up on seeking solutions, where your problem lies. Because someone who only finds problems and not solutions can't ever achieve something either.

Bearings are fine if they can be cooled. That's problematic in those ambient temperatures, you'd need active cooling.

Yet again, you quite accurately identified potential problem, but completely flunked the second part. Finding solutions. A quick google search reveals that ceramic bearings that can operate at 500-900 C are commercially available right now so the problem you've identified was in fact solved long ago.

Sure, but you can't make everything out of stainless, and some of your rover is necessarily going to be at temps above ambient. What about lubricants? Seals? Insulators? We don't routinely design vehicles to operate at those ambient temps, so I think you're probably underestimating how much of a learning curve is involved.

And the same pattern. Finding problems and reasons to write off the entire thing as too difficult. As it is said, who wants seeks means, who doesn't seeks reasons. And you, and people like you, are all about seeking reasons and nil about seeking means.

Edited February 15, 2014 by MBobrik

[AngelLestat]

That is the difference between us. you are only seeing problems. I am seeking for solutions..

Ideally any team will have a mix of personality types, but in my experience you probably get about 70% "problem focussed" people on engineering teams.

That is totally true. If he was 100% agree with you, it will said. yes.. I am agree. But it is not usefull. Becouse if there is a problem and nobody see it. You leave thinking that you have the answer.

Also when someone try to sink your idea, it help you to see your idea from different angles, and find solutions or improvements that you dint thoght from the begining.

I like to be both, sometimes the one that seek problems or the one that seek solutions. But yes, is more profit when the 65% of people is finding solutions against a 35%. Becouse in mostly all cases, it is easier to find problems.

[MBobrik]

But it is not usefull. Becouse if there is a problem and nobody see it. You leave thinking that you have the answer.

... except it is not true. Now you try to portray me like someone who keeps failing because he ignores potential problems. But I am not like that at all. I don't ignore nor neglect or fail to see problems. On the contrary, I do a lot of searching for potential problems so that I can find solutions to them. In fact, my colleagues say that I tend to over-engineer stuff to deal with too unlikely circumstances. As I said before. Finding problems is not the problem. it is necessary. Using them as reasons to give up, instead making one step more and seeking solutions, is the part that is wrong.

[LtHeckard]

The bright region near the center in the polar hemispheric view (a) above is Maxwell Montes,the highest mountain range on Venus; it reaches an elevation of 11 km above average elevation (2 km more than the elevation of Mount Everest above sea level on Earth). Landing a rover on Maxwell Montes seems logical to me, The farther you go up, the colder it gets and the atmosphere gets thinner.

[Dispatcher]

The bright region near the center in the polar hemispheric view (a) above is Maxwell Montes,the highest mountain range on Venus; it reaches an elevation of 11 km above average elevation (2 km more than the elevation of Mount Everest above sea level on Earth). Landing a rover on Maxwell Montes seems logical to me, The farther you go up, the colder it gets and the atmosphere gets thinner.

In relative terms. Hot and crushing is still hot and crushing.

[Nuke]

The bright region near the center in the polar hemispheric view (a) above is Maxwell Montes,the highest mountain range on Venus; it reaches an elevation of 11 km above average elevation (2 km more than the elevation of Mount Everest above sea level on Earth). Landing a rover on Maxwell Montes seems logical to me, The farther you go up, the colder it gets and the atmosphere gets thinner.

does that pierce the sulfuric acid part of the atmosphere? if so you would need to add more robust corrosion resistance.

In relative terms. Hot and crushing is still hot and crushing.

still it could reduce the design tolerances for the rover by a large factor. from my very rough guesstimates were looking at 1/4 the pressure and about ~100c less temperature. which will certainly let you get more power out of an rtg. the low pressure, low temperature compartment can be made less robust, reducing total mass to venus. also the power requirements for the needed refrigeration can be reduced.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Nuke

[Seret]

Mbobrik, I see you've decided to double-down on your "play the man not the ball" line of argument, which is disappointing. I don't see that line of discussion going anywhere interesting or productive, so I won't pursue it with you. If you'd like to expand further on your opinion of my many character flaws, feel free to PM me so we don't bore everybody else to death.

What I will say however, is that if you look at the subject of the thread ("Why don't we have a Venus rover by now?") it would seem like expanding on the difficulties facing a Venus rover would be bang on topic, and berating people for posting on-topic seems a little weird to me. People are of course free to discuss how a rover could be built, but no-one is under any compulsion to do so. If you'd like to take part in a thread where you can tell people to discuss that, perhaps you should start one.

[sal_vager]

Seret, Mbobrik, please try to keep any personal opinions of each other out of the thread, thank you

[MBobrik]

Seret, Mbobrik, please try to keep any personal opinions of each other out of the thread, thank you

I thereby apologize. I overreacted. I admit I have a hard time dealing politely with people who obviously have an ax to grind. Next time I just will just refute the alleged "roadblocks" he (or people like him) made up and leave it at that.

[sal_vager]

Just move on without the sniping, sheesh.

[Dispatcher]

does that pierce the sulfuric acid part of the atmosphere? if so you would need to add more robust corrosion resistance. ... still it could reduce the design tolerances for the rover by a large factor. from my very rough guesstimates were looking at 1/4 the pressure and about ~100c less temperature. which will certainly let you get more power out of an rtg. the low pressure, low temperature compartment can be made less robust, reducing total mass to venus. also the power requirements for the needed refrigeration can be reduced.

The highest peaks on Venus are well below the acid cloud and mist layers. But as for design tolerances, unless a rover landing can be guaranteed to land (edit: whoops! "to occur") at a high elevation target, the device must be designed to survive and function no matter where it lands.

[Vaebn]

Venus is just a big, hot ball of bleh.

I want a Rover on Io.

[Nuke]

The highest peaks on Venus are well below the acid cloud and mist layers. But as for design tolerances, unless a rover landing can be guaranteed to land (edit: whoops! "to occur") at a high elevation target, the device must be designed to survive and function no matter where it lands.

unless you can find an elevated target big enough to permit some error. but otherwise a missed target could be catastrophic in that situation. but i have the feeling the atmospheric density would allow for a far more controllable descent. you could have some deployable wings and glide to the target.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Nuke

[Dispatcher]

unless you can find an elevated target big enough to permit some error. but otherwise a missed target could be catastrophic in that situation. but i have the feeling the atmospheric density would allow for a far more controllable descent.

I agree about the density. Yet that quality might sweep a rover off the peaks and down into a valley, like a slow moving stream pushes pebbles. I'm also wondering what kind of control would be needed to deal with hurricane force winds at the higher elevations of the atmosphere?

[Dispatcher]

Venus is just a big, hot ball of bleh.

I want a Rover on Io.

Actually, I think a rover at Io would be a LOT more doable than one at Venus. I think the attraction of Venus (no pun intended) has to do with the extreme challenge that it presents. Its Hell, so lets go wrestle with it.

[Vaebn]

Of course its a lot more doable. And the sights are going to be amazing! I mean. It already looks gorgeous (and pizzalicious) from space, can you imagine how it looks from the ground?

It's probably full of multicoloured sulfur thingies all over the place. And then a volcano erupts, and a mushroom appear in the sky 330km tall.

Mountains taller than Everest! Sulfuric magma rivers! Dried out lava tubes! And then Jupiter rises over the horizon 40x time the size of the moon! SO AWESOME.

Meanwhile the rover on Venus is photographic hot rocks. And then some other hot rocks. And then the 116 day Venus night comes and even the hot rock photos suck. Boo.

*attempts to hijack the thread with his io-roving agenda*

Edited February 16, 2014 by Vaebn

[Albert VDS]

The only harder thing, than landing a rover on Venus and making it operable for a long period, that I can think of is getting a probe to surf on a plasma wave on the Sun.