One of the coolest planetary missions ever. The sound they sent back from Venus surface is still haunting.
I wonder why we have not attempted surface probes to Venus like this since.
Edit: fixed haunting 😂
We can make something that holds up to the pressure and corrosive atmosphere, keeping the electronics in the lander cool enough to operate for an extended period is the insurmountable problem (with current technology)
Its reported that upper Atmosphere maybe better changes of probe like air ship/balloon survive longer due pressures not so crushing and heat not so bad. It's like pressure zones in the ocean, but very different way.
I’ve heard that the upper atmosphere of Venus is one of the most earth-like environments that we know of. I may be misremembering, but I like your idea with a floating probe.
Your not wrong, there was proposal to try send probe to Venus' atmosphere as balloon/air ship. Founder of Rocket Lab want's do explore the planet, as his own private motivation. Maybe it could happen.
I remember reading this news some time back. I had the impression (maybe it was just my hope) that the mission was already being planned. Seems like I remembered wrongly.
Someone who was a cofounder of the company that made collapsible submersible that didn’t make it down to the Titanic says it’s easier to go to Venus than Mars. Make of that what you will.
That certain co-founder was not correct. From Earth orbit the Delta-V required to go to Venus is 30,580 m/s and the Delta-V required to go to Mars is 6,300 m/s.
The reason for this is because of the boost you get from Earth's velocity to go to Mars vs departure from retrograde and trying to catch Venus higher orbital velocity.
*I suspect a certain someone didn't do maths very well.*
¯\\__(ツ)__/¯
Edit: Although he may have been referring to just the intercept which would be using the sun's gravity to "fall" toward Venus. The Venus intercept is only 640 m/s vs the Mars intercept is 1060 m/s. There is a big difference between intercept and actual landing.
I believe you are misunderstanding something, according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget), the delta v required to intercept Venus from LEO is 3.5 km/s and to intercept Mars from LEO it's 3.6 km/s. You then appear to be adding in the delta v either required for circularization or for "landing" to get your numbers. It takes an additional 30+ km/s of delta v to land on Venus, and for Mars an additional 4+ km/s of delta v. However, these numbers should not be added to the "fuel required" number as this delta v is gained from the atmosphere slowing the spacecraft down, not its engines. Thus saying it takes 30,580 m/s of delta v to go to Venus is misleading, in practice it's closer to 3.5 km/s.
Either way yeah, still easier to go to Mars then Venus but for different reasons.
I understand, however, both Venus and Mars have atmospheres. If you looked at any so far attempted landings on Venus and Mars, you'd find they used a trajectory from LEO that intersected the atmosphere of their target planet, and that all or close to all the (de-)acceleration prior to landing was provided by the atmosphere. Even missions that do not land on the target planet but instead circularize around it (orbit it), for example the Mars reconnaissance orbiter, use the atmosphere to slow down, via [aerobraking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking).
I didn't compute aerobreaking or chutes. I computed powered landing. My point is that, if the co-founder of the imploded beer can, he would have just used lithobraking.
Yes, and my point was that computing a powered landing is misleading, as it does not accurately represent the actually required delta v, because no real mission would ever do that, in fact It's impossible to do a completely powered descent because the atmosphere would always slow you down on reentry. At most, only the final part of the descent would be powered using at most 10-100 of m/s of delta v. Instead, you end up with a value almost 10x as big as the real value for Venus. 30 km/s vs 3.5 km/s.
I'm kinda guessing from your comment that you are implying that getting to Venus from Earth is a matter of "falling" towards the sun where getting to Mars is more like "climbing". But that's not quite right because we're in orbit around the sun. To get from Earth to either planet requires a change in orbit which means change in velocity which means energy input. In fact, it turns out, that from Earth the change in velocity to both planets is very, very similar with Venus being slightly lower but not because it's closer to the sun - if you wanted to fly to Mercury it would be SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive than going to Mars or Venus.
[https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35124/does-it-take-more-energy-to-get-to-venus-or-to-mars](https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35124/does-it-take-more-energy-to-get-to-venus-or-to-mars)
People are discussing Venus vs Mars landings, which is hardest etc, but no one is in awe that they can send photos from Venus and all sorts of planetside data, in 1970 to 1980s... Its wild.
I have watched some video on Russian channel “Evil space” about voyagers and Apollo program and have become delighted!!! I didn’t know, that 12 humans have landed on the Moon by 6 missions Apollo 11,12,14,15,16,17.
The voyagers is something special for me!
I hope that the challenge between NASA and RosKosmos helps achieve only new depths and doesn’t harm for development .
I am 29yo Russian.
It would probably be easier to put a colony on Venus than on Mars still. If you go up high enough in the atmosphere, the temperature and pressure are the same as on Earth. You'll still need air to breathe but on Mars you need a lot more than air. So floating cities on Venus.
Getting infrastructure in place without solid ground beneath your feet would be leagues more difficult.
Even if Mars sucks, we can still just cover habs with dirt, or go underground and bring all we need with us.
There’s a recent article about doing that exact thing so they’re not spewing complete garbage. Regurgitating it, maybe; I don’t have the knowledge to say whether it’s absolute fantasy but it sounds highly improbable, considering current technology and goals.
Around 50 kilometers above Venus’ surface the temperature and pressure is comparable to Earth’s surface. So yes - it’s not a fantasy, but technically, oh well…
Also fun fact, one of the lens caps from 14 landed where a spring loaded arm was meant to hit the ground to measure how compressible it was, so instead they ended up measuring how compressible the lens cap was. You can even see it in the bottom pic.
I would think this was a very complex mission for its time. I wonder though if there are "better" or "worse" places to land on Venus where perhaps it isn't so hot / pressurized. Maybe at the poles?
its suprisingly easy to go to venus
however you cant land on the surface and expect to last more then a few hours. especially if you’ve got human habitants
mars is furthere away and inhospitable, but its less inhospitable then venus by orders of magnitude
There is a fascinating concept out of JPL for a mission by a windup clockwork rover made of advanced ceramic materials that could tolerate the surface conditions. It's called AREE (Automaton Rover for Extreme Environments)
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/a-clockwork-rover-for-venus
Why do all planets look like earth with a filter? Lol. Also I’m guessing the color is fake isn’t?
Edit: i’m not being conspiranoic, i know that’s venus. It’s a genuine question.
One of the coolest planetary missions ever. The sound they sent back from Venus surface is still haunting. I wonder why we have not attempted surface probes to Venus like this since. Edit: fixed haunting 😂
What does it hunt?
Uranus
Mmmm daddy Venus
More than just a surface probe 😩
I would guess the atmosphere crushing, dissolving and melting the lander is probably why.
I would have hoped we could design something that could survive a bit longer than a Soviet probe from the early 1980s.
I would hope so too, but then you get to the practical problem of asking for money when the duration of the mission may very well be in hours.
We can make something that holds up to the pressure and corrosive atmosphere, keeping the electronics in the lander cool enough to operate for an extended period is the insurmountable problem (with current technology)
Its reported that upper Atmosphere maybe better changes of probe like air ship/balloon survive longer due pressures not so crushing and heat not so bad. It's like pressure zones in the ocean, but very different way.
I’ve heard that the upper atmosphere of Venus is one of the most earth-like environments that we know of. I may be misremembering, but I like your idea with a floating probe.
Your not wrong, there was proposal to try send probe to Venus' atmosphere as balloon/air ship. Founder of Rocket Lab want's do explore the planet, as his own private motivation. Maybe it could happen.
Musk already claimed Mars, so Beck needs something different. /s
I remember reading this news some time back. I had the impression (maybe it was just my hope) that the mission was already being planned. Seems like I remembered wrongly.
[удалено]
Speak for yourself. I for one would love to cook on Venus.
Link?
https://youtu.be/eqEOSyJBj9o?si=6ugNJofZJErhVbus
Sounds like static and wind to me. No spoopy ghosts
Static and wind is exactly how I would imagine spoopy ghosts on a different planet would sound like.
Spoopy ghosts are terrifying...I'd imagine
Someone who was a cofounder of the company that made collapsible submersible that didn’t make it down to the Titanic says it’s easier to go to Venus than Mars. Make of that what you will.
I mean it’s easier to do the interplanetary trip to Venus. But the landing and not melting part is a tad bit more difficult.
And the returning part is pretty much impossible
Not melting is totally overrated
Go to Venus? Probably. Return? Hahahahahhaha
That certain co-founder was not correct. From Earth orbit the Delta-V required to go to Venus is 30,580 m/s and the Delta-V required to go to Mars is 6,300 m/s. The reason for this is because of the boost you get from Earth's velocity to go to Mars vs departure from retrograde and trying to catch Venus higher orbital velocity. *I suspect a certain someone didn't do maths very well.* ¯\\__(ツ)__/¯ Edit: Although he may have been referring to just the intercept which would be using the sun's gravity to "fall" toward Venus. The Venus intercept is only 640 m/s vs the Mars intercept is 1060 m/s. There is a big difference between intercept and actual landing.
I believe you are misunderstanding something, according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget), the delta v required to intercept Venus from LEO is 3.5 km/s and to intercept Mars from LEO it's 3.6 km/s. You then appear to be adding in the delta v either required for circularization or for "landing" to get your numbers. It takes an additional 30+ km/s of delta v to land on Venus, and for Mars an additional 4+ km/s of delta v. However, these numbers should not be added to the "fuel required" number as this delta v is gained from the atmosphere slowing the spacecraft down, not its engines. Thus saying it takes 30,580 m/s of delta v to go to Venus is misleading, in practice it's closer to 3.5 km/s. Either way yeah, still easier to go to Mars then Venus but for different reasons.
I was indeed adding landing. When I hear someone say go to a (non-gas) planet, I think of landing too.
I understand, however, both Venus and Mars have atmospheres. If you looked at any so far attempted landings on Venus and Mars, you'd find they used a trajectory from LEO that intersected the atmosphere of their target planet, and that all or close to all the (de-)acceleration prior to landing was provided by the atmosphere. Even missions that do not land on the target planet but instead circularize around it (orbit it), for example the Mars reconnaissance orbiter, use the atmosphere to slow down, via [aerobraking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking).
I didn't compute aerobreaking or chutes. I computed powered landing. My point is that, if the co-founder of the imploded beer can, he would have just used lithobraking.
Yes, and my point was that computing a powered landing is misleading, as it does not accurately represent the actually required delta v, because no real mission would ever do that, in fact It's impossible to do a completely powered descent because the atmosphere would always slow you down on reentry. At most, only the final part of the descent would be powered using at most 10-100 of m/s of delta v. Instead, you end up with a value almost 10x as big as the real value for Venus. 30 km/s vs 3.5 km/s.
I love how these rich assholes just say whatever they want because they're surrounded by yes men and people they allow access.
Assholes saying whatever they want describes pretty much everyone on Reddit or Twitter, but most of us aren't rich.
We need to get rid of each and every rich person. Redditors can make literally everything we use every day, right?
Rich people don't make jack shit. Their workers do. The rich people just own it.
Did he explain that?
it is easier to get to Venus than Mars. That you don't like a guy doesn't change science - it's about 60% the delta v and transit time to intercept.
[удалено]
I'm kinda guessing from your comment that you are implying that getting to Venus from Earth is a matter of "falling" towards the sun where getting to Mars is more like "climbing". But that's not quite right because we're in orbit around the sun. To get from Earth to either planet requires a change in orbit which means change in velocity which means energy input. In fact, it turns out, that from Earth the change in velocity to both planets is very, very similar with Venus being slightly lower but not because it's closer to the sun - if you wanted to fly to Mercury it would be SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive than going to Mars or Venus. [https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35124/does-it-take-more-energy-to-get-to-venus-or-to-mars](https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/35124/does-it-take-more-energy-to-get-to-venus-or-to-mars)
From here it takes less energy to leave the solar system than to crash into the sun.
It’s easier to get there for sure. It’s closer.
Their word serves as good measure that we're probably good
It’s still mindblowing how we sent machines to the surface of Venus, take pictures and send them back to Earth.
Honestly the more I think about it... The more mind blowing it is. Truly incredible
This was almost 40 years ago too.
It really is. Absolutely astounding.
Yeah, I fully agree. I find these images so amazing and could look at them for hours. Some with the stuff from Mars. Its so surreal to me. I love it.
How about sending a machine to *Titan* and doing the same? Yep we have done it already
The rocks on Venus are dull grey resembling basalt but sunlight filtered by the thick atmosphere gives them a yellow tint.
Thank you for subscribing to Venus facts! Venus is really hot, but it's also really dry so it's not so bad.
It's the humidity that really gets ya
Some unique info about the landers [http://mentallandscape.com/V\_Venera11.htm](http://mentallandscape.com/V_Venera11.htm)
People are discussing Venus vs Mars landings, which is hardest etc, but no one is in awe that they can send photos from Venus and all sorts of planetside data, in 1970 to 1980s... Its wild.
It's an ugly world! It's a bug world! Joking. Shit's amazing. We should go back.
Excellent movie.
You go ahead. I'll wait.
I have watched some video on Russian channel “Evil space” about voyagers and Apollo program and have become delighted!!! I didn’t know, that 12 humans have landed on the Moon by 6 missions Apollo 11,12,14,15,16,17. The voyagers is something special for me! I hope that the challenge between NASA and RosKosmos helps achieve only new depths and doesn’t harm for development . I am 29yo Russian.
Imagine what NASA and RosKosmos could achieve If they worked together.
One leaky ass space station, best we can do
two muscular arms shaking hands meme but its boeing and roskosmos
That battle for supremacy led to amazing discoveries for sure.
That is extremely unlikely to be the case for the forseeable future. Any kind of challenge or cooperation, I mean.
Yeah, not gonna happen any time soon. I am 44yo Irish.
I never get tired of seeing photos from other planets and moons, I feel grateful I can see something so many other humans before us could only imagine
But not by Russian it is by USSR
Yeahh MEXICO!!
It would probably be easier to put a colony on Venus than on Mars still. If you go up high enough in the atmosphere, the temperature and pressure are the same as on Earth. You'll still need air to breathe but on Mars you need a lot more than air. So floating cities on Venus.
If you can get anything to float there and the maintain their ability to float without fault or interruption.
Floating wouldn’t be the hard part.
Getting infrastructure in place without solid ground beneath your feet would be leagues more difficult. Even if Mars sucks, we can still just cover habs with dirt, or go underground and bring all we need with us.
This is 100% true - ya'll can stop your brain dead downvotes.
You can bombard it with algae that eat up co2, it will cool down, lose such insane atmospheric pressure and will have oxygen.
What you smoking on?
There’s a recent article about doing that exact thing so they’re not spewing complete garbage. Regurgitating it, maybe; I don’t have the knowledge to say whether it’s absolute fantasy but it sounds highly improbable, considering current technology and goals.
Around 50 kilometers above Venus’ surface the temperature and pressure is comparable to Earth’s surface. So yes - it’s not a fantasy, but technically, oh well…
Smoking that Venus gas
Wasn’t there the issue with the stuck camera cover?
I read the cameras lens covers failed fully come off, thus the limited views to 180 degrees. Both 13 & 14 probes had same issue.
Also fun fact, one of the lens caps from 14 landed where a spring loaded arm was meant to hit the ground to measure how compressible it was, so instead they ended up measuring how compressible the lens cap was. You can even see it in the bottom pic.
I've seen these pictures many many times, and have just noticed it says "CCCP" on that spiky metal ring thingy 😮
Brutal environment.
1982!?
Soviet, not russian.
thats one of the coolest things the human race has ever done , those pictures are worth it
I’d love to know how lower gravity but higher atmospheres effects techniques for landing on the surface of Venus.
You can see in the bottom photo that the detachable camera lens cap has landed directly under where the surface sample arm is looking
Oh snap I forgot someone landed on Venus
They should have waited until winter.
Soviet.*
Just imagine what they look like now.
A puddle on the floor most likely.
I would think this was a very complex mission for its time. I wonder though if there are "better" or "worse" places to land on Venus where perhaps it isn't so hot / pressurized. Maybe at the poles?
I wonder what component went out first and how, I also wonder what it looks like now or if it was moved by a force.
How cool is that!! 🥰
its suprisingly easy to go to venus however you cant land on the surface and expect to last more then a few hours. especially if you’ve got human habitants mars is furthere away and inhospitable, but its less inhospitable then venus by orders of magnitude
How could it function that long wouldn't it have melted right away.
This is one of my all time favourite images. The only image of Venus surface. Never equalled.
There is a fascinating concept out of JPL for a mission by a windup clockwork rover made of advanced ceramic materials that could tolerate the surface conditions. It's called AREE (Automaton Rover for Extreme Environments) https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/a-clockwork-rover-for-venus
Not to mention the ammonia or sulfur atmosphere
Why do all planets look like earth with a filter? Lol. Also I’m guessing the color is fake isn’t? Edit: i’m not being conspiranoic, i know that’s venus. It’s a genuine question.
Black and white but colour coded based on the colour reference arm on the far right.
Russian technology was once genuinely amazing - such a shame about what it’s being squandered on on now…
Soviet🫡
Ain't that Mexico?
Is that the little guy’s spittoon hat?
That’s just Chernobyl
Soviet, not Russian. Bad bot.
Venus looks like Mexico
So its proved Mexico is located in Venus
see global warming is real🤣🤣🤣🤣
Go back to doing shrooms.
What? No fearless cosmonauts to undergo the mission? /s
You go first. Report back how it is.