Manned mission to venus's surface?

[Souper]

As seen in this video:

The astronaut is using new technology instead of old soviet tech. Venera 13 was old soviet tech and it lasted for 2 hours. So i think new tech might give us as much as 8-14 hours on the surface.

As for the suits, IT'S NOT THAT HARD, PEOPLE!

We'd only need these features to make a Venus suit:

Titanium.

Structural support on the inside.

Cooling system using a exotic new technology / element (such as sending a block of ice thousands of degrees below zero)

Well granted it might not be that easy, but as far as i'm concerned, the soviets DID last for 2+ hours, so we can do better.

[Nibb31]

Titanium.

Structural support on the inside.

Cooling system using a exotic new technology / element (such as sending a block of ice thousands of degrees below zero)

Even titanium would have trouble at these pressures.

There is no room on the inside, because there is a mushy human on the inside.

Non-existent new technology does not exist.

Even if you could devise a spacesuit, you couldn't move with all the weight and pressure. You would need a superthick pressure vessel and an exoskeleton.

However, at this point, there really is no point in going outside to walk on the surface for 12 mins if you're going to be stuck inside a 2cm think pressurized shell and interacting through video cameras. You would be better off staying inside your lander and using a telepresence robot for EVAs. Your capabilities would be exactly the same.

However, at this point, why land your mushy human body on the surface? You might as well just land your telepresence robot and stay in orbit above the clouds.

However, at this point, why bother going to Venus orbit at all when you can control your telepresence robot (with a short delay) from the comfort of a mission control center, and go home to your wife and kids every night.

Manned Venus mission is useless.

[Souper]

Even titanium would have trouble at these pressures.

There is no room on the inside, because there is a mushy human on the inside.

Non-existent new technology does not exist.

Even if you could devise a spacesuit, you couldn't move with all the weight and pressure. You would need a superthick pressure vessel and an exoskeleton.

However, at this point, there really is no point in going outside to walk on the surface for 12 mins if you're going to be stuck inside a 2cm think pressurized shell and interacting through video cameras. You would be better off staying inside your lander and using a telepresence robot for EVAs. Your capabilities would be exactly the same.

However, at this point, why land your mushy human body on the surface? You might as well just land your telepresence robot and stay in orbit above the clouds.

However, at this point, why bother going to Venus orbit at all when you can control your telepresence robot (with a short delay) from the comfort of a mission control center, and go home to your wife and kids every night.

Manned Venus mission is useless.

You forget the whole point of manned missions is to be more cost effective, have strength in the face of cosmic odds, and, of course, the very reason we exist: To prove we can do it; to do more with less; to know.

When i said structural support, i mean having an exoskeleton.

Cooling a block of ice to sub-zero temperatures has been done before. Simple as that.

Even if it needs a freaking massive spacesuit, a mechsuit, or even a pressure ressistant forcefeild, if it take us 500 - 2000 more years to do it, WE WILL DO IT EVENTUALLY!

Because we're humanity; relentless, stubborn, blind geniuses.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Souper

[Duxwing]

@super The sky calls to us.

-Duxwing

[Nibb31]

You forget the whole point of manned missions is to be more cost effective, have strength in the face of cosmic odds, and, of course, the very reason we exist: To prove we can do it; to do more with less; to know.

That's a completely debatable opinion, not fact. There is certainly nothing factual about manned missions being more cost effective. Quite the opposite.

Because we're humanity; relentless, stubborn, blind geniuses.

I tend to find abundant evidence that we are pretty apathetic and stupid as a group.

[Souper]

My point still stands. Were' stubborn, and sometimes blind.

The whole point of manned missions is to at least try be more cost effective, have strength in the face of cosmic odds, and, of course, the very reason we exist: To prove we can do it; to do more with less; to know.

Because we're humanity; relentless, stubborn, blind geniuses, and other times, idiots.

[vger]

A manned mission to Venus is just begging for death. At least with our current tech.

Mars is more than sufficient a challenge for now.

To go to Venus you need to build something that not only likes being in a vacuum, but is just as happy being at the bottom of the ocean... while that ocean is boiling.

If Hell were a planet in our solar system, it would be Venus. The planet is so dark and forboding, that it even conspires with Earth to do this, as an ominous warning to anyone who dares set foot there.

As an aside, thanks for that video link. I need to see this TV series now.

Edited June 1, 2014 by vger

[Seret]

How exactly does one make something thousands of degrees below zero?

[Duxwing]

That's a completely debatable opinion, not fact. There is certainly nothing factual about manned missions being more cost effective. Quite the opposite.

Manned missions can do much more than robotic ones; e.g., self-repair, advanced on-site resource use, manufacturing. They also provide spacefaring experience every civilization needs.

I tend to find abundant evidence that we are pretty apathetic and stupid as a group.

*hugs* Well, at least I hope you don't think of me that way. And I think it's better than you think: we've come a long way since the days of stone tools and megafauna.

-Duxwing

[BagelRabbit]

The astronaut is using new technology instead of old soviet tech. Venera 13 was old soviet tech and it lasted for 2 hours. So i think new tech might give us as much as 8-14 hours on the surface.

That may be true, but electronics are much more pressure- and temperature-resistant than humans. EVAs would be almost out of the question, unless humanity figures out a cooling system far more powerful than the ones we know today. (And cooling a block of some strange material below absolute zero would take an obscene amount of energy, by the way.) Keep in mind, gravity on Venus is about the same as gravity on Earth, and even the Apollo moon suits would be very taxing to wear on Earth. With the additions suggested, suits on Venus may weigh over 200 pounds. That's being optimistic.

Also, you would get blown down by even the slowest of Venusian winds, and moving through the atmosphere would be like moving through half-melted chocolate.

Returning to Earth would be viewed as a must, and returning from Venus would take an absolutely huge amount of energy, enough that the mission would, again, likely not be possible with today's technology.

That being said, a manned flyby of Venus would be very easy to accomplish, more so than a manned flyby of Mars. So why don't we start there and work our way up?

[HeadHunter67]

IT'S NOT THAT HARD, PEOPLE!

sending a block of ice thousands of degrees below zero.

There is simply no such thing as "thousands of degrees below zero", and there never will be. If you don't want to talk about science, just say so, and we can carry on with a fantastic discussion of using non-existent sorcery to accomplish space missions.

[Nibb31]

Manned missions can do much more than robotic ones; e.g., self-repair, advanced on-site resource use, manufacturing. They also provide spacefaring experience every civilization needs.

That's wrong. Proof is that we have gotten way more science out of robotic exploration of Mars than boots on the ground that might never happen. Years of robotic exploration covers a much wider area and provides and longer duration than any manned mission could provide.

Robotic exploration is still "manned". It's telepresence. We don't send people to fix deep sea cables or to inspect nuclear reactor pressure vessels because it would be stupid. Instead we send robots and we use remote manipulators as extensions of our bodies. Those extensions are tools, just like computers, cars, and screwdrivers. And after all, what is more human than the ability to wield tools?

*hugs* Well, at least I hope you don't think of me that way.

I said "as a group". Individually, there a some amazing human beings. However, as a species, on the scale of the universe, we aren't any more valuable than a virus.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Nibb31

[Souper]

Are you on serious drugs?

Fine, then we'll send dense liquid nitrogen cooling systems there.

[Souper]

Look, at some point in our existence as a species this manned venus mission WILL happen. It has to. Sulfur mines, energy generation, CO2 mines in the atmosphere, areostat bases, surface or subsurface bases, terraforming, the list goes on.

[jwenting]

However, at this point, there really is no point in going outside to walk on the surface for 12 mins if you're going to be stuck inside a 2cm think pressurized shell and interacting through video cameras. You would be better off staying inside your lander and using a telepresence robot for EVAs. Your capabilities would be exactly the same.

Or better yet in a nice comfy office at NASA Dryden sipping a diet Mountain Dew.

[vger]

Look, at some point in our existence as a species this manned venus mission WILL happen. It has to. Sulfur mines, energy generation, CO2 mines in the atmosphere, areostat bases, surface or subsurface bases, terraforming, the list goes on.

CO2 mining will have to be very first on that list. Nobody is going to terraform anything with an atmosphere that thick.

And we'd be better off learning how to mine the excess CO2 in our OWN atmosphere before we bother with Venus.

[Nuke]

i think your biggest problem would be your ascent stage. this video seemed to indicate a vtvl ssto. this ship needs to operate over a wide range of temperatures and be capable of pushing through the atmosphere of venus. you also need a rocket engine that can handle a wider range of pressures than what is used for earth launch. some kind of nuclear thermal rocket that can operate in both open and closed cycle modes (on hydrogen or atmosphere) would probibly work, provided it can be run in the hot atmosphere of venus without melting down. it might also be possible to use an "air" augmented rocket, the dense venusian atmosphere may actually work in your favor here.

the good news is that you can probibly land a mostly full rocket, the atmosphere is dense enough that a small de-orbit burn, and a small amount of thrust near the ground for final touchdown would be all that would be neccisary. the thing is you are going to need to bring a lot of heavy refrigeration hardware for survival on venus (ice a thousand degrees below zero cannot exist, coldest you can make something is 0k, which is -459.67f, or -273.15c, fortunately refrigeration is a well known technology).

short duration suits can probibly be built. they would be well insulated and carry much cryogenic coolant, vaporization of which would cool the suit. of course you run out, you have a very short time to get back to the ship. it would be of design similar to the newt suit, but it would need to be made with high temperature materials, and given the gravity of venus and the bulk and weight of the suit, it may need to be robotically augmented to allow ease of use.

[Duxwing]

That's wrong. Proof is that we have gotten way more science out of robotic exploration of Mars than boots on the ground that might never happen. Years of robotic exploration covers a much wider area and provides and longer duration than any manned mission could provide.

Our having gotten more science from unmanned exploration of Mars than we have manned exploration thereof is banal because we have only tried the former. Moreover, manned and unmanned exploration provide different benefits; e.g., rovers can tirelessly explore barren wasteland for years, whereas humans can be subjects of diverse biological, psychological, and sociological experiments about spacefaring. Such missions as Mars One could provide these benefits by permanently colonizing Mars.

Robotic exploration is still "manned". It's telepresence. We don't send people to fix deep sea cables or to inspect nuclear reactor pressure vessels because it would be stupid. Instead we send robots and we use remote manipulators as extensions of our bodies. Those extensions are tools, just like computers, cars, and screwdrivers. And after all, what is more human than the ability to wield tools?

You're just twisting words: we all know that telepresence is not presence. For example, putting a laptop in the pews to watch your best friend's wedding is not going to his wedding.

I said "as a group". Individually, there a some amazing human beings. However, as a species, on the scale of the universe, we aren't any more valuable than a virus.

And has this forum not treated you well? Come on, everyone, cuddle-puddle on Nibb!

What does "on the scale of the universe" mean? Guessing, I offer this rebuttal: as a species and on the scale of the universe, we comprise all known intelligent life and therefore the only, in the words of Carl Sagan, "...way for the cosmos to know itself".

-Duxwing

[Reddragon]

Even if it needs a freaking massive spacesuit, a mechsuit, or even a pressure ressistant forcefeild, if it take us 500 - 2000 more years to do it, WE WILL DO IT EVENTUALLY!

Because we're humanity; relentless, stubborn, blind geniuses.

Inventing things we only know from Sci-fi stories is the matter of ability and reality and not exactly time and advancement. I can't say for sure that it will never happen but as of now it's rather superstitious than real like anti-gravity.

[Justin Kerbice]

How exactly does one make something thousands of degrees below zero?

Funny, no-one seems to have noticed this obvious statement !

Even millions of °K have been measured and created, the lowest temp is still 0°K with actual knowledge.

[Souper]

So you're all implying we'll NEVER set foot on venus? Bah!

[Reddragon]

Flybys are still possible. Maybe a laboratory on the surface. Just like deep ocean exploration.

[Simon Ross]

Yep, we will never set foot on Venus

The question you should be asking is why would we want to ?

[Souper]

Something just occurred to me: we'd just need to re-purpose a submarine. Maybe make it heat resistant, give it insulation, an airlock, and rocket engines and corrosion proof titanium shielding. We could have this technology as early as 2156 July 7th, 11:26.36 AM, (DON'T ASK)

Edited June 1, 2014 by Souper

[WinkAllKerb'']

there no point approaching the sun beside tourism, get away get away