Interesting video about life on Venus

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: peskyhumans

I don't believe the video when it says it's cheaper to go to Venus than Mars because Venus is closer. He's apparently using the same logic that it's cheaper to drive your car 50 miles than it is 100 miles, and in the case of driving the car, it DOES cost so much per mile. But that's not how interplanetary probes work, they spend most of their time not burning any fuel, you could call it coasting, so to get to a more distant location, you just need to coast longer. Plus there are other factors that would make a Venus mission more costly, like developing sufficient heat shielding, which apparently they never spent enough money for adequate shielding or cooling for an extended mission, if that's even possible. Plus, Venus has more gravity, so you may need to burn more fuel to soft-land on a planet with higher gravity.

Anyway this story should blow the logic in that video out of the water, they are saying it may be more economical to travel to Mars by way of Venus! Which goes completely against what that video says.

Astronauts bound for Mars should swing by Venus first, scientists say

It could be cheaper, faster and two planets for the cost of one.

So that's proposing and even longer distance trip to Mars, saying it could be cheaper, proving that distance traveled is not the primary determinant of cost, as with driving a car on Earth.

originally posted by: ArMaP
And, to me, it wasn't any scorpion or even a living thing, just bad interpretation of the images.

Agreed, it's a terrible interpretation of the images.

It actually is correct once a vessel leaves Earth's gravity well it is still inside the Sun's gravity well. Mars is farther away from the Sun than Venus. A spacecraft could basically "fall towards" Venus because it's closer to the Sun than Earth. Where as going to Mars requires a bit more fuel.

Granted it depends on the arrangement of the planets. If Venus is on the other side of the Sun then you have to go a bit round-about but it's still a descending spiral rather than an ascending one towards Mars.

Tyson is an insufferable social justice warrior.

If you wanna follow someone who is really interesting, check out Max Tegmark.

a reply to: peskyhumans

putting two and two together why is the op post familiar?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Plus, Venus has more gravity, so you may need to burn more fuel to soft-land on a planet with higher gravity.

But Venus has a much denser atmosphere.

Venera 13 dropped the parachute at an altitude of 47 Kms and used simple airbraking until it touched the ground at a speed of approximately 8 metres per second, similar to a 3.2 metres fall on Earth (if my calculations are correct).

Good point, that atmosphere helps.

originally posted by: peskyhumans
It actually is correct once a vessel leaves Earth's gravity well it is still inside the Sun's gravity well. Mars is farther away from the Sun than Venus. A spacecraft could basically "fall towards" Venus because it's closer to the Sun than Earth. Where as going to Mars requires a bit more fuel.

You have to better than that, and besides if that was the reason he gave, I might not have complained about the video being wrong. But he didn't say what you just said, he only mentioned the distance, so even if your claim happened to be true, he still gave the wrong explanation.

Granted it depends on the arrangement of the planets. If Venus is on the other side of the Sun then you have to go a bit round-about but it's still a descending spiral rather than an ascending one towards Mars.

The arrangement of the planets is different at the beginning of the journey than it is at the end of the journey, with existing technology at least. they don't just pick random times to go, the missions are carefully planned to time the mission so the usage of fuel is minimized, or whatever the mission objectives are.

originally posted by: face23785
Tyson is an insufferable social justice warrior.

If you wanna follow someone who is really interesting, check out Max Tegmark.

The only time I heard Tyson talking about social stuff ad nauseum was on Cosmos, but I wasn't sure if that was coming from him personally or from the writers of the show, and he was just reading the script. Outside of the Cosmos TV show, I've listened to Tyson for hours, and never happened to hear him mention any social justice anything, and I enjoyed listening to him. I'm not saying he hasn't done that, just that I haven't run across it. Max Tegmark is good too.