Life on Venus?

About 'Life on Venus':

2DI6z.jpg
 
Dilandu said:
FighterJock said:
What I would like to see in another Venus mission would be, is some form of plane or helicopter being dropped from an orbiter to fly in the atmosphere of Venus and look for potential signs of life forms.
Click to expand...

Airships are better suited for Venus conditions. Atmospheric baloons were already send on Venus onboard Soviet probes, and drifted for days in upper atmosphere (presumably longer, but their batteries have a limited resource). It is perfectly possible to send a solar-powered blimp - or even a semi-rigid airship with keel frame - on Venus, which would probably be able to operate here for years, drifting above the cloud tops and using electric engines to change course a bit.
Click to expand...

So it is airships for a future mission of Venus, I like the idea of an airship exploring the atmosphere of Venus. I wonder when such a mission would get the go ahead and be ready? I hope that it is sooner rather than later because of all the general press interest now.
 
True. My my mind probably got carried away by the romantic idea of inhabiting a floating habitat with one of those Venus lady (tempering down my phosphine level)...

I stand corrected.
 
New article on Rocket Lab’s proposed Venus mission.

newatlas.com

Rocket Lab's CEO on visiting Venus in 2023 to search for life

This week, astronomers published research with profound implications for our search for life beyond Earth, revealing that the gas phosphine had been found in the atmosphere of Venus. This discovery could hardly have come at a better time for Rocket Lab, which in a short space of time has…
newatlas.com newatlas.com
 
FighterJock said:
So it is airships for a future mission of Venus, I like the idea of an airship exploring the atmosphere of Venus. I wonder when such a mission
Click to expand...

Technically there are little problems: question is how to get money for such mission. High-altitude Venusian airship would not exactly be an engineering challenge, the main factor would be protection from acid vapors from Venus clouds. If money would be aviable... i'd say four-five years to design, build, launch, and deploy.
 

Attachments

  • a58673f4783a4a2e97e8a225fd436f16.jpg
    a58673f4783a4a2e97e8a225fd436f16.jpg
    292.7 KB · Views: 17
  • Planet 51_17-Venus copy.jpg
    Planet 51_17-Venus copy.jpg
    230.4 KB · Views: 14
  • 126488.jpg
    126488.jpg
    174.2 KB · Views: 14
  • 24891544.jpg
    24891544.jpg
    66.4 KB · Views: 15
Dilandu said:
FighterJock said:
So it is airships for a future mission of Venus, I like the idea of an airship exploring the atmosphere of Venus. I wonder when such a mission
Click to expand...

Technically there are little problems: question is how to get money for such mission. High-altitude Venusian airship would not exactly be an engineering challenge, the main factor would be protection from acid vapors from Venus clouds. If money would be aviable... i'd say four-five years to design, build, launch, and deploy.
Click to expand...

There are various polymer plastics available "off-the-shelf" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETFE) that could be used for an envelope. Transparent Tefzel has been considered to allow the use of solar panels inside the envelope. Money and support are, as always, the main problem.

Randy
 
The author of this new paper seems sceptical of life on Venus. Especially as according to his analysis it would have to survive in the atmosphere for one billion years.

phys.org

Venus might be habitable today, if not for Jupiter

Venus might not be a sweltering, waterless hellscape today, if Jupiter hadn't altered its orbit around the sun, according to new UC Riverside research.
phys.org phys.org
 
Last edited:
On the biggest of Pioneer’s probes, an instrument called the Large Probe Neutral Mass Spectrometer (LNMS) looked for gases in the atmosphere, with mission scientists focusing on molecules such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and argon that were known to be abundant there. After taking another look at the data, however, Rakesh Mogul, a professor of biological chemistry at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, posits that scientists on the mission underestimated their instrument, which may have spotted trace amounts of other molecules—including, excitingly, phosphine.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is convinced. Planetary scientist Mikhail Zolotov of Arizona State University argues that the Pioneer data are unlikely to be accurate enough to reliably detect phosphine—instead of, for instance, a more mundane mixture of phosphorus-rich gases and hydrogen sulfide. Furthermore, he says, if the LNMS detection is genuine, it suggests a much higher abundance of the gas than Sousa-Silva’s team found—so much higher, in fact, that it would be incompatible with the mere traces suggested by the recent discovery. If Mogul and his colleagues have correctly interpreted the Pioneer data, Zolotov says, “we’d expect a much higher concentration of phosphine than measured by astronomers, which is also a red flag.”
Click to expand...

So far, Mogul and his collaborators have only been able to access a snippet of information from the mission, corresponding to altitudes between 50 and 60 kilometers above Venus. The probe, however, actually took data from an altitude of 90 kilometers all the way down to the surface of the planet. If these data could be analyzed, and if the presence of phosphine could be confirmed, they could reveal more information about the gas’s atmospheric distribution—potentially a vital clue in working out its origin. Unfortunately, although a physical copy of this information is stored in the NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive (NSSDCA) at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, access to the archive is currently restricted because of COVID-19.
“We do have some of the data from that experiment, [but] unfortunately it is archived on microfilm and is not easily accessible,” says David Williams, acting head of the NSSDCA. “We are currently trying to get permission for one of our folks to go in to digitize that microfilm, as we have already received inquiries about it. With luck, we may be able to start on it this week.”
Click to expand...

www.scientificamerican.com

A NASA Probe May Have Found Signs of Life on Venus 40 Years Ago

Data from an old NASA mission to our sister planet may contain overlooked evidence for the gas phosphine, a potential biosignature
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
 
Flyaway said:
On the biggest of Pioneer’s probes, an instrument called the Large Probe Neutral Mass Spectrometer (LNMS) looked for gases in the atmosphere, with mission scientists focusing on molecules such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and argon that were known to be abundant there. After taking another look at the data, however, Rakesh Mogul, a professor of biological chemistry at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, posits that scientists on the mission underestimated their instrument, which may have spotted trace amounts of other molecules—including, excitingly, phosphine.
Click to expand...

Not everyone is convinced. Planetary scientist Mikhail Zolotov of Arizona State University argues that the Pioneer data are unlikely to be accurate enough to reliably detect phosphine—instead of, for instance, a more mundane mixture of phosphorus-rich gases and hydrogen sulfide. Furthermore, he says, if the LNMS detection is genuine, it suggests a much higher abundance of the gas than Sousa-Silva’s team found—so much higher, in fact, that it would be incompatible with the mere traces suggested by the recent discovery. If Mogul and his colleagues have correctly interpreted the Pioneer data, Zolotov says, “we’d expect a much higher concentration of phosphine than measured by astronomers, which is also a red flag.”
Click to expand...

So far, Mogul and his collaborators have only been able to access a snippet of information from the mission, corresponding to altitudes between 50 and 60 kilometers above Venus. The probe, however, actually took data from an altitude of 90 kilometers all the way down to the surface of the planet. If these data could be analyzed, and if the presence of phosphine could be confirmed, they could reveal more information about the gas’s atmospheric distribution—potentially a vital clue in working out its origin. Unfortunately, although a physical copy of this information is stored in the NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive (NSSDCA) at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, access to the archive is currently restricted because of COVID-19.
“We do have some of the data from that experiment, [but] unfortunately it is archived on microfilm and is not easily accessible,” says David Williams, acting head of the NSSDCA. “We are currently trying to get permission for one of our folks to go in to digitize that microfilm, as we have already received inquiries about it. With luck, we may be able to start on it this week.”
Click to expand...

www.scientificamerican.com

A NASA Probe May Have Found Signs of Life on Venus 40 Years Ago

Data from an old NASA mission to our sister planet may contain overlooked evidence for the gas phosphine, a potential biosignature
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
Click to expand...

This whole story of the potential of having found the possibility of the building blocks of life on Venus just keeps on getting stranger and stranger, it will be interesting to see what the Pioneer Venus probes data can tell us about the make up of the Phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus. Whether or not it is from Venus or has traveled from Earth via a space probe.
 
Other archived data could prove useful, too. Sousa-Silva is currently looking through old infrared telescope observations of Venus, hunting for additional overlooked evidence of phosphine.

And Sanjay Limaye of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is a co-author of Mogul’s preprint paper, says old data from the Soviet Venera probes—while unlikely to have been sensitive enough to detect phosphine—may contain evidence for atomic phosphorus, which could hint at the presence of molecular phosphine, too. He notes, however, that the whereabouts of much of those data is unknown. Still, Limaye says, “somebody probably has some records.”
Click to expand...

Ha ha ! I KNEW it ! They are trying to check the Venera data, too. So far - Vega 2 (1985) Pioneer-Venus, and Venera. Long dead missions, data still useful.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1311576626270924803
View: https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1311576626270924803


This image is showing the Venus probe design.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1311391056206807040
View: https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/1311391056206807040


With this 1st Photon we're testing tech for exciting future missions of First Light’s levelled-up sibling, the high-energy, interplanetary Photon. It's with this spacecraft version that we'll head to the Moon next year for @NASA & later onto Venus to support the search for life.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1311577935833296896
View: https://twitter.com/carlhan30554840/status/1311577935833296896


If the development of the interplanetary Photon progresses faster than planned, would it be possible to send this probe in 2021
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1311578517822345216
View: https://twitter.com/peter_j_beck/status/1311578517822345216


Not really, May 2023 transit time to Venus is 160 days, in 2021 it’s over a year to just get there.
Click to expand...
 
RanulfC said:
Not to rain on the parade, (in fact I'm for ANY reason to send more science :) ) but:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1310987466791358464
View: https://twitter.com/thunderf00t/status/1310987466791358464


Randy
Click to expand...
Does this person not think the team that wrote the original paper had already looked into things like this. Actually looking at it appears this person may not have even read the paper being as it actually addresses the matter of phosphine being generated by lighting and dismisses it.
 
marauder2048 said:
RanulfC said:
in fact I'm for ANY reason to send more science
Click to expand...

Corruption? Empire building? Jobs program?
Click to expand...

For Science! :)

Flyaway said:
RanulfC said:
Not to rain on the parade, (in fact I'm for ANY reason to send more science :) ) but:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1310987466791358464
View: https://twitter.com/thunderf00t/status/1310987466791358464


Randy
Click to expand...
Does this person not think the team that wrote the original paper had already looked into things like this. Actually looking at it appears this person may not have even read the paper being as it actually addresses the matter of phosphine being generated by lighting and dismisses it.
Click to expand...

Person read the paper, is a qualified scientist who has officially 'debunked' other peer reviewed and published papers that make similar unsubstantiated claims and is questioning the narrative in the paper that dismissed a perfectly plausible explanation for the readings. The fact the team dismissed the idea that it could be caused by lighting yet proposes a conclusion where it is life generated with less evidence given to support than cited to support rejecting the lighting generation. As quoted in the video the authors stated they had a bias. I personally don't like his conclusions but he has good points and does in fact point out some serious bias and flaws in the papers conclusions.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
marauder2048 said:
RanulfC said:
in fact I'm for ANY reason to send more science
Click to expand...

Corruption? Empire building? Jobs program?
Click to expand...

For Science! :)

Flyaway said:
RanulfC said:
Not to rain on the parade, (in fact I'm for ANY reason to send more science :) ) but:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1310987466791358464
View: https://twitter.com/thunderf00t/status/1310987466791358464


Randy
Click to expand...
Does this person not think the team that wrote the original paper had already looked into things like this. Actually looking at it appears this person may not have even read the paper being as it actually addresses the matter of phosphine being generated by lighting and dismisses it.
Click to expand...

Person read the paper, is a qualified scientist who has officially 'debunked' other peer reviewed and published papers that make similar unsubstantiated claims and is questioning the narrative in the paper that dismissed a perfectly plausible explanation for the readings. The fact the team dismissed the idea that it could be caused by lighting yet proposes a conclusion where it is life generated with less evidence given to support than cited to support rejecting the lighting generation. As quoted in the video the authors stated they had a bias. I personally don't like his conclusions but he has good points and does in fact point out some serious bias and flaws in the papers conclusions.

Randy
Click to expand...
It says nowhere on there what their qualifications are. Just because they are a qualified scientist does not make them a specialist in atmospheric chemistry and physics especially of the Venusian atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
Flyaway said:
It says nowhere on there what their qualifications are. Just because they are a qualified scientist does not make them a specialist in atmospheric chemistry and physics especially of the Venusian atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Nowhere expect he states his qualifications in the video, and goes through the process of checking each possible source except he does not discount the obvious ones in favor of "life" being the answer. He makes a point that we really SHOULD go find out for sure but jumping to the conclusion that it is 'life' generated when the evidence is shaky at best doesn't help.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Flyaway said:
It says nowhere on there what their qualifications are. Just because they are a qualified scientist does not make them a specialist in atmospheric chemistry and physics especially of the Venusian atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Nowhere expect he states his qualifications in the video, and goes through the process of checking each possible source except he does not discount the obvious ones in favor of "life" being the answer. He makes a point that we really SHOULD go find out for sure but jumping to the conclusion that it is 'life' generated when the evidence is shaky at best doesn't help.

Randy
Click to expand...
Which is not what the paper says that announced this discovery, it’s more the subsequent reporting. So now he’s tilting at windmills.
 
As this article states this new research does not invalidate the idea of life on Venus or the Phosphine detection.

Scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scanned Venus for signs of phosphine as low as five parts per billion and still found nothing, according to the preprint research they shared online on Monday. But variations in phosphine could actually be more evidence that the gas is a byproduct of biological life, they said.
“If the phosphine came from life, we would expect enormous local variability,” study author Clara Sousa-Silva, who also contributed to the original phosphine study, told New Scientist. “On Earth, where it does come from living organisms, it’s extremely variable. In most of the atmosphere, there’s almost none of it, but above the places where it’s being created, there’s much more.”
Back And Forth
Sousa-Silva reiterated that there could be phosphine and even life on Venus hiding under the radar, but we’ll need to change our approach to finding it. But it’s also possible that the original discovery was just some error.
“This isn’t a big gotcha,” she told New Scientist. “It’s really interesting and it tells us a lot about what we have to do for future work.”
Click to expand...

futurism.com

Researchers: Claim of life molecules on Venus may have been an error

"This isn't a big gotcha."
futurism.com futurism.com
 
Flyaway said:
More doubts as regards the phosphine detection.

Click to expand...

Just stopped reading the latest issue of New Scientist and they have an interesting article about Venus and the whole Phosphine saga. And it looks like the initial data was wrong, there is no Phosphine in Venus's atmosphere after all. Looks like the scientists who made the initial discovery got too excited over the initial data results.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom