in the previous "Phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus" thread, which is now closed, it was reported that phosphine, a possible chemical sign for life, was detected via radio astronomy in Venus's atmosphere.
But according to this new study below, the radio signals that was detected from Venus's atmosphere was misinterpreted as a sign of phosphine when it is in fact just from the boring sulfur dioxide we already long knew is there.
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-purported-phosphine-venus-ordinary-sulfur.html
@sonhouse saidWe do have a lot of information already about the atmosphere and the composition. Kudos to the Sowjet teams who provided most of what we know today.
@humy
Meanwhile, we wait till an actual atmosphere probe sticks its nose in to smell the stuff there....
I think the DAVINCI mission (if actually performed) will be very well to get trace gases analysed:
https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2020/pdf/2599.pdf
@Ponderable
So that probe is still in planning stages but exciting for sure. Hope it gets selected.
Seems a difficult task to have a probe descend to the surface where the pressure is more like a gas bottle at a thousand pounds per square inch and acidic and 900 degrees F and still able to analyze the atmosphere on the way down and ship the data to the orbiter.
Sounds daunting to say the least.
@wildgrass saidYou don't really think that in an automated mission you have a higher probability of failure as compared to a manned mission?
@sonhouse
Too much can go wrong. They should just send real people. Build another space station, aim it at Venus and send 'er.
Next step in manned space exploration is to establish a moonbase, which will take another ten years. And then to gain experience (at least another 10 years). You can take me up on the projection that we won't have a manned mission outside of the Earth-Moon System in the next 20 years (so the start will be after the 2nd of February 2041.
@Ponderable
Including humans means having drinking water, radiation shielding, food, toilets, sleeping quarters, temperature control and all the added hardware adds to the possibility of a failure so it is more dangerous for the humans to be sent like that.
Eventually they will do that but for now automatic probes which are getting smarter year by year, with redundant systems, they will be much more likely to survive a trip to Venus.
An example is the Parker Solar probe, it has to swing around Venus for gravitational assist to get it up to very high velocity, like 80 Km/second, the fastest probe ever built going that fast for the reason they want to get close to the solar surface, inside the orbit of Mercury, maybe 3 million Km from the sun.
Can you imagine a human vessel doing that?
@sonhouse saidWe two seem to be on the same position here. It was wildgrass suggesting to send humans 😉
@Ponderable
Including humans means having drinking water, radiation shielding, food, toilets, sleeping quarters, temperature control and all the added hardware adds to the possibility of a failure so it is more dangerous for the humans to be sent like that.
Eventually they will do that but for now automatic probes which are getting smarter year by year, with redundant sy ...[text shortened]... the orbit of Mercury, maybe 3 million Km from the sun.
Can you imagine a human vessel doing that?
I had forgotten about the Parker probe, the next swing by is due in three weeks. That one is on a path where no humans will go (IMO)
@Ponderable
Not unless they have a dry ice spacesuit🙂
BTW, a question about chemistry:
Is it possible for the technology of batteries like sodium, or Li Ion and the like, can it even theoretically have anything near the power density of say diesel fuel or even 85% gas/alcohol?
@sonhouse saidI once did the actual maths for this and unfortunately the answer is no, not even close.
Is it possible for the technology of batteries like sodium, or Li Ion and the like, can it even theoretically have anything near the power density of say diesel fuel or even 85% gas/alcohol?
But I think that will eventually become irrelevant because of what I have named "ted power" in my https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/science/generating-free-energy-from-graphene thread.
@humy
From what I read the amount of energy from that technology is very limited.
Still there is room for real improvement in the energy density of batteries, different chemistry and such being pursued by hundreds of labs worldwide.
@sonhouse saidIndeed there is and indeed they do.
@humy
From what I read the amount of energy from that technology is very limited.
Still there is room for real improvement in the energy density of batteries, different chemistry and such being pursued by hundreds of labs worldwide.
But nobody I know (and I know Max Fichtner)expects to see any kind of battery with as good energy density as Hydrocarbons.
I also work in a project trying to improve on "green" ammonia, but it is hard to optimize on a process which has been researched over a century...
@ponderable saidJoking, somewhat. Unmanned missions are boring though. To add excitement, all you'd need to do is take an amazon distribution warehouse, space proof it, and launch it at Venus. You would have thousands of volunteers. Easy peazy lemon squeezy as the kids say.
You don't really think that in an automated mission you have a higher probability of failure as compared to a manned mission?
Next step in manned space exploration is to establish a moonbase, which will take another ten years. And then to gain experience (at least another 10 years). You can take me up on the projection that we won't have a manned mission outside of the Earth-Moon System in the next 20 years (so the start will be after the 2nd of February 2041.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing but why not? Where did all the enthusiasm go for launching humans into space?