Venus Science Options

[ljk4-1]

Sunspot, NM (Feb. 7, 2006) -- The planet Venus is best known for the thick layers of clouds that veil its surface from view by telescopes on Earth. But the veil has holes, and a New Mexico State University scientist plans on using a solar telescope to peer through them to study the weather on Venus.

"Observations of Venus from a nighttime telescope at a single location are very difficult because Venus is so close to the Sun in the sky," said Dr. Nancy Chanover, a planetary scientist at NMSU in Las Cruces, NM. "You can observe it for about two hours at most." Then the Sun rises and blinds the telescope (or Venus sets, depending on the time of year).

http://www.nso.edu/press/venus06/

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I remember that -- it was indeed a letter in "Science", although I don't remember the date. (I think you can find it in the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature.) There was a longer article on the subject in "Spaceflight" around 1990, but I haven't heard anything more on the subject since then. You'd think the official answer would be available somewhere by now.

[ljk4-1]

Andrew Lepage wrote about Zond 2 in the April, 1991 issue of the EJASA.
His conclusion was that the probe did have a landing capsule, but that the Soviets
assumed Mars had a thicker atmosphere than it did, so that even if Zond 2 did
release its lander, the craft would have likely crashed on the Martian surface.

The issue and article can be found here:

ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/e...91/jasa9104.txt

Regarding Mariner 5, Jane's Solar System Log by Andrew Wilson (1987) stated that the
flyby Venus probe was considered for carrying a small landing capsule, but the idea was
rejected.

Any idea what this Mariner 5 Venus lander would have looked like? What instruments it could
have carried? Could they have developed it in time? Would it have been more or less advanced
than the early Venera landers of 1966-1972? Any drawings of it available? Did they expect it
to survive to the surface, or just hope to get atmospheric readings before being crushed?

A Summary Review of the Scientific Findings of the Mariner 2 Venus Mission

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1964016602.pdf

Mariner-Venus 1967

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1972013159.pdf

[Gsnorgathon]

Andrew Lepage wrote about Zond 2 in the April, 1991 issue of the EJASA.
His conclusion was that the probe did have a landing capsule, but that the Soviets assumed Mars had a thicker atmosphere than it did, so that even if Zond 2 did release its lander, the craft would have likely crashed on the Martian surface.

The issue and article can be found here:

ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/e...91/jasa9104.txt

<snip>

Oh dear - this is off-topic for this thread, but I can't help but note that the EJASA article makes an interesting assertion I've never heard before:

Because of problems with the radio relay on the MARS 3 main bus, which had just slipped into orbit around Mars, the lander's signal was lost after only twenty seconds and was never heard from again.

[Bob Shaw]

Oh dear - this is off-topic for this thread, but I can't help but note that the EJASA article makes an interesting assertion I've never heard before:

Wrong planet, same spacecraft family, so not *too* off-topic - and an interesting article. The assertion that it was an orbiter failure that did in Mars 3 is entirely fresh so far as I can see...

Bob Shaw

[ljk4-1]

Wrong planet, same spacecraft family, so not *too* off-topic - and an interesting article. The assertion that it was an orbiter failure that did in Mars 3 is entirely fresh so far as I can see...

Bob Shaw

It was also mentioned in the October, 1989 EJASA from a Soviet source:

http://www.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/e...89/jasa8910.txt

And in a revised version of the same article in Spaceflight magazine in the
August, 1990 issue (does the BIS have any articles online?).

The Soviets always preferred to blame nature as the cause for space probe
failures, rather than the Glorious Socialist Technology of the Workers Party.
They did the same for Mars 1 and Venera 1, both of which stopped transmitting
before reaching their target worlds (and they were hardly isolated events),
because they were apparently struck by those darn meteoroids zipping
around the Cosmos, rather than failures of their communications technology.

[Bob Shaw]

It was also mentioned in the October, 1989 EJASA from a Soviet source:

http://www.seds.org/pub/info/newsletters/e...89/jasa8910.txt

And in a revised version of the same article in Spaceflight magazine in the
August, 1990 issue (does the BIS have any articles online?).

The Soviets always preferred to blame nature as the cause for space probe
failures, rather than the Glorious Socialist Technology of the Workers Party.
They did the same for Mars 1 and Venera 1, both of which stopped transmitting
before reaching their target worlds (and they were hardly isolated events),
because they were apparently struck by those darn meteoroids zipping
around the Cosmos, rather than failures of their communications technology.

I don't suppose you know who wrote the article to which you refer?

And the article actually refers to the matter of the supposed telemetry failure being a conclusion reached by western analysts...

Oh, go on. Go on, go on, go on.

Bob Shaw