General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNASA doubles down on Venus missions, asking what made the planet uninhabitable
NASA announced yesterday that it will fund two new missions to Venus to study its atmosphere and topography, both chosen from the Discovery Program.
...
DAVINCI+ will send a probe to determine the composition of Venus' atmosphere and whether it ever had an ocean, measuring noble gasses and taking pictures of the planet's surface on the way down. Beyond volcanos and clues of weathering history, the surface of Venus is covered in plate tectonic-like tesserae that DAVINCI+ plans to capture. It is yet to be determined whether Venus actually has plate tectonics, but the VERITAS project hopes to confirm this.
...
VERITAS will create a high-resolution map of Venus surface and infrared emissions by orbiting it with a synthetic aperture radar, in part to confirm whether plate tectonics and volcanos are still active. Suzanne Smrekar of NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the principal investigator leading the team which hopes the mission will shed light on Venus rock type, geologic history and answer why it developed so differently than Earth.
https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/03/nasa_doubles_down_on_venus/
Hugin
(37,848 posts)satellite such as Earth's Moon.
lastlib
(28,270 posts)It would bear investigating.
Irish_Dem
(81,271 posts)Hugin
(37,848 posts)Theoretically according to my hypothesis tidal cycles would need to establish themselves and become stable.
Could the necessary cycles be established via other means? Probably.
Irish_Dem
(81,271 posts)Hugin
(37,848 posts)Irish_Dem
(81,271 posts)Sympthsical
(10,969 posts)Its rotation is very, very slow. 243 days. The atmospheric pressure and heat would melt lead. There's a lot wrong there.
Some people have posited creating floating habitations above the clouds. The temperature and pressure there are a thought. There have been several works of fictions about it. But the lack of oxygen and all the sulfur would be a thing.
It's a very pretty place. Also a pretty nightmarish one.
Irish_Dem
(81,271 posts)Disaffected
(6,403 posts)Terraforming Venus is well nigh impossible with any foreseeable technology but Mars OTOH is somewhat feasible (in the far future) provided there is sufficient water present beneath the surface. FWIW, I believe Elon has that as a distant goal...
Irish_Dem
(81,271 posts)Once they have trashed Earth, they will look for another place to live.
Disaffected
(6,403 posts)Disaffected
(6,403 posts)could overcome the the extremely hostile conditions on the Venusian surface (hot enough to melt lead with an atmosphere 90 times more dense than on earth and composed mainly of CO2 with a good amount of sulphurous gasses added to the mix).
Irish_Dem
(81,271 posts)Very interesting discussion.
Dale in Laurel MD
(797 posts)Seriously, the lack of a sizeable moon may have had a big influence.
Hugin
(37,848 posts)Heh. Yeah, I could see that.
It's something I've pondered. It could be true for Mars as well.
brush
(61,033 posts)have one either. The sun's more powerful gravitational pull could be the reason. Notice how the planets farther away from the sun have moons. Even Mars has two moons.
Dale in Laurel MD
(797 posts)Isaac Asimov once gave a mathematical proof that a moon for Mercury was impossible as there was no stable zone. If the moon was far enough out not to be pulled down to the planetary surface, it would be pulled into the sun instead.
The same article demonstrated that mathematically our moon can't be a satellite (too far away to be stable). Rather Earth and Moon must be a twin planet.
brush
(61,033 posts)usually giant planets compared to earth because of the limitations of our detection equipment, but it's a possibility as most of the moons in our solar system are much smaller than their planets.
Hugin
(37,848 posts)The first step being "The Big Splat" where a very large mostly water bearing planetoid (it has a name in the literature, too lazy to look it up) collided with the proto-Earth. This event is thought to have created the Moon. Also, it left an unusually large amount of water for a planet in the inner Solar system.
Secondly, the advent of anaerobic microbial life capable of existing in a harsh acidic environment. (now, whether it formed on Earth or was brought here is an open question) One of the by-products of the metabolisms of these creatures is oxygen which turns out to be a requirement for other higher forms of life. This stage took a heck of a long time, but, eventually these critters had changed the Earth's atmosphere with their output to the point it became toxic to them and they became a minority life form in favor of oxygen tolerant microbes. But, that is a whole other hypothesis.
The role the large ratio Moon played in this whole thing is manifold. It acts to partially shield the Earth from large impacts. Which creates the large periods of relative climactic stability needed by organic and inorganic processes to form a consistent atmosphere. It also acts to gravitationally stimulate the various structures and stratigraphy of the Earth to keep it from 'dying'. Similar to what has happened on Venus and Mars. This stimulation by the large Moon is also thought to keep the water present and atmosphere on the Earth from 'evaporating' from the planet and diffusing into space.
I thought I'd add this clarification and depth to my hypothesis. Seeing as how I'm getting pretty beat up for having my own hypothesis and the audacity to post it on DU without some sort of credentials.
JHB
(38,213 posts)I'm not saying he was wrong about Mercury, but I'd also look for more recent corroboration.
And the "twin planet" theory covers motion but not differences in composition. If I recall correctly, the current strongest theory is that early Earth shared an orbit with a Mars-sized planed. That's not stable long-term, and when they eventually collided most of the result formed the Earth, and much of what "splashed" into space and didn't fall back to Earth collected into the Moon. Still a "twin planet", but in a looser sense than in Azimov's day.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,493 posts)It's simply too close to the sun. Period.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,493 posts)Not having a moon is simply not a factor. It is simply too close to the sun. Period.
Over time the sun has gotten brighter and hotter, so a couple of billion years ago it would have potentially had livable conditions. I also asked him, if I could wave a magic wand, terraform it, how long would it remain habitable. He pointed out that one essential problem is that it doesn't have much variety in topography, and so it wouldn't be able to have oceans. But more to the point, it's so close to the sun that it would very quickly heat back up and be unlivable. Quickly as in perhaps a hundred years.
Our moon may well be a factor in life developing, because of tides and tidal pools, but it's probably not the only reason. Being as we are in the Goldilocks Zone is most important.
He's actually researching exoplanets, and some the approximate size and mass of Earth have been found. Now the trick is to figure out what kind of evidence of life would exist, and how to detect it from so far away.
Dale in Laurel MD
(797 posts)probably important to developing life.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,493 posts)I'm not sure how widely it is believed these days. But even if Venus had a moon, it is still too close to the sun. And it has very little deep holes for oceans. Plus, it is so much closer to the sun that tidal forces would be a whole lot greater. But too close to the sun is the biggest problem.
FSogol
(47,623 posts)Crucial.
I'll add it to the list.
Midnight Writer
(25,410 posts)I cringe every time I see that.
Sympthsical
(10,969 posts)Given its lack of rotation, there isn't much a dynamo in the core. There's very little convection as well. But, one never knows. It's also this close to being tidally locked.
Still worth exploring.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,493 posts)according to My Son The Astronomer.
Shanti Shanti Shanti
(12,047 posts)Go for the water!
Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)The Heaven and Hell episode is well worth watching again.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,493 posts)Venus is simply too near the sun. A moon would not matter. Even plate tectonics wouldn't help. The planet actually rotates retrograde, 243 days. Its year is 225 days, so it takes more than a year for one rotation.
I did ask My Son The Astronomer what would happen if we could wave a magic wand and immediately give Venus an Earth-like atmosphere and the like. First off, the planet has few indentations that would be suitable for oceans. Even ignoring that, he thinks that within a century it would heat up enough as to be uninhabitable.
Early on in the solar system, Venus would have been in the Goldilocks Zone, and could hypothetically have had life evolve. But that time ended long ago, probably before any life could have realistically evolved. A shame, in a way, since in certain ways it really is a twin of Earth.