Venus Probe Set to Reach Target 141
Accommodate Students writes "The BBC is reporting on the first space mission to Venus in a decade, which is about to reach its target. From the article: 'On Tuesday morning, a European robotic craft will perform a 50-minute-long engine burn to slow its speed enough to be captured by Venus' gravity. Venus Express will orbit our nearest planetary neighbour for about 500 Earth days to study its atmosphere, which has undergone runaway greenhouse warming.' If all goes well, it could shed important light on climate change here on Earth."
Re:Moons (Score:3, Insightful)
If this mission confirms that this is indeed the case, it'll be further evidence that the gospel of the FSM is indeed correct.
Global warming and the Republican Denial (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Global warming, beside the point (Score:4, Insightful)
That is what I thought too, then I took a little survey. Very few of my coworkers, none of our distributors, and few of my family members believe it is happening.
One distributor said something which everyone really agreed with. "I can't imagine our temperature measurements from 100 years ago were all that accurate. What did they do, stick a thermometer down in a hole, light a match to read it, and estimate the temperature?"
I have no idea what the hole was for, but everyone seemed to agree with him. Plus, anyone who sees global warming for what it really is, is chastized as some crazy person, an untrue American, and a probably a terrorist.
I have tried clouding the issues with facts and figures, but they seem meaningless. I would guess it is just denial, so they don't have to feel guilty for driving their SUV's and Minivans over an hour to work.
Re:Climate on Venus (Score:3, Insightful)
"Maybe if the enviro leftist nuts shut the hell up and let real science speak we all would see that this is a part of the normal cycle in this tiny little planet and Solar system."
Maybe? Maybe? Don't you think that even if there is a slight chance that global warming is caused by humans, it should be confronted and fixed.
Ah what the hell, we have lots of other planets to live on.
Obligatory statement about Earth climate change (Score:5, Insightful)
If all goes well, it could shed important light on climate change here on Earth.
It is difficult to see how. Venus slow rotation rate, massive atmosphere, tiny inclination (-3 deg), and lack of a hydrologic cycle should make the climate very stable. The mission has a lot of merits on its own. Why make tenuous comparisons?
Why don't we have (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obligatory statement about Earth climate change (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it's an easy way to get more money.
In times of huge deficits and out-of-control spending politicians want to appear tough on budgets but without cutting any pork. Pure science projects are therefore a prime target.
By touting each probe as huge opportunity for important advances in climate science, medicine or whatever people (people with the power to approve budgets) care about they try to ensure continued funding of current and future projects
Moon's creation not that improbable (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the atmosphere somehow leak away on geological timescales through the Lagrange points somehow? I've got no idea. Does anyone know?
Some gases escape like H and He. Heavier modecules like N2, O2, CO2 do not. This [cwru.edu] talks about the process. The moon plays absolutely no role in helping earth retain atmosphere.
According to the impactor theory of the moon's origin, the moon's creation was a very improbable event.
I don't see why it is so improbable. Pluto has a much larger moon relative to its size than Earth in Charon, and it orbits in extreme isolation in the outer solar system. Many Kuiper belt objects that may be larger than Pluto also have moons. Saturn/Titan and Neptune/Triton are significant planet/moon pairs. Jupiter has tons of moons. Binary pairs are an extremely stable configuration. Nature likes them.
Re:Moons (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a point. That sounds a lot more plausible than my explanation. I tried to find sources to back up my initial claim, but the only one I did find [starryskies.com] compared Earth to the much-faster rotating Jupiter and concluded that a faster-rotating Earth would have stronger surface winds. Doesn't sound like a very valid comparison to me, what with the size difference and rock- vs. gas-planet.
Another reply here [slashdot.org] mentioned the Coriolis effect, but I think it's much too small to be the primary cause.
However, there are plenty of other reasons why the presence of the Moon is considered important. There's even a book about it: What If The Moon Didn't Exist? [amazon.com] .
Re:Moons (Score:3, Insightful)
have to extend it more than a fraction. Yes , the moon causes
tides but at the very most they're about 10 metres. Take that as
a percentage of average ocean depth (about 5km) and its nothing.
At best the moon might make the atmosphere rise a few miles
which is nothing like enough to pull it out of the magnetic field.
Re:fp (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why don't we have (Score:3, Insightful)
It's more cost effective to send cheaper (less permanent design needs) single-shot probes to answer specific questions and gather specific data. Then when new questions arise from the data collected, and you would have to design & send a new permanent satellite, you can just design & build another cheaper short-term probe.
I'm not sure there'd be any benefit to long-term satellite data anyway. What would we be looking for, alien outposts?