Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Venus Rover


Matt Scunthorpe

Recommended Posts

Doesn't quite seem to add up, Dr Landis seems to consider only the high temperature, with passing ackmowledgment of the pressure and chemical composition. A rover with a 12 sq meter solar sail on a planet with heavy dense 100% cloud cover and that cloud is not white so what gets through will be very weak indeed. Also a solar panel operating at what is termed jet engine temperatures.

Seems that the best description of the Venusian atmosphere is extremely hot, very high pressure and basically sulphuric acid and I do not see all these aspects being considered in a serious manner. Even the temperature aspect is covered by the simple idea of "One approach is just live with the high temperatures by using high-temperature devices,’ said Mr Landis.

Seems somewhat of an over simplification, also what is the alternative? Lets cool Venus so that normal temperature devices can be used? Don't really have a choice but to put in high temperature devices really.

I see he changes from Dr Landis to Mr Landis as the artical progresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cite the Daily Mail as a reliable source for scientific news :D

I'm mildly suprised they haven't said space probe's cause cancer!

A quick google suggests Dr Landis is indeed a respectable scientist and has spent time as an author of hard science fiction. None the less, I would not trust the Mail to distiungush between art, postulation and reality before you can say Andrew Wakefield!

I'm entirely with ronin on this one I'm affraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found myself reading up on the Venus probes after this article.

According to Wikipedia, Venera 9 (the Russian 1975 lander) reported light levels on the Venusian surface "comparable to those at Earth mid-latitudes on a cloudy summer day". Thus a solar sail/power is no doubt feasible. The links given by Chris Rowland above are very interesting.

Kindly note that I in no way intended to dismiss the work of Dr Landis (my previous post could be misinterpreted that way). Rather, my previous post intended to highlight the atrocious quality of scientific journalism one sees in the Daily Mail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.