Russia Plans "long-lived" Venus Probe |
Russia Plans "long-lived" Venus Probe |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
Newbie ![]() Group: Members Posts: 12 Joined: 6-November 05 From: Bexleyheath, Kent, United Kingdom Member No.: 545 ![]() |
Russia Plans "Long-Lived" Venus Probe The press secretary of the Russian Federal Space Agency, Vyacheslav Davidenko, has said that Russia will design and launch a long-living probe to Venus by 2015. The probe is known as Venera-D. Davidenko told a news briefing that within the federal Space budget for 2006-2015 was envisaged, “work to develop a principally new spacecraft, Venera D, intended for detailed studies of the atmosphere and surface of Venus”. “It is expected that the craft with a long, more than one month period of active existence will land on the surface of the planet that is the nearest to the earth. Nobody has done such thing on Venus so far.” Source: ITAR-TASS -------------------- "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001 |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 ![]() |
QUOTE (Waspie_Dwarf @ Nov 7 2005, 12:19 PM) “It is expected that the craft with a long, more than one month period of active existence will land on the surface No word on the thermal strategy: Build a spacecraft that can withstand the heat. Or, use refrigeration to keep the probe cool. Or some combination of both. A probe that was built to withstand the heat might well last indefinitely, much longer than a month. Would this be the first Soviet/Russian spacecraft to use an RTG? I think they have been able to rely upon batteries and solar panels thus far. The next question is what a long-lived probe's long life would be for. Data on wind/temperature/pressure variations would be interesting, but may turn out to be boringly constant. It's possible that wind would blow some dust around, but that's no guarantee. Skyward looking cameras could show variation in cloud structure blowing overhead. One baseline instrument that seems to me to provide a clear need for life beyond an hour would be a seismograph, which is of diminished value without a long life span. Additionally, if there is a sampling/instrument arm, then arbitrarily long mission durations could yield the benefit of more sampling, especially with irradiative spectrometers that require long integration times. Maybe a long, double-jointed arm could scan a grid around the lander, moving a small suite of MER-like instruments carefully around the base. It would then be essential to keep the arm's movements from interfering with the seismometer. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 ![]() |
QUOTE (JRehling @ Nov 7 2005, 03:24 PM) No word on the thermal strategy: Build a spacecraft that can withstand the heat. Or, use refrigeration to keep the probe cool. Or some combination of both. A probe that was built to withstand the heat might well last indefinitely, much longer than a month. Would this be the first Soviet/Russian spacecraft to use an RTG? I think they have been able to rely upon batteries and solar panels thus far. The next question is what a long-lived probe's long life would be for. Data on wind/temperature/pressure variations would be interesting, but may turn out to be boringly constant. It's possible that wind would blow some dust around, but that's no guarantee. Skyward looking cameras could show variation in cloud structure blowing overhead. One baseline instrument that seems to me to provide a clear need for life beyond an hour would be a seismograph, which is of diminished value without a long life span. Additionally, if there is a sampling/instrument arm, then arbitrarily long mission durations could yield the benefit of more sampling, especially with irradiative spectrometers that require long integration times. Maybe a long, double-jointed arm could scan a grid around the lander, moving a small suite of MER-like instruments carefully around the base. It would then be essential to keep the arm's movements from interfering with the seismometer. While I have no illusions regarding the complexity this would add to such a mission, perhaps the lander could be attached to a balloon that would periodically rise into the cooler heights, then settle down somewhere else for a while. Perhaps a lack of longevity can be made up for in visiting more places on Venus. -------------------- "After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance. I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard, and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft." - Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853 |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1636 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Lima, Peru Member No.: 385 ![]() |
QUOTE (ljk4-1 @ Nov 8 2005, 11:22 AM) While I have no illusions regarding the complexity this would add to such a mission, perhaps the lander could be attached to a balloon that would periodically rise into the cooler heights, then settle down somewhere else for a while. As we know that Venus' atmosphere is very heavy, about 90 times of Earth's ones and it is like that we are about 900 meters under the sea. Then it is true that when "we" or the robot are on the Venus' surface, then we are going to walk very slow and alike as to swiming under the water, isn't ? If it is true, so the spacecraft won't need a parachute to land on the Venus' surface when it is above, as an example 1000 meters of surface since the spacecraft, without a parachute will go down like a shipwreck? Rodolfo |
|
|
![]()
Post
#5
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 ![]() |
QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Nov 8 2005, 12:20 PM) As we know that Venus' atmosphere is very heavy, about 90 times of Earth's ones and it is like that we are about 900 meters under the sea. Then it is true that when "we" or the robot are on the Venus' surface, then we are going to walk very slow and alike as to swiming under the water, isn't ? If it is true, so the spacecraft won't need a parachute to land on the Venus' surface when it is above, as an example 1000 meters of surface since the spacecraft, without a parachute will go down like a shipwreck? Rodolfo Venus's air exerts the same pressure as water 900 m under the sea, but it is by no means as HEAVY as that water, or as viscous. It is possible for a craft to land without a parachute -- modest design factors should still maximize surface area: a needle-shaped craft would smash very hard. But don't mistake pressure with density and viscosity. These are three separate things. Oil can be lighter than water and at the same time more viscous. Water is not much denser at 90 atmospheres than at 2 atmospheres. Perfect gas laws don't apply to gases, and they certainly don't apply to water! The fact that wood is lighter than water doesn't mean you can swim through wood. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#6
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 ![]() |
QUOTE (JRehling @ Nov 8 2005, 04:29 PM) Venus's air exerts the same pressure as water 900 m under the sea, but it is by no means as HEAVY as that water, or as viscous. It is possible for a craft to land without a parachute -- modest design factors should still maximize surface area: a needle-shaped craft would smash very hard. But don't mistake pressure with density and viscosity. These are three separate things. Oil can be lighter than water and at the same time more viscous. Water is not much denser at 90 atmospheres than at 2 atmospheres. Perfect gas laws don't apply to gases, and they certainly don't apply to water! The fact that wood is lighter than water doesn't mean you can swim through wood. The later Veneras (9-15) only had to use their aerobreak disk to land safely on Venus once released from the entry shell, the atmosphere is that thick. Imagine something like a coin drifting down to the bottom of a pond, only more stable. Regarding the protection of the lander from the harsh environment, would it be possible to put some kind of shelter around the lander and its immediate area? I am envisioning a tent made of special materials that would unfold in an area around the lander. Would an inflatable type shelter work? If it could at least reduce the temperature around the lander to make it possible for the machine to last longer and conduct its data gathering, I would consider it worth it. How about using the surface itself as protection? Could the lander have a way to dig down enough to cover itself with regolith? Would a Deep Space 2 type penetrator work? These may be seen as "radical" ideas, but for a probe to last on Venus longer than a few hours, the scenario demands radical ideas. -------------------- "After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance. I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard, and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft." - Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853 |
|
|
![]()
Post
#7
|
|
![]() Dublin Correspondent ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 ![]() |
QUOTE (ljk4-1 @ Nov 8 2005, 10:37 PM) These may be seen as "radical" ideas, but for a probe to last on Venus longer than a few hours, the scenario demands radical ideas. The problem is that the heat on the venusian surface is just high ambient temperature, diffuse and scorching. Think something like a high pressure kiln that has been burning for millenia so the heat is probably extreme all the way down, or at least down to depths of kilometers so digging in won't help, the heat is constant and everywhere. There is no precipitation to shelter from at low altitudes at any rate so there's no reason to do that. A high altitude landing on top of Maxwell would be quite a bit cooler with lower temperature and pressure. Still insanely hot and pressurised though. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th June 2024 - 05:48 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |
![]() |