Future Venus Missions Options

[Phil Stooke]

Oh well, might as well start that new topic since it's already well advanced in the Juno area...

My perspective on landers is as follows. All the landers we've had so far were dropped blind onto an essentially unknown surface. Any future landers can be targeted for specific terrains. It really is not true that we have had representative landings. Even a descent image or two, a panoramic photo plus a bit of surface composition, from a simple Venera-class lander just updated a bit, would be useful if we could put several down at well chosen targets. My choices would be:

Examples of the main plains units (smooth, fractured, ridged)

tesserae

high elevation radar-bright tesserae

large fresh lava flow unit ('fluctus')

crater dark parabola

crater ejecta outflow unit

dunes area.

And I have always assumed, rightly or wrongly, that it would be relatively easy to put these down, so they ought to be fairly inexpensive as planetary landers go.

Phil

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The presentations from the second VEXAG meeting have just arrived ( http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/May2006/presentations.html ). In the one on the latest update of the Solar System Roadmap ( http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/May2006/VEXAG_52006_ELLEN.pdf ), Ellen Stofan's group recommends that for the projected Flagship-class Venus Surface Explorer, an "air mobility platform with long traversing" is now "preferred over a surface rover" for Venus, logically enough. (Not only does it allow much longer traversing, but in the case of Venus it would also allow the vehicle to land, hastily take a look around and grab some samples for later digestion, and then take off again for the cooler upper atmosphere, thereby reducing its heat burden.)

Actually, though, the single most useful presentation from this VEXAG meeting may be Larry Esposito's summation of our current scientific knowledge of Venus ( http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/May2006/Chap...ummaryVEXAG.pdf ).

Also see Emily's series of very useful blog entries on the goings-on at VEXAG ( http://planetary.org/blog/ ).

[nprev]

Mr. Esposito's presentation was indeed informative, Bruce; thanks for posting the link!

2 By of oceans, huh...hmm. Although this is wild speculation, you have to wonder if maybe the advent of photosynthetic life on Earth was what saved us from becoming Venus' slightly bigger sibling in all respects.

Still, if oceans did persist that long, why wasn't more CO2 captured as limestone to prevent a runaway greenhouse? Did Venus all of a sudden become enormously more volcanically active than Earth ever was, causing that 'global resurfacing event' and a CO2 overload in the atmosphere that the oceans just couldn't process fast enough?

Lots of interesting and potentially quite significant contingency scenarios here...

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Mr. Esposito's presentation was indeed informative, Bruce; thanks for posting the link!

2 By of oceans, huh...hmm. Although this is wild speculation, you have to wonder if maybe the advent of photosynthetic life on Earth was what saved us from becoming Venus' slightly bigger sibling in all respects.

Still, if oceans did persist that long, why wasn't more CO2 captured as limestone to prevent a runaway greenhouse? Did Venus all of a sudden become enormously more volcanically active than Earth ever was, causing that 'global resurfacing event' and a CO2 overload in the atmosphere that the oceans just couldn't process fast enough?

Lots of interesting and potentially quite significant contingency scenarios here...

The current concept of Venus is that it was never quite warm enough to develop a genuine "runaway greenhouse", in which the greenhouse effect from all the water vapor initially in its atmosphere raised its temperature by a greater enough margin to evaporate a really huge additional amount of water into the air...and so on in a self-amplifying positive feedback that took the form of a diverging series that didn't stop until ALL the planet's water was in the form of atmospheric steam, after which enough of it soared into the upper atmosphere for solar UV to get at it and break it down.

Instead, it appears that early Venus was instead a "moist greenhouse". That is, its initial warmth was greater than Earth's by a relatively modest margin, so that the amount of additional water that was evaporated into the air by that warmth was also fairly modest and so produced only a small additional greenhouse effect...and so on, in a positive-feedback effect that took the form of a converging rather than diverging series and thus finally leveled off at a certain point (as indeed our own water-vapor-generated self-amplifying greenhouse effect does after warming Earth by a total of about 33 deg C).

This stabilized level of early Venusian warmth, however, was still high enough to loft the planet's water vapor to altitudes high enough that solar UV could break it down with tremendously greater efficiency than was happening on Earth even before our photosynthetically created ozone layer appeared. Thus Venus was still stripped of ALL its water supply after (according to the majority view) a few hundred million years, at which point its "carbonate thermostat" -- which depends on the existence of liquid water -- also shut down. That is: after Venus' liquid water vanished, all the atmospheric CO2 which had been turned into carbonate minerals by that liquid water got eventually dragged back down by the planet's still-functioning plate tectonics into its semi-molten asthenosphere, where the carbonates were broken back down into CO2, which was then belched back into the atmosphere again by its volcanoes -- and this time that CO2 did not get turned back into carbonates again, so that the volcanoes eventually belched the planet's entire large CO2 supply into the air as a permanent super-thick atmosphere whose greenhouse effect (even without the assistance of water vapor) was strong enough to raise its temperature to its current roasting level and keep it there.

The planet's plate tectonics, according to this model, did shut down a billion years or so after the planet lost all its surface liquid water. This is because mixing liquid water with rock greatly lowers its melting point -- and so, without water to do this, the planet's asthenosphere solidified and permanently jammed up its plate-tectonic conveyor belt. Thus there may still be some carbonates sitting around on Venus' surface that were not taken underground and broken back down into CO2, although most of them were thus destroyed before the plate tectonics shut down completely. But at any rate, there's no evidence that the advent of photosynthetic life did anything to prevent Earth from turning into a Venus-type oven -- we were safe from that fate whether life had ever evolved on Earth or not, simply because we were far enough from the Sun for virtually all of our atmospheric water vapor to stay trapped in our dense lower atmosphere by the "cold trap" of our stratosphere and thus be safe from breakdown by solar UV.

David Grinspoon has recently proposed an interesting variant of this idea, based on the assumption that the calculations of James Kasting -- which are what have led to the rejection of the "runaway greenhouse" model of Venus and the acceptance of the "moist greenhouse" model instead -- are (by Kasting's own statement, an upper limit) which ignores the possible cooling effect of the dense high-albedo water clouds which the initial warm Venus would have had. Grinspoon thus thinks that early Venus may have been cool enough that it didn't lose all its liquid water (and thus start building up a super-dense CO2 atmosphere) for fully 2 or 3 billion years -- and therefore that its plate tectonics may not have shut down until only about 500 million years ago, so that the fact that Venus' surface (in the opinion of most geologists) suddenly started retaining impact craters at that point was not due to a separate "catastrophic resurfacing" event at that time, but just to the fact that, before then, plate tectonics had been erasing most of the planet's craters just the way it still does for Earth.

As Grinspoon points out, one astonishing side aspect of his revisionist view of Venusian history is that Venus would have had time to evolve not just microbial life (which Kasting's classic moist-greenhouse view might also allow), but photosynthetic and maybe even primitive multicellular life -- unlike Mars, Europa, or any other place in the Solar System. Ah, but is there any chance that any fossils of such Venusian life could survive to the present day in such a savage environment? Now you can see one reason why geologists are so interested (as the 2002 Decadal Survey said) in looking for any evidence at all of surviving sedimentary rocks, carbonates, or other aqueous minerals on Venus' surface.

[PhilHorzempa]

As Grinspoon points out, one astonishing side aspect of his revisionist view of Venusian history is that Venus would have had time to evolve not just microbial life (which Kasting's classic moist-greenhouse view might also allow), but photosynthetic and maybe even primitive multicellular life -- unlike Mars, Europa, or any other place in the Solar System. Ah, but is there any chance that any fossils of such Venusian life could survive to the present day in such a savage environment? Now you can see one reason why geologists are so interested (as the 2002 Decadal Survey said) in looking for any evidence at all of surviving sedimentary rocks, carbonates, or other aqueous minerals on Venus' surface.

Thank you Bruce for reporting on Mr. Grinspoon's ideas. I think that he is one of
the more original and innovative members of the planetary science community.
I especially like David Grinspoon's proposal to include a manned mission to Venus,
as part of the VSE. As I recall, his plan calls for a crew to orbit Venus in a CEV and
use that vantage point to control a series of unmanned probes on the planet itself.


Another Phil

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Thank you Bruce for reporting on Mr. Grinspoon's ideas. I think that he is one of
the more original and innovative members of the planetary science community.
I especially like David Grinspoon's proposal to include a manned mission to Venus,
as part of the VSE. As I recall, his plan calls for a crew to orbit Venus in a CEV and
use that vantage point to control a series of unmanned probes on the planet itself.

I'm not really a fan of either of his ideas. Carl Sagan suggested a long time ago that (Earth-born) microbes might be bred to survive in the Venusian clouds. Um, he probably says "Cytherean clouds". But that was in the early 1960s, before we knew better.

I'd be surprised if any molecule with more than a couple carbon atoms can survive in the Venusian atmosphere. Certainly there is no obvious sign of organics in the IR fourier-spectrometer measurments (Venera-15), while the Earth has clear CH-band structures. Keep in mind, the atmosphere of Venus is very dynamic-- convenction cells, high speed winds at the cloud level, etc. Those hapless microbes will alternate between being carried up into the zone of solar radiation, with no ozone or magnetosphere to protect them from every kind of ionizing radiation. Then down they go into the deep atmosphere to be pressure-cooked in suphuric acid. It's the kind of theory you propose to get your name spashed in the papers.

Then there is the manned orbiter around Venus. Kinda like ISS...except more expensive and dangerous. OK, now I said it, ..."ISS"

NASA is spending 4 times as much money as ESA, RKA and China combined. For $17 billion a year, just think about the kinds of science we could be doing all over the solar system. Rovers on IO, sample return missions to the planets and satellites, submarines under Europa. But here we with NASA wringing its hands, cancelling missions. Now why is that?