Nasa is considering a Manned Mission to Venus before Mars!

[Newt]

Well, I think that the point being made was that there was in the presentation a way to return to orbit. It also seems doubtful to me that NASA/ESA/Roscosms/most other people will send a mission to Venus (or anywhere else) without means of return. That is not the way things operate. Even if the video gave no evidence for such a mechanism, I think we should assume its presence on an analogous real world craft.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Newt
typo

[Nibb31]

Well, I think that the point being made was that there was in the presentation a way to return to orbit. It also seems doubtful to me that NASA/ESA/Roscosms/most other people will send a mission to Venus (or anywhere else) without means of return.

Which is why the idea of a manned expedition to Venus seems doubtful too.

[AngelLestat]

robotic missions are always cheaper.

But manned mission inspire the world.

Those are the kind of missions which kids or teenagers see and then think.. I want to be an astronaunt, enginner, meteorologist, physicist, geologist, etc.

They make the world dream with the future. The same as happen with the apollo missions.

Also there are always things that robots can not do, due to comunication delay or design limitation.

The bigger science value of venus remains in how much can help to our meteorological models and to understand our fate with the greenhouse effect.

I will glad to see a human in any other planet besides the moon, but with venus there is something else.. you can see a human in other world without a space suit. (as somebody else said before)

And if you set a permanent base there, with the time it will be possible to extract any material from the surface. We are not talking about the sun surface temperature, is just the temperature that we can find inside of an oven.

[King Arthur]

The mission is called High Altitude Venus Operational Concept, or HAVOC

You know what else is causing havoc? NASA's (and by extension the US government's) complete lack of any solid long-term roadmap or a plan.

Just a few weeks back when the Orion launched NASA was trumpeting manned missions to Mars (which currently aren't yet funded or even planned) and artificially-retrieved asteroids (which are planned but dubious).

And now suddenly we're talking about going to Venus?

Yeah, wake me up when they actually have an idea what the hell they're doing.

[RainDreamer]

Maybe we should send a floating probe there first and see how things goes? We got a rover on Mars already, so at least we are sure that we can land on Mars. Send another probe to Venus and test out those airship in an extended amount of time would also help us a lot.

In either way, I want to get out of this planet before we kill ourselves over stupid things.

[Albert VDS]

Well there's no real reason to build a Mars base either!

A reason to build a base anywhere is to extend the time you can stay at that place and do research.

We have bases on the Antarctic just for that purpose, the same idea holds up for any place where there is science to be done.

I don't even see why Mars sample return is considered at all. The main point of sample return is so that you can process it with our massive Earth scientific equipment and laboratories, without having to rocket them all the way to the site. But it takes a massive, complicated payload (much more massive and complicated, if you put people on it too) to do sample return from Mars,

A Mars sample return is an invaluable mission, mainly the reason you already pointed out(no need of hauling heavy equipment to Mars) but you also material for test which haven't designed yet.

It's the easiest mission which has a chance to find out if Mars once had life. Such a mission shouldn't be that expensive or complicated, let alone massive.

It won't be a few hundred kilograms of rocks, you could get away with core samples like the upcoming Mars 2020 rover.

As for expensive and complicated, this proposed mission would be cheap and straight forward: http://www.space.com/24984-spacex-mars-mission-red-dragon.html

and it begs the question as whether that is more efficient than just building a massive Mars Science Super-Laboratory with all the equipment you would of used to process the samples. Then it can rove around and use that equipment to do science with more Martian dust (an option not available without another sample-return mission)

The reason you don't do that is:

- These experiments need to be downsized

- More experiments adds to weight

- More weight requires a new driving system which can handle it

- A redesign of EDL

- It needs to be light enough to be launched by current rockets.

All these things cost extra money, which you are trying to save by not having a sample return.

Also a sample return isn't dust samples, you would want at least rock cores.

You are underestimating the resources that can be extracted from the atmosphere of Venus.

Which you can extract from the Martian atmosphere and soil.

I can see this blimp idea as an unmanned mission, it could do some atmospheric analyses.

But why would you want risk peoples lives by putting them in an airship which aren't renowned for being safe or having a huge lifting capacity.

One rip or tear and the whole thing plummets in to the hell that is Venus.

[SubzeroSpartan7]

Didn't you see the video?

Apparently the entire page didn't load the first time I saw it. Strange.

[AngelLestat]

Maybe we should send a floating probe there first and see how things goes? We got a rover on Mars already, so at least we are sure that we can land on Mars. Send another probe to Venus and test out those airship in an extended amount of time would also help us a lot.

In either way, I want to get out of this planet before we kill ourselves over stupid things.

Soviets and USA already sent many probes to venus, some of them were a ballon that float at that same height.

Nonetheless, the first step of this mission is to sent a probe airship to test one more time the conditions at that height to be complete sure.

You know what else is causing havoc? NASA's (and by extension the US government's) complete lack of any solid long-term roadmap or a plan.

Just a few weeks back when the Orion launched NASA was trumpeting manned missions to Mars (which currently aren't yet funded or even planned) and artificially-retrieved asteroids (which are planned but dubious).

And now suddenly we're talking about going to Venus?

Yeah, wake me up when they actually have an idea what the hell they're doing.

You are misunderstanding all the process.

Orion is a capsule that can be used in this mission too. Is a capsule designed for interplanetary purposes.

This concept studies that NASA makes, there are not only to measure the cost, the returning value, the safety, etc.

These concept are also made to present to the public and see if they have public support.

Because when the goverment choose if their spent money or not in these things, it depends most than nothing in the public support.

So when we (the space geeks) and normal public we show as negatives towards these ideas, thats is when there are not supported.

So not blame the govement, blame you in any case.

A reason to build a base anywhere is to extend the time you can stay at that place and do research.

We have bases on the Antarctic just for that purpose, the same idea holds up for any place where there is science to be done.

ALso in venus.

Now tell me whats worth more, know the key to greenhouse effect that may save the earth, or at least complete all weather math models to improve our predictions (there is a lot of money in wheather prediction) or find some bacteria in mars? (which you may also find in venus atmosphere, but with lower chance)

[cantab]

Venus is, in general, underexplored. It's not been landed on since the Vega probes in 1985, which topical to this discussion also included balloons.

The surface conditions are of course extremely challenging, but maybe that makes things worthwhile. Electronics that can operate under extreme heat will be useful in industry on Earth as well as science on Venus.

Of course that underexploration means that a manned mission really is some way in the future.

[Albert VDS]

ALso in venus.

Now tell me whats worth more, know the key to greenhouse effect that may save the earth, or at least complete all weather math models to improve our predictions (there is a lot of money in wheather prediction) or find some bacteria in mars? (which you may also find in venus atmosphere, but with lower chance)

You don't need humans on Venus to do experiments, what are they going to do what a probe can't do?

By the way, we already know the key to the greenhouse effect; an atmosphere filled with gases which hold in heat.

If it holds too much heat more gases are let into the atmosphere and thus the vicious cycle starts.

It would change the world if we found bacteria on Mars, it would answer the age old question "Are we alone".

So to you "Weather and greenhouse effect experiments" are more important than the question "Are we alone".

Also, we don't need to save the Earth, we need to save ourselves. If we destroy ourselves the Earth will be here long after.

[Starman4308]

Soviets and USA already sent many probes to venus, some of them were a ballon that float at that same height.

Nonetheless, the first step of this mission is to sent a probe airship to test one more time the conditions at that height to be complete sure.

No, the first step is to make an unmanned blimp, and forget about sending people, because the unmanned blimp can do everything a manned blimp could at a tiny fraction of the cost.

So when we (the space geeks) and normal public we show as negatives towards these ideas, thats is when there are not supported.

So not blame the govement, blame you in any case.

I think you can squarely blame this one on clueless NASA administrators who took a look at some absurd Venus plan, and pitched it regardless of whether it made any sense whatsoever. NASA would be much better served coming up with a solid roadmap with practical missions with good returns on investment.

ALso in venus.

Now tell me whats worth more, know the key to greenhouse effect that may save the earth, or at least complete all weather math models to improve our predictions (there is a lot of money in wheather prediction) or find some bacteria in mars? (which you may also find in venus atmosphere, but with lower chance)

I doubt you'll find any magic bullet in Venus's atmosphere. We could certainly improve our predictive models, but the solution will be here on Earth, when we finally reach a carbon-neutral or near-neutral state. And, as mentioned before, why would you ever send astronauts on this mission? A manned Mars mission kind of makes sense, even if the return-on-investment is atrocious, but there is literally nothing a manned Venus blimp could do that an unmanned Venus blimp couldn't do.

EDIT: A manned Mars lander could do things that an unmanned Mars rover cannot do. It's not much, but at least people are very good for sample collection and other such tasks.

A manned Venus blimp would function solely to waste money and endanger astronaut lives, because there is no task in Venus's atmosphere which requires hands or a human at the controls.

Now, in terms of unmanned missions, you could make a strong case for an unmanned Venus mission being more important than another Mars rover. But, when you bring humans into the equation, Mars is a semi-valid choice, while there is no rationale whatsoever for Venus.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Starman4308

[Brethern]

I can see this blimp idea as an unmanned mission, it could do some atmospheric analyses.

But why would you want risk peoples lives by putting them in an airship which aren't renowned for being safe or having a huge lifting capacity.

One rip or tear and the whole thing plummets in to the hell that is Venus.

Zeppelins don't work that way. The interior isn't filled with helium or hydrogen, inside of it are many cells that are filled with the gas. lose a couple cells means the others keep it aloft.

[NERVAfan]

While they could do a flyby or orbital mission, this balloon mission is just insane. Besides there is no reason to build a balloon city, it would be expensive, it would be dangerous, there are zero resources because you can't even touch the ground, there is nothing to gain and finally it would never expand. Use the resources to build a Mars base.

There are tons of resources in Venus's atmosphere! It has the major elements (CHON) necessary for life (carbon and oxygen in carbon dioxide, nitrogen in nitrogen gas, hydrogen and oxygen in sulfuric acid), so you can make water and breathing air.

These are also the elements needed to make many plastics.

The only thing that can't be practically gotten at is minerals/metals, but if you were talking about building something on the scale of a permanent city, realistically we'd have an asteroid industry by then, which could complement the Venus city's gas extraction.

As for things to gain... Venus' atmosphere is very much worth studying in its own right. Sure, you can't pick up rocks, but that just makes this a meteorology mission rather than geology. There's a mysterious unknown substance in Venus' atmosphere that absorbs UV, and a bizarre cold layer, etc.

(And there might even be microbial life in floating droplets...)

No sulfuric acid atmosphere, no hurricane-level winds, no need to figure out the best way to launch a rocket from mid-atmosphere, no need to figure out how to preserve said rocket from sulfuric acid...

On the other hand, the pressure outside is Earthlike, so that a pressure loss will be slow and give you plenty of time to work on it, rather than rapid and quickly deadly.

The hurricane level winds aren't necessarily a problem for a balloon since the balloon is moving with the wind - only relative speeds matter. The question is how uniform those winds are.

Launching a rocket from the air is an existing technology - the Pegasus rocket does it. Launching from balloons is well-known too, lots of sounding rockets were done that way, though nothing orbital IIRC.

Protecting stuff from sulfuric acid is also well-known technology.

It also helps that the astronauts would have something to do on Mars, unlike Venus, where the crew would twiddle its thumbs and look at all the instruments that could've been sent on an unmanned mission.

There's a lot they could do, they'd just be doing "lab" things analyzing the atmosphere etc. not "field geology" things.

[Albert VDS]

Zeppelins don't work that way. The interior isn't filled with helium or hydrogen, inside of it are many cells that are filled with the gas. lose a couple cells means the others keep it aloft.

Well if I have to believe the video in the first post they work like that. It looks like a single envelope the way it's inflated.

[Starman4308]

There's a lot they could do, they'd just be doing "lab" things analyzing the atmosphere etc. not "field geology" things.

Name me one experiment astronauts could perform in Venus's atmosphere which could not be done equally well with a robotic laboratory.

Pipettes? You can send the fanciest, ritziest automated pipette handling system one-way for a tiny fraction of the cost of sending a human being two ways. Changing up valves? An automated system, again, is a tiny fraction of the mass of a human and associated life support and return rocket.

[montyben101]

The daily mail got a bit carried away

[Brethern]

Well if I have to believe the video in the first post they work like that. It looks like a single envelope the way it's inflated.

I'm assuming NASA is going to be intelligent enough to use the multiple bladder method instead of doing their normal thing and making an extremely stupid mistake.

[Ikaneko]

The daily mail got a bit carried away

Mmm yeah, they never do that. Height of news reporting and definitely never blow anything out of proportion.

[AngelLestat]

You don't need humans on Venus to do experiments, what are they going to do what a probe can't do?

No, the first step is to make an unmanned blimp, and forget about sending people, because the unmanned blimp can do everything a manned blimp could at a tiny fraction of the cost.

http://youtu.be/40YIIaF1qiw?t=28m55s

That is the key moment that I wanna share. But the discussion on probes-vs-humans starts here, and I encourage all to watch it.

http://youtu.be/40YIIaF1qiw?t=21m23s

By the way, we already know the key to the greenhouse effect; an atmosphere filled with gases which hold in heat.

If it holds too much heat more gases are let into the atmosphere and thus the vicious cycle starts.

I doubt you'll find any magic bullet in Venus's atmosphere. We could certainly improve our predictive models, but the solution will be here on Earth, when we finally reach a carbon-neutral or near-neutral state

Albert, I know that gravity bends light.. this mean that we can solve singularities?

We have a math model to predict our climate. But is not complete, it has flaws in some areas. We dont understand much about clouds, hurricanes. We can not predict what is the real fate of earth on global warming, we have some rought estimations in short periods but we dont know for certain in what mess we really are.

The model may work fine in some circumstances. But that is because was made it and corrected to match predictions with the things we measure.

But a good model needs to work fine in any circustance under any atmosphere. And it doesn´t. So only when we use the same model with two different parameter values and then we compare the predictions with the real measures taken. That is when we find the key to solve all the flaws that our math model may have.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/meetings/archive/vexag_9th/augSept11/presentations/WhyExploreVenusNow.pdf

Venus has a lot of similarities with earth, gravity, amount of co2, it had similar amount of water before, similar pressure and temperature at 50km height, etc.

Also finding an strong evidence about the global warming and our atmosphere fate, may force to all nations to take the issue much more seriously.

It would change the world if we found bacteria on Mars, it would answer the age old question "Are we alone".

Yes, and now we can try to become friends of this bacteria so we dont feel alone anymore.

So to you "Weather and greenhouse effect experiments" are more important than the question "Are we alone".

If almost all life die due a climate change, then that question takes a new meaning.

Now, in terms of unmanned missions, you could make a strong case for an unmanned Venus mission being more important than another Mars rover. But, when you bring humans into the equation, Mars is a semi-valid choice, while there is no rationale whatsoever for Venus.

The main advantage to manned mission (lets ignore the publicity and inspirational advantage) is that you dont have time delays or lack of comunication due planet rotation, bandwidth to sent information, etc.

In the same way a geologist may be a lot more efficient in mars than a rover, applied on a meteorologist in venus.

A meteorologist can saw the cloulds formations - colors, and understand a lot more what is going on. They can know if a sample may be contaminated or not, etc.

They will also sent probes to the surface from the blimp, and you need to drive them in real time.

As for things to gain... Venus' atmosphere is very much worth studying in its own right. Sure, you can't pick up rocks, but that just makes this a meteorology mission rather than geology. There's a mysterious unknown substance in Venus' atmosphere that absorbs UV, and a bizarre cold layer, etc.

(And there might even be microbial life in floating droplets...)

Launching a rocket from the air is an existing technology - the Pegasus rocket does it. Launching from balloons is well-known too, lots of sounding rockets were done that way, though nothing orbital IIRC.

Protecting stuff from sulfuric acid is also well-known technology.

well said.

The key advantage is that we can test anything about this mission in our own atmosphere.

We can not do the same for mars.

Of course that underexploration means that a manned mission really is some way in the future.

You dont need manned missions to the venus surface, if you have human pressence in the atmosphere, then you can command any robot by virtual reality as you will be there.

The daily mail got a bit carried away

Why they talk about helium airships? hydrogen is a lot cheaper with extra lift, and venus does not have big levels of o2, is all trapped in the co2, so there is not risk.

Edited December 22, 2014 by AngelLestat

[Starman4308]

http://youtu.be/40YIIaF1qiw?t=28m55s

That is the key moment that I wanna share. But the discussion on probes-vs-humans starts here, and I encourage all to watch it.

http://youtu.be/40YIIaF1qiw?t=21m23s

No, that's where you want the discussion to begin. To me, "because it would be impressive" is not a good rationale.

But a good model needs to work fine in any circustance under any atmosphere. And it doesn´t. So only when we use the same model with two different parameter values and then we compare the predictions with the real measures taken. That is when we find the key to solve all the flaws that our math model may have.

I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against the need to send men there.

The main advantage to manned mission (lets ignore the publicity and inspirational advantage) is that you dont have time delays or lack of comunication due planet rotation, bandwidth to sent information, etc.

In the same way a geologist may be a lot more efficient in mars than a rover, applied on a meteorologist in venus.

A meteorologist can saw the cloulds formations - colors, and understand a lot more what is going on. They can know if a sample may be contaminated or not, etc.

A meteorologist is perfectly capable of looking at a camera feed, and while sample contamination could be an issue, it is almost certainly cheaper to send ten duplicate unmanned missions than a single manned mission.

Rovers would be an entirely separate question on account of the incredible temperature and pressure on Venus's surface. I'm not sure we even have electronics which work at these temperatures; without that, we would need sophisticated insulation and active cooling, etc. Regardless, if we can operate Mars rovers from Earth, we can certainly operate Venus rovers from Earth: the distance is shorter, and the additional complications of Venus operation are all independent of whether we have a short or long communication loop.

The key advantage is that we can test anything about this mission in our own atmosphere.

Except, you know, the whole "craft must remain proof against sulfuric acid after months in space" thing.

[NERVAfan]

and the additional complications of Venus operation are all independent of whether we have a short or long communication loop.

Actually, not quite; if the rover has a sharply limited lifespan, a short communication loop lets you get more done/make better use of the time.

Except, you know, the whole "craft must remain proof against sulfuric acid after months in space" thing.

Is that such a difficult problem? Sulfuric acid is a well-known industrial chemical... I think protection against it is well-understood. The dirigible envelope itself (which needs to be light and might be plastics that would have trouble outgassing in vacuum) never needs to be exposed to vacuum, so being in space shouldn't really matter.

[AngelLestat]

No, that's where you want the discussion to begin. To me, "because it would be impressive" is not a good rationale.

No I am not.. you dint see the second link? I want you watched all, but I dint wanna force you to spent 15 min doing that.

I love the whole discussion, and I invite all to see it.

Also we learn things more efficient when we look our selfs reflected in somebody else doing the same thing.

We are still like any animal in that. Chimps learn things a lot faster when they copy the actions from their own specie.

So there is when these actions capture the attention from the whole world.

We can learn reading a book, but going to school and lessen a proffesor we understand things faster.

This is explained in psicology.

So lets not remove the need to see another human being in another planet.

That is something that the humanity needs. Also we already saw humans with a space suit, but the only place to see a human without a space suit in other world is in Venus.

Is cheaper to sent humans to venus than mars, also safest.

And it will be awesome!

A meteorologist is perfectly capable of looking at a camera feed, and while sample contamination could be an issue, it is almost certainly cheaper to send ten duplicate unmanned missions than a single manned mission.

sure, but we still need that source of inspiration to embrace a new age of young scientist.

Rovers would be an entirely separate question on account of the incredible temperature and pressure on Venus's surface. I'm not sure we even have electronics which work at these temperatures; without that, we would need sophisticated insulation and active cooling, etc. Regardless, if we can operate Mars rovers from Earth, we can certainly operate Venus rovers from Earth: the distance is shorter, and the additional complications of Venus operation are all independent of whether we have a short or long communication loop.

I dint find details about the probes launched from the manned blimp yet.

But I saw many times projects designs who solve all those problems with ease.

I can search the PDFs if you want.

Except, you know, the whole "craft must remain proof against sulfuric acid after months in space" thing.

They did already that in 1975 to 1985 with the ballon probes.

Edited December 22, 2014 by AngelLestat

[King Arthur]

You are misunderstanding all the process.

Orion is a capsule that can be used in this mission too. Is a capsule designed for interplanetary purposes.

This concept studies that NASA makes, there are not only to measure the cost, the returning value, the safety, etc.

These concept are also made to present to the public and see if they have public support.

Because when the goverment choose if their spent money or not in these things, it depends most than nothing in the public support.

So when we (the space geeks) and normal public we show as negatives towards these ideas, thats is when there are not supported.

So not blame the govement, blame you in any case.

If I see a headless chicken I'm going to call it a headless chicken, not sugarcoat it and say that's a rooster of prime genetic heritage, and a headless chicken is precisely what NASA is right now with the lack of any solid long-term roadmap.

I ultimately don't care where in particular we are going, be it the Moon, Mars, Venus, an asteroid, or god damn Alpha Centauri. I care about the fact that we need a long-term plan that we stick to for what we will be doing. The Space Race had a clear long-term plan for landing men on the Moon before the Soviets and we worked to accomplish that mandate, but today we have NASA and the US government who have a very bad case of ADD not being able to decide on anything long-term and flinging out ideas left and right. "We're going back to the Moo-- no we're going to Mar-- actually how about an asteroid in Lunar orbi-- seriously this idea about Venus is... wait, what were we sayin--OOOOOOOH SHINY".

And now you expect me to take them seriously? Wake me up when we're actually serious about doing whatever it is we will be doing.

but the only place to see a human without a space suit in other world is in Venus.

I'm pretty sure we would die on Venus.

Edited December 22, 2014 by King Arthur

[Aghanim]

Some answers from NASA in the comment section:

Now about the "zeppelin" concept and possible use for Earth re-entry: The lighter than air vehicle is not being used for re-entry, but instead is the final payload delivered to Venus: it allows the crew’s habitat and ascent vehicle to stay at the desired altitude without needing propellers or jets (as a heavier than air vehicle would). Because of its heavy atmosphere, Venus is even better for the use of airships than Earth. Thus, the lighter than air concept doesn’t really have any application to re-entry at Venus or Earth (it inflates during terminal descent, but isn’t providing much stopping power itself).

To answer Erik G whether we could have a blimp like vehicle fly on Venus like that ... one of the study engineers replies: The size of the airship is based on having enough lifting gas (in this case, helium) to support the weight of the astronauts’ habitat and ascent vehicle. Once the airship reaches its target altitude of 50 km, it will be able to keep itself aloft.

Thanks for all your comments. The team says this about the robots versus humans observation: The video shows a human mission that’s part of a multi-phase campaign to explore and potentially settle Venus. Before the mission in the video occurred, there would be similar robotic missions to test the technologies and better understand the atmosphere. Eventually, a short duration human mission would allow us to gain experience having humans live at another world, with the hope that it would someday be possible to live in the atmosphere permanently (hinted at in the closing shot of the video).

[Albert VDS]

http://youtu.be/40YIIaF1qiw?t=28m55s

That is the key moment that I wanna share. But the discussion on probes-vs-humans starts here, and I encourage all to watch it.

http://youtu.be/40YIIaF1qiw?t=21m23s

Yes, I whole heartedly agree with Neil Degrasse Tyson(and anyone else) that we should should have manned space flight beyond LEO.

It's a disgrace to humanity that we put so little effort into it.

But that doesn't mean your road map needs to be as follow:

First Humans in LEO, First Humans on the Moon, 42 years stuck in LEO and then Venus Airships.

Will Airships with a small habitable space and a Venusian Sunrise inspire people?

Or will Human foot prints on Martian soil do that?

OK you'll have a great Sunrise in the clouds of Venus and that it, there's nothing else for the Astronauts to do.

They wont stick their heads out of the craft or sit on a patio, because there is no plan to do stuff like that(You know; droplets of sulfuric acid).

Opposed to Mars were the astronauts can actually set their foots on the ground, explore and do experiments and actually take rock samples.

An Airship mission is just bad PR for an administration who is always falsely labeled as a waste of money.

Albert, I know that gravity bends light.. this mean that we can solve singularities?

We are not clueless on what causes climate change, you should know that if your are pro-Venus-mission.

We have a math model to predict our climate. But is not complete, it has flaws in some areas. We dont understand much about clouds, hurricanes.

Clouds? Really? We don't understand much about clouds? Hurricanes I can understand, it's hard to predict hurricanes.

We can not predict what is the real fate of earth on global warming, we have some rought estimations in short periods but we dont know for certain in what mess we really are.

The model may work fine in some circumstances. But that is because was made it and corrected to match predictions with the things we measure.

But a good model needs to work fine in any circustance under any atmosphere. And it doesn´t. So only when we use the same model with two different parameter values and then we compare the predictions with the real measures taken. That is when we find the key to solve all the flaws that our math model may have.

I do agree that our understanding of climate is not complete and that it's a complex system. But we don't need manned airships on Venus to improve our knowledge.

Yes, and now we can try to become friends of this bacteria so we dont feel alone anymore.

Or we could find out if it has DNA or something else, how it works, come closer to knowing why life exists, etc. etc.

If almost all life die due a climate change, then that question takes a new meaning.

I don't get why you think that a manned Airship safe us from climate change. The only thing which will safe us is to stop putting gases in the atmosphere that cause the greenhouse effect.

We will be long gone before the Earth is anywhere close of resembling Venus.

The main advantage to manned mission (lets ignore the publicity and inspirational advantage) is that you dont have time delays or lack of comunication due planet rotation, bandwidth to sent information, etc.

In the same way a geologist may be a lot more efficient in mars than a rover, applied on a meteorologist in venus.

A meteorologist can saw the cloulds formations - colors, and understand a lot more what is going on. They can know if a sample may be contaminated or not, etc.

They will also sent probes to the surface from the blimp, and you need to drive them in real time.

- Time delays and bandwidth are a non issue for observational experiments.

- We don't have meteorologist in Space to predict our weather, because sending the data down from satellites works just fine.

- CCD's on cameras(depending on their application) can see the whole electromagnetic spectrum, the human eye can only see visible light. So you would want to send those.

- Curiosity landed just fine with out the help direct human input and it's the most complex craft that landed on an other planet, deploying a few probes should be trivial in comparison.