Forbidden Planet
We’ve been to the moon. Mars is easy. But landing on Venus? That’s tough.
- By Sam Kean
- Air & Space magazine, September 2010
Most pictures of the Venus surface are synthetic, like this view of a volcanic region called Eistla, created from Magellan orbital radar data. The SAGE lander would take actual photos from ground level.
NASA/JPL
Over the past 15 years, astronomers have identified about 500 planets around distant stars, and are now closing in on the ultimate prize: finding a world similar to our own, with conditions right for life. Such a discovery would be a technological triumph and a historic scientific achievement.
But we should never have had to look so far.
Venus—the planet closest to us, and our twin in terms of size and mass—should by rights have developed in parallel to Earth. Instead it became a monstrosity, the relative we hardly mention and rarely visit. In the planet’s dense atmosphere, carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, somehow built up to toxic levels, now accounting for 96.5 percent of Venus’ air, as compared to 0.04 percent of Earth’s. The runaway greenhouse effect made Venus hotter than a self-cleaning oven, with atmospheric pressures equivalent to those found half a mile under Earth’s oceans. Says space physicist Larry Esposito of the University of Colorado at Boulder, “Dante’s vision of hell is real, and it is the planet next door.”
Maybe that’s why he likes studying it. Esposito began his space science career with NASA’s Pioneer Venus missions in 1978, and in 1995 he was the first to observe the planet with the Hubble Space Telescope. Landing on Venus has proven a more elusive goal, though. No one has sent a probe to the surface in 25 years, and NASA has never even tried. Since the Magellan orbiter mapped Venus with radar in the early 1990s, the U.S. space agency has focused its attention primarily on Mars and the outer planets.
Meanwhile, Esposito has pitched Venus mission proposals to NASA and the space agencies in Europe, Russia, and Japan, with mixed success. His curiosity about the planet—“particularly the comparison between Venus, Earth, and Earth-like planets”—drove him on, he says, and he never lost interest. “I’ve been busily working on [concepts] for 30-some years. I’ve always had a plan for a future mission to Venus. Every year it changes.”
Esposito’s time may finally have arrived. As greenhouse gases like CO2 build up in Earth’s atmosphere, scientific priorities are shifting, and closer attention is being given to proposals to study a neighboring planet that may be an object lesson for Earth. Last December, NASA gave Esposito $3.3 million to further develop his Surface and Atmosphere Geochemical Explorer (SAGE) concept, which would place a small probe equipped with cameras, spectrometers, and other instruments on the Venusian surface. If NASA decides to fund SAGE (next year the agency will choose between it and two other proposed missions: one to an asteroid, the other to the moon), then a spacecraft could return to Venus by 2018, becoming the first to visit there since the Soviet Union’s Vega 2 in 1985.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviets practically tried to colonize Venus, sending more than a dozen landers and orbiters. One, Venera 13, which landed on March 1, 1982, lasted 127 minutes before expiring. At the height of the program, tens of thousands of people were working on the Veneras, according to Viktor Kerzhanovich, a Venera veteran and now a planetary scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. In true cold war style, he says, the Soviet Union added as many zeroes to the Venera budget as were necessary to beat the Americans.
Given their prior successes, it’s not surprising that Russians like Kerzhanovich are eager to go back to Venus: “When the opportunity comes, I hope to be part of an American mission,” he says.
THERE’S A COMMON PERCEPTION that the Soviet Venus probes were crushed by the sheer weight of the planet’s atmosphere. That’s (mostly) false. But the truth’s not much better. Venus is the most inhospitable world in the inner solar system, boiling hot and rife with airborne acids. Developing the technologies to withstand those conditions—even for one afternoon—will take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. From the first brush with Venus’ atmosphere, the lander will be fighting thermodynamics, and it will lose.
The proposed SAGE lander would look, from the outside, like a giant ball bearing. But it will behave more like an insect, one of those poor bugs that lies dormant for decades, then claws out of its cocoon, sticks out arms and antennae in a frenzy of activity—and croaks. At least cicadas get weeks to romp. A Venus lander gets hours.
The dangers start more than 80 miles above the planet’s surface, after the lander is dropped off by a carrier spacecraft, and get worse as the lander descends through the atmosphere. The engineers designing SAGE have had to think up a different solution for each hazard. Thick clouds of sulfuric acid at 40 miles up explain why the planet’s surface is invisible from Earth. As the lander parachutes down, it also has to contend with lightning and withstand winds up to 200 mph.





Comments (6)
I first read Velikovsky in 1972,and I agree with the thesis that venus IS a captured element of the solar system,called the destroyer by the ancients.
Posted by Htos1 on September 15,2010 | 02:27 AM
Like most other space missions, this proposed trip to Venus will present its technological challenges to our Science and Engineering communities. In my opinion, the most challenging aspect is to find a replacement technology for conventional silicon based semiconductors which cannot withstand temperatures in excess of 250 degrees. The article proposed a possible solution-USE VACUUM TUBES. In 1959, the Nuvistor vacuum tube was introduced by RCA. This was the smallest vacuum tube ever produced (not much larger than a nickel) and it found a home in television tuners of this era. The Nuvistor worked reasonably well as a VHF and UHF amplifier and was constructed of metal and ceramic. These materials may be just what is needed for survival in the extreme environments of the Venusian surface. My hope is that we re-examine this 50 plus year old technology and seriously consider its utilization to make this important mission to Venus a success.
Posted by Walt Bilous on September 20,2010 | 10:13 AM
Why would they want to send a ship that would only burn up on the planet in its boiling hot lava surface? It would be a waste of billions of dollars and we wouldn't get the information we wanted. They don't expect to actually land the ship on the planet do they? They're having enough trouble studying the sun without getting those instruments burn up by it if they get too close. They also feel that they can send something directly into the sun to study exactly what it's made up of. I don't believe anything can be created that wouldn't burn up in the intense heat of the sun.
Posted by Red Wolf on September 23,2010 | 09:44 AM
Two things are missing from this article:
Firstly, the US *has* landed a small probe on the surface which transmitted data back home, and has sent several other vehicles into the atmosphere. Try Googling 'Pioneer Venus'. Granted, it was a long time ago, but it shouldn't be forgotten!
Secondly, there have been a variety of orbital missions to Venus over the years, and there may well be more in the future. These can identify landing sites, meaning that a simple 'land anywhere' approach isn't the way forward - imagine finding an ancient relic of a non-volcanic surface...
...oh, and there's every chance that a lander might use a non-US orbiter for data relay, too - it's al;ready been tried on Mars.
Posted by Bob Shaw on October 16,2010 | 07:10 AM
"No one has sent a probe to the surface in 25 years, and NASA has never even tried".
This statement is a bit misleading.
NASA's Pioneer Venus spacecraft of 1978 did in fact succeed in conveying probes all the way to the surface of Venus. Designed as atmospheric probes, not landers, NASA realized and hoped that one or more might survive and transmit from the surface. One did, for about an hour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Venus_project
Posted by Bill Davis on November 21,2010 | 07:31 PM
Venus has intense atmospheric pressure, why don't we use the pressure as a propulsion instead of relying on rocket engine in the planet atmosphere. Dino Kraspedon idea of ufo using cathode ray tube to create vacuum will be sufficient to move easily on the planet. The hull of the craft will be made of ceramic or improved glass that will withstand the sulferic acid atmosphere. I know that require hight voltage for breaking down the co2 to its etheric component but that will be sufficient enough. Nasa technician can create something like this. Rocket will send the probe on it journey until it reach planet Venus, then re-entry into the atmosphere the probe will be activated. It will be easy to map this planet using this method.
Kwame the seeker.
Posted by KWAME OKYERE on January 1,2011 | 04:36 AM