Interesting video about life on Venus

(I'm hoping that links correctly)

Interesting tidbit about the space race - the USSR sent a whopping 28 probes to Venus! Why did they keep sending more and more of them? Once the first lander landed and they found out it was a hellscape that could melt lead, pressure like 90 times earth's atmosphere, rains sulphuric acid, and is generally just not a nice place to be, why did they keep sending more probes?

There was a competitive edge to it. It turns out NASA sent multiple probes to Venus that all failed and the USSR believes that they were the ones who won the space race because they had the first successful landings on another planet. They see the NASA moon landing as a last ditch attempt to save national pride. We each told ourselves that we won for different reasons.

But even that doesn't explain 28 probes. What did they see there that kept them going back?

It turns out that one of the Venera missions saw something moving on the surface. It wasn't life like we would recognize it, but they saw something there and it moved.

Turns out there has already been 46 missions to Venus in total from all nations, and there is another 7 missions currently being worked on, and another 9 missions proposed!

en.wikipedia.org...

That's a lot of missions to a dead rock with no potential for life, and absolutely no possibility for human colonization ever! Why bother?

Now here's the thing. Life as we know it requires liquid water. Nothing can live without blood (even plants and trees need water in their cells) and microbes need water or they die. In an environment with no liquid there is no potential for life. What liquid could exist on Venus that would allow biochemistry? I went and looked it up.

The pressure found on Venus's surface is high enough that the carbon dioxide is technically no longer a gas, but a supercritical fluid. This supercritical carbon dioxide forms a kind of sea, with a 6.5% density of water, that covers the entire surface of Venus. This sea of supercritical carbon dioxide transfers heat very efficiently, buffering the temperature changes between night and day (which last 56 terrestrial days). Particularly at possible higher atmospheric pressures in Venus' past might have created an even more fluid-like layer of supercritical carbon dioxide shaping Venus' landscape; altogether, it is unclear how the supercritical environment behaves and is shaped.

Water is a solvent, in fact it's often called the universal solvent. Is supercritical carbon dioxide a solvent? YES IT IS! In fact supercritical carbon dioxide is used a solvent in industrial applications like the processing of polymers. It's a super good solvent.

So it turns out Venus has an ocean of supercritical carbon dioxide on it, and it's a great solvent, and maybe this ocean could allow for biochemistry?

If this life existed it would be vastly different from anything we know of on Earth. It would also hugely change our perspective about life on other worlds. The Drake Equation? Are we alone? If life exists on Venus, not just a random microbe but in abundance - that's huge. This means life could exist on many other worlds as well.

The timing of this isn't lost on me either. How does this video turn up decades after the USSR collapses, suggesting they found life on Venus, and right now there is a UFO inquiry happening in Washington DC? I have no doubt this was all planned.

For whatever reason they wanted us to think we were alone for like 50 years, that the other planets were sterile rockballs, and now they have decided we're going to know the truth.

It sure will be amazing to see Venus up and close with a lot of great pictures that NASA makes with their spacecraft.

But today after all what's going on" not to derail the subject "I'm slightly confused of what they will show us could be actually a small part what we will ever know about life on Venus.

So I hope NASA will be un redacted with their photographs and knowledge what really happens on Venus.

So NASA say hi to Valiant Thor for me

a reply to: peskyhumans

At the end of the video the narrator claims there were pics taken of a scorpion type creature that moved. Where’s the evidence?

a reply to: peskyhumans

I knew it . People always looked to Mars for Life . But I always thought Venus was the place to look.

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: peskyhumans

At the end of the video the narrator claims there were pics taken of a scorpion type creature that moved. Where’s the evidence?

I did some google searches and found a site that supposedly has the pics.

www.researchgate.net...

The picture is so low res it's really just a blob of pixels. But it's not there in some pics and is there in others. It looks like it was moving around.

a reply to: KKLOCO
I thought the same, no images of a scorpion type creature, no name of a file/record/source for the alleged potential sighting.
Just half an hour of nothing new really, and narrated by a voice that annoyed me enough to think it was not spoken by a living human, more created by an AI type program for the YouTube.

It was interesting to learn how many attempts 'the empire' threw at Venus, but I learned more reading the replies before me, than anything I gained from watching the YouTube🤣

link

www.researchgate.net...

This is an article about the "scorpion" it also has pictures.

*Holy # seriously give this article a read. They watched the "scorpion" move around in the panorama and calculated the odds it could be a random distortion of points in the images. It was so vanishingly small they dismissed the idea. They also noted the "scorpion" has a shadow, and they even went on to calculate the impact the wind would have on it, and they decided that based on current air pressure and wind speed the "scorpion" would not be displaced by the wind.

You guys are gonna freak when you find out what wind can do on other planets after dropping a lander there.

What Is the 'Venus Scorpion'? YouTube

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: peskyhumans

At the end of the video the narrator claims there were pics taken of a scorpion type creature that moved. Where’s the evidence?

I did some google searches and found a site that supposedly has the pics.

www.researchgate.net...

The picture is so low res it's really just a blob of pixels. But it's not there in some pics and is there in others. It looks like it was moving around.

Definitely a dead grey in the top left image. They landed on him.

originally posted by: peskyhumans

(I'm hoping that links correctly)

Interesting tidbit about the space race - the USSR sent a whopping 28 probes to Venus! Why did they keep sending more and more of them? Once the first lander landed and they found out it was a hellscape that could melt lead, pressure like 90 times earth's atmosphere, rains sulphuric acid, and is generally just not a nice place to be, why did they keep sending more probes?

There was a competitive edge to it. It turns out NASA sent multiple probes to Venus that all failed and the USSR believes that they were the ones who won the space race because they had the first successful landings on another planet. They see the NASA moon landing as a last ditch attempt to save national pride. We each told ourselves that we won for different reasons.

But even that doesn't explain 28 probes. What did they see there that kept them going back?

It turns out that one of the Venera missions saw something moving on the surface. It wasn't life like we would recognize it, but they saw something there and it moved.

Turns out there has already been 46 missions to Venus in total from all nations, and there is another 7 missions currently being worked on, and another 9 missions proposed!

en.wikipedia.org...

That's a lot of missions to a dead rock with no potential for life, and absolutely no possibility for human colonization ever! Why bother?

Now here's the thing. Life as we know it requires liquid water. Nothing can live without blood (even plants and trees need water in their cells) and microbes need water or they die. In an environment with no liquid there is no potential for life. What liquid could exist on Venus that would allow biochemistry? I went and looked it up.

The pressure found on Venus's surface is high enough that the carbon dioxide is technically no longer a gas, but a supercritical fluid. This supercritical carbon dioxide forms a kind of sea, with a 6.5% density of water, that covers the entire surface of Venus. This sea of supercritical carbon dioxide transfers heat very efficiently, buffering the temperature changes between night and day (which last 56 terrestrial days). Particularly at possible higher atmospheric pressures in Venus' past might have created an even more fluid-like layer of supercritical carbon dioxide shaping Venus' landscape; altogether, it is unclear how the supercritical environment behaves and is shaped.

Water is a solvent, in fact it's often called the universal solvent. Is supercritical carbon dioxide a solvent? YES IT IS! In fact supercritical carbon dioxide is used a solvent in industrial applications like the processing of polymers. It's a super good solvent.

So it turns out Venus has an ocean of supercritical carbon dioxide on it, and it's a great solvent, and maybe this ocean could allow for biochemistry?

If this life existed it would be vastly different from anything we know of on Earth. It would also hugely change our perspective about life on other worlds. The Drake Equation? Are we alone? If life exists on Venus, not just a random microbe but in abundance - that's huge. This means life could exist on many other worlds as well.

The timing of this isn't lost on me either. How does this video turn up decades after the USSR collapses, suggesting they found life on Venus, and right now there is a UFO inquiry happening in Washington DC? I have no doubt this was all planned.

For whatever reason they wanted us to think we were alone for like 50 years, that the other planets were sterile rockballs, and now they have decided we're going to know the truth.

Everyone knows Venus is the home of Fembots that do the bidding of men .

Came from "How the Universe Works" and "NASA's Unexplained Files"
C'mon man....

a reply to: KKLOCO

“A few relatively large objects were found with size ranging from a decimeter to half meter and with unusual morphology. The objects were observed on some images, but were absent on others, or altered their shape,” the researcher writes in the paper.

“Among the relatively large disappearing or changing elements, first of all, there is a ‘disk’. The object has a regular shape and refers to the planet’s surface as no parts of the lander similar in shape were detached. ‘Disk’ is cut by the upper boundary of the image, only its lower half part is seen. It is about 0.34 m in diameter.”

Dr. Ksanfomality hypothesizes that a position of the ‘disk’ changed a little relatively to the upper limit of the image due to heating of the lander and a slight change in a position of the optical axis of the scanning camera.

I can't really scientifically judge if what he claims is actually fact?

a reply to: peskyhumans

I'm no expert but I'd hazard a guess and say 'not a scorpion'.

If it was a Scorpion it would have to be how many meters long??

It would be gigantic!

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: KKLOCO

“A few relatively large objects were found with size ranging from a decimeter to half meter and with unusual morphology. The objects were observed on some images, but were absent on others, or altered their shape,” the researcher writes in the paper.

“Among the relatively large disappearing or changing elements, first of all, there is a ‘disk’. The object has a regular shape and refers to the planet’s surface as no parts of the lander similar in shape were detached. ‘Disk’ is cut by the upper boundary of the image, only its lower half part is seen. It is about 0.34 m in diameter.”

Dr. Ksanfomality hypothesizes that a position of the ‘disk’ changed a little relatively to the upper limit of the image due to heating of the lander and a slight change in a position of the optical axis of the scanning camera.

I can't really scientifically judge if what he claims is actually fact?

The video a few post back from this one explains it. The larger object is a lens cap from a camera on the module itself.

a reply to: WorldxGonexMad

No, in the link peskyhumans posted you can see that it was around 150 mm (around 6 inches) long.

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

a reply to: peskyhumans
He was on TV this week. Does not know the biological difference between a man and a woman......

a reply to: KKLOCO

The larger object is a lens cap from a camera on the module itself.

That I believe , but sure they have to exaggerate so that science got funding for future missions maybe

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.

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).