Manned Mission to Venus Dated - 1967

reply to post by blowfishdl


Interesting stuff! Thanks for sharing it.

As someone had said earlier, a fly by is interesting, but not necessary for a manned mission. It still would have been fascinating to have seen Venus up close.

zorgon, glad to see you're still around. Great information.

reply to post by biggie smalls


We HAVE seen Venus up close, with NASA's Magellan Orbiter; Russia's Venera 9, 10, 13 and 14 landers; and the ESA's Venus Express.

We have "visible light" images from orbit of only the cloudtops of Venus, since the surface is completely hidden by clouds. There are also images of the surface from NASA'a Magellan and ESA's Express which are created from "radar imaging".

The only visible light photos we have of the surface of Venus is from Russia's Venera Landers. The landers could only take a few photos before they were crushed by the weight of the atmosphere (they were rendered useless in less than one hour.)

Photo links:
Magellan & Other Various Sources

More NASA images & Russia's Venera 9, 10, 13 & 14

ESA's Venus Express

It's interesting to note that some scientists have given some thought to the idea that it is possible for life to exist on Venus, floating high in the cloudy atmosphere, since the building blocks of life seem to exist there.

Here is an article from 2002:
New Scientist Article, 2002

And it seems this idea was considered back in 1967 by Carl Sagan and Harold Morowitz:
Morowitz & Sagan - Life on Venus? 1967



[edit on 12/3/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I would have liked to personally been on the mission, I wasn't commenting if unmanned probes have been there or not. The Russians have landed there...

reply to post by biggie smalls



Ahh. My bad.

You're right...I, too would like to see the surface (but in some sort of pressurized bathysphere, so as not to die a horrible death )

[edit on 12/3/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

If I was Valient Thor I would be REALLY PISSED

I mean they took the trouble to come here and talk peace... and what does NASA spend your tax dollars on?

Flyby Shootings with Laser beams...

Doesn't sound like 'friendly space exploration" to me

Hey don't shoot the "Messenger" I don't make this stuff up...

Venus Flyby 06.05.2007
Science @ NASA

You do realize this is just talking about MESSENGER's laser altimeter, right? The same sort of instrument that's used on innumerable Earth satellites?

Originally posted by cdrn
You do realize this is just talking about MESSENGER's laser altimeter, right? The same sort of instrument that's used on innumerable Earth satellites?

No kidding?

You know it doesn't look so bad on Venus when you look at it without that "Lava Orange" that NASA chooses to colorize the images... Nice clear cloudless sky... just a couple of vapor trails with shadows... but all in all rather pleasant looking...



Full Size

So why did NASA choose to use "Lava Orange" to colorize the images? Wouldn't by chance be like on Mars where they Red tinted everything to give the impression of an inhospitable world... I mean they could just as easily have used green or blue.. but this...



[edit on 3-12-2007 by zorgon]

Great topic

zorgon, i have read alot of your posts and in my eyes, you are a very credible source, and we have similar views on a few subjects.

I doubt, if there is anything remotely interesting that conflicts with the 'current story', we will see anything of this for a long time. It will get filed away and sent to some underground bunker to gather dust. Unless we get people willing to disclose going to these 'forbidden places' then I doubt we will be anymore enlightened by the end of the decade.

Originally posted by shearder
OK now i look at the issue of money and then consider much of the information that is available that has been given to us generously by John and Zorgon and others. (whether you believe it or not that's personal and important to yourself.) Also, considering black projects and that the space shuttle missions could POSSIBLY be the "Hollywood" of NASA, perhaps there are aircraft that don't need to carry as much fuel as the "stuff" we know of today like the shuttle and run on nuclear or other fuel source.

Is it not possible the "sing song" about funding is actually a diversion for everyone to go "oh well, maybe one day" and the real fact is that it is already happening? Time? Ok perhaps, too, Venus Express took 5 months to reach Venus so then there is food and water to consider. BUT, again, with "unknown" technology we could get there in a matter of weeks, days or hours. Perhaps we have already visited all of the planets, not necessarily landed, but flew past in the last 10 years. Possible? Yes, probable? Probably not. Just a thought.

[edit on 3/12/2007 by shearder]

They do have technology that is very advanced, ive seen it myself back late September 2003 in the Uk. I posted a thread about it some years back to see what info I could get on the craft. here is the original post: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It got some attention from people but I don't know if most didn't believe me or didn't read it, anyway take a look and read my sighting report that is linked. The photo I didn't draw and is from another sighting in Boston, I included it as I wanted to show people that the propulsion system Im talking about in my report, this guy saw as well but at a much greater distance. so I included it to try and prove I wasn't making the whole thing up. believe me when I say this...it was man made but I don't believe what is powering it was at all.

They have this technology working brilliantly in modified B2 bombers, so it could be used in almost anything and from its incredible performance could take them anywhere.

Does anyone want to help come up with an explanation on what's powering it?

Originally posted by zorgon
You know it doesn't look so bad on Venus when you look at it without that "Lava Orange" that NASA chooses to colorize the images... Nice clear cloudless sky... just a couple of vapor trails with shadows... but all in all rather pleasant looking...

I'm not sure where you're getting this picture from (I'm going to guess Magellan) but that's a radar image. It looks cloudless because radar is one of the only ways to actually look past the clouds.

If you were to look at Venus using light of normal wavelengths, you'd just see an almost-pure-white sphere, due to the constant cloud cover. I don't even see how that's contestable, considering that you can get a pretty good image of Venus using a telescope.

When did NASA start making the surface look orange? When the Soviet Venera probes showed that the surface does look orange.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by blowfishdl

Money, to put it simply, is preventing NASA to doing things like this.

Ahhhh....no. Gravity is what is preventing NASA from doing things like this. Any ship landing on Venus would be crushed, just like the Russians found out. I think you conspiracy guys are taking things a bit far on this one. A flyby... yes. Landing? Oh come on and get real.

reply to post by zorgon


Someone needs to be checking their facts a bit more here. Why does it look orange? Because it is orange. Sheesh!! You know how much sulpher is down there? And the person who says there are no clouds on Venus doesn't understand either, I'm sorry to say. You can only see the surface of Venus with radar because of the cloud cover. Clouds are the reason you can see Venus so well at night and in the morning...because of all the sunlight reflecting from the clouds.

Venus is a dead, desolate planet and the ONLY reason I can think of wanting to visit it, besides scientifically, is maybe to mine it or something. However, the gravity and heat are going to prevent that most likely.

Originally posted by Alienmojo
Ahhhh....no. Gravity is what is preventing NASA from doing things like this. Any ship landing on Venus would be crushed, just like the Russians found out.

I would say atmospheric pressure, not gravity. Venus is about the same size and density as Earth, and has approximately the same gravity.

It's just too bad it rotates so slowly. Even if we were to seed the cloud layers with sulfur-eating bacteria or something that would eventually bust the greenhouse effect and move it toward a more friendly atmosphere, the unequal heating of the surface would be extremely hard to deal with.

And no way are we going to have the power to speed up the rotation of a whole planet anytime soon.

[edit on 4-12-2007 by Nohup]

Originally posted by Alienmojo

Originally posted by jra
Money, to put it simply, is preventing NASA to doing things like this.

Ahhhh....no. Gravity is what is preventing NASA from doing things like this. Any ship landing on Venus would be crushed, just like the Russians found out. I think you conspiracy guys are taking things a bit far on this one. A flyby... yes. Landing? Oh come on and get real.

I never said anything about a landing. I know it was a flyby only, (assuming you were directing that comment at me). And it's the atmospheric pressure, not gravity, that would crush us.

They were not going to land on Venus (surface conditions are too harsh) They were only doing a flyby

Absolutely correct. The surface pressure on Venus is greater than the deepest parts of our ocean.We'll be colonizing the Marianas Trench before we do it on Venus.

Do Black Budget Trillions Support A Secret American Space Program?

You left out the word "invisible" Secret Space Program. Not just in the optical part of the spectrum. No secret spacecraft are showing up in the infrared band, nor to the various deep space radar surveys going on in recent years. I should think that NEO asteroid discovery and tracking organizations like Spacewatch or Spaceguard would be raising quite a fuss.

NASA budgets has more than paid for itself in offshoot technology and specifically in medical research that has already helped those starving people. Also if you are going to wipe out poverty it means more people on earth adding to the population issues... so we better get our butts moving and find potential places where all these billions can live...

Well put Zorgon!
And Amen!

Reminds me of my favorite John Young quote-

"Knowing what we know now, we are being irresponsible in our failure to make the scientific and technical progress we will need for protecting our newly discovered severely threatened and probably endangered species--us. NASA is not about the 'Adventure of Human Space Exploration,' we are in the deadly serious business of saving the species. All Human Exploration's bottom line is about preserving our species over the long haul."

Astronaut John Young,"The Big Picture"
space.balettie.com...

Flyby Shootings with Laser beams...

Well. Magellen bombarded Venus with microwaves (aka radar) at much higher power levels. If the Venusians filed a complaint, it's news to me.

You know it doesn't look so bad on Venus when you look at it without that "Lava Orange" that NASA chooses to colorize the images... Nice clear cloudless sky... just a couple of vapor trails with shadows... but all in all rather pleasant looking...

As another poster pointed out, the color images returned by Russian probes revealed an orange-yellow sky.
The reason for this is the dense carbon dioxide atmosphere. It filters out nearly all the blue part of the spectrum, leaving only orangey-yellow.
The color choice was hardly arbitrary.

Better link for Spaceguard

[edit on 5-12-2007 by SpaceMax]

[edit on 5-12-2007 by Jbird]

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by blowfishdl
NASA actually planned a manned mission to Venus way back in 1967. If they really thought they could do that at the time, what is stopping them

Money, to put it simply, is preventing NASA to doing things like this. The Apollo program ended earlier then planned due to funding being cut, so plans like the Venus flyby and other things in the Apollo Applications Program were immediately canned. Except for Skylab.

No word about how many volunteers they had to get fried on Venus?

Originally posted by Alienmojo Why does it look orange?

NASA admits it colorizes the images from the radar images orange...

The image from the Russians that was used for the "color" is THIS one...



You will notice that this is from a NASA site
apod.nasa.gov...

Now that image does not show molten Lava everywhere, and the sky looks clear and bright... and I don't see it raining sulphuric acid...

And in this one it seems more brown... with a bluish sky



But then it was saturated to look like this...



And Voila Venus is Orange

Best site on Venera photos is Don Mitchells

reply to post by zorgon


Looks pretty "normal" to me Z. Like any rocky area on earth as far as i am concerned. Now it is obvious NASA doesn't want anyone to know that there are more "normal" solid planets like our own earth and not just Mars.

I don't know why they would colourize if they didn't want to hide something in the future or are they afraid of people actually knowing what is in our solar system. Not necessarily other intelligent life but just having knowledge in general. Like the saying goes, knowledge is power and they want all the power.

I don't know why they would colourize if they didn't want to hide something in the future or are they afraid of people actually knowing what is in our solar system. Not necessarily other intelligent life but just having knowledge in general.

Looking at things in different parts of the spectrum increases knowledge of those things.

Originally posted by SpaceMax
Looking at things in different parts of the spectrum increases knowledge of those things.

When you say "spectrum" are you referring to the colour spectrum or something else entirely?