NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
Robotic Spacecraft (Astronomy, Planetary, Earth, Solar/Heliophysics) => Space Science Coverage => Topic started by: catdlr on 06/02/2021 11:31 pm
-
NASA Goddard
Posted: June 2, 2021
NASA has selected the DAVINCI+ (Deep Atmosphere Venus Investigation of Noble-gases, Chemistry and Imaging +) mission as part of its Discovery program, and it will be the first spacecraft to enter the Venus atmosphere since NASA’s Pioneer Venus in 1978 and USSR’s Vega in 1985.
Named for visionary Renaissance artist and scientist, Leonardo da Vinci, the DAVINCI+ mission will bring 21st-century technologies to the world next door. DAVINCI+ may reveal whether Earth’s sister planet looked more like Earth’s twin planet in a distant, possibly hospitable past with oceans and continents.
The mission combines a spacecraft, developed by Lockheed-Martin, and a descent probe, developed at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The spacecraft will map the cloud motions and surface composition of mountainous regions, including the Australia-sized Ishtar Terra. The descent probe will take a daring hour-long plunge through the massive and largely unexplored atmosphere to the surface, making detailed measurements of the atmosphere and surface the whole way down. These measurements include atmospheric samples and images that will allow scientists to deduce the planet’s history, its possible watery past, and trace gases as fingerprints of the planet’s inner workings. The probe will descend over Alpha Regio, an intriguing highland terrain known as a “tessera” standing nearly 10,000 feet tall above the surrounding plains, which might be a remnant of an ancient continent. All of these measurements will help connect Earth’s next door neighbor to similar planets orbiting other stars that may be observed with the James Webb Space Telescope.
The DAVINCI+ team spans NASA centers (Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Langley Research Center, Ames Research Center), aerospace partners (Lockheed Martin), and Universities (University of Michigan) to deliver ground-breaking science during the late 2020’s and early 2030’s with a launch in 2029, flybys of Venus in 2030, probe-based measurements in June 2031. The information sent back to Earth will rewrite the textbooks and inspire the next generation of planetary scientists. The NASA Goddard led team includes Principal Investigator Jim Garvin and Deputy Principal Investigators Stephanie Getty and Giada Arney, as well as Project Manager Ken Schwer, lead Systems Engineer Michael Sekerak, and many others at Goddard, Lockheed Martin, and at other institutions. The team is excited to return NASA to Venus to address our sister planet’s long-standing mysteries!
Music: “Haymaker” – Jordan Rudess & Joseph Stevenson, via Universal Production Music
Video credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
Produced & Edited by: David Ladd (AIMM)
Narrated by: Jerome Hruska
Animations by: NASA’s Conceptual Image Lab
Walt Feimer (KBRwyle) – Animation Manager
Michael Lentz (KBRwyle) – Art Director/Animator
https://youtu.be/3JFR70YOQv0
-
https://youtu.be/EmWQiq-tAy4
-
NASA has formally begun shopping for VenusTech:
https://twitter.com/NASAProcurement/status/1402679455756210182?s=20
-
The DAVINCI Mission to Venus:
https://youtu.be/ETm-hildOo4
-
New paper concerning the DAVINCI mission to Venus.
Revealing the Mysteries of Venus: The DAVINCI Mission
Abstract
The Deep Atmosphere Venus Investigation of Noble gases, Chemistry, and Imaging (DAVINCI) mission described herein has been selected for flight to Venus as part of the NASA Discovery Program. DAVINCI will be the first mission to Venus to incorporate science-driven flybys and an instrumented descent sphere into a unified architecture. The anticipated scientific outcome will be a new understanding of the atmosphere, surface, and evolutionary path of Venus as a possibly once-habitable planet and analog to hot terrestrial exoplanets. The primary mission design for DAVINCI as selected features a preferred launch in summer/fall 2029, two flybys in 2030, and descent-sphere atmospheric entry by the end of 2031. The in situ atmospheric descent phase subsequently delivers definitive chemical and isotopic composition of the Venus atmosphere during an atmospheric transect above Alpha Regio. These in situ investigations of the atmosphere and near-infrared (NIR) descent imaging of the surface will complement remote flyby observations of the dynamic atmosphere, cloud deck, and surface NIR emissivity. The overall mission yield will be at least 60 Gbits (compressed) new data about the atmosphere and near surface, as well as the first unique characterization of the deep atmosphere environment and chemistry, including trace gases, key stable isotopes, oxygen fugacity, constraints on local rock compositions, and topography of a tessera.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/PSJ/ac63c2
-
Creating a thread specific to Davinci+ (as there is one to the upcoming orbiters) for Venus.
Related links:
https://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/davinci/ (https://ssed.gsfc.nasa.gov/davinci/)
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-davinci-mission-to-take-the-plunge-through-massive-atmosphere-of-venus (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2022/nasa-s-davinci-mission-to-take-the-plunge-through-massive-atmosphere-of-venus)
Currently scheduled for a June 2029 launch and Venusian entry in 2031. 7 instruments are listed, among them a descent imager and an imaging spectrometer with the later looking for the elusive UV-absorber. Between the absorber and phosphine detection (the phosphine less certain) this probe hopefully can narrow down what slim chances Venus could support life.
In addition to the (indriect) search for aerial life, I'm curious to see if Davinci+ reaches its target before either VERITAS or ENVISION.
-
Thanks for the links.
Previous thread for DAVINCI+ is here:
NASA Goddard - DAVINCI+ Mission to Venus (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=54022.0)
I'll be looking forward to this mission.
EDIT: I just found this brief video from NASA Goddard about the mission:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXLKyoXQR8g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXLKyoXQR8g)
-
The mission had been renamed to simply "DAVINCI" dropping the "+" shortly after having been selected.
-
The mission had been renamed to simply "DAVINCI" dropping the "+" shortly after having been selected.
I believe that the + part was a plan to have the carrier spacecraft enter Venusian orbit after probe delivery to study Venus with one or two instruments. With VERITAS' selection, those measurements became redundant (and EnVision will also duplicate what DAVINCI+ would have done).
-
The mission had been renamed to simply "DAVINCI" dropping the "+" shortly after having been selected.
I believe that the + part was a plan to have the carrier spacecraft enter Venusian orbit after probe delivery to study Venus with one or two instruments. With VERITAS' selection, those measurements became redundant (and EnVision will also duplicate what DAVINCI+ would have done).
Wasn't it plus because the proposal failed last time, so this was the "improved" proposal?
-
The mission had been renamed to simply "DAVINCI" dropping the "+" shortly after having been selected.
I believe that the + part was a plan to have the carrier spacecraft enter Venusian orbit after probe delivery to study Venus with one or two instruments. With VERITAS' selection, those measurements became redundant (and EnVision will also duplicate what DAVINCI+ would have done).
Wasn't it plus because the proposal failed last time, so this was the "improved" proposal?
The original DAVINCI proposal, along with VERITAS, Psyche, Lucy, and I believe Mantis were found to be fully selectable both scientifically, technically, and programmatically. The NASA associate administrator for science could only select 2.
I understand that similarly in the last competition, all four finalists were found to be fully selectable, but only two could be
-
NASA Prepares to Explore Venus with DAVINCI
https://youtu.be/rdt7PugWe90
Mar 1, 2023
Inspired by the Renaissance vision of Leonardo da Vinci, NASA is presently preparing its scientific return to Venus’ atmosphere and surface with a mission known as the “Deep Atmosphere of Venus Investigation of Noble gases, Chemistry, and Imaging” (DAVINCI).
The DAVINCI mission will “take the plunge” into Venus’ enigmatic history using an instrumented deep atmosphere probe spacecraft that will carry five instruments for measuring the chemistry and environments throughout the clouds and to the surface, while also conducting the first descent imaging of a mountain system on Venus known as Alpha Regio, which may represent an ancient continent. In addition, the DAVINCI mission includes two science flybys of Venus during which it will search for clues to mystery molecules in the upper cloud deck while also measuring the rock types in some of Venus highland regions.
All of these new and unique measurements will make the ‘exoplanet next door’ into a key place for understanding Earth and Venus sized exoplanets that may have similar histories to our sister planet. DAVINCI will pave the way for a series of missions by NASA and ESA in the 2030’s by opening the frontier as it searches for clues to whether Venus harbored oceans and how its atmosphere-climate system evolved over billions of years. DAVINCI’s science will address questions about habitability and how it could be “lost” as rocky planets evolve over time. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight center leads the DAVINCI Mission as the PI institution.
Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
James Tralie (ADNET):
Lead Producer
Lead Editor
Giada Arney (NASA):
Narrator
Walt Feimer (KBRwyle):
Animator
Jonathan North (KBRwyle):
Animator
Michael Lentz (KBRwyle):
Animator
Krystofer Kim (KBRwyle):
Animator
James Garvin (NASA, Chief Scientist Goddard):
Scientist
Music: "Blackened Skies" by Enrico Cacace and Lorenzo Castellarin of Universal Production Music
-
Cross posting this as it’s relevant to this thread as well as you can see in the quotes below
New observations have again detected phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus.
More traces of a gas thought to be a sign of life have been found in the clouds and haze layers of Venus.
They come primarily from the first 50 of 200 hours of observations using the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) in Hawaii—far more than the eight hours used for the original detection—but also involve new data from NASA’s now defunct Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) airplane.
This is the key part.
JCMT’s latest detections of phosphine from February 2022 and May 2023 are significant because they hugely extend the scope of the initial study. They also suggest that there’s a steady source of phosphine either in or below the clouds of Venus.
“We now have five detections over the last few years, from three different sets of instruments, and from many methods of processing the data,” said Professor Jane Greaves, an astrobiologist at the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University whose team has been conducting tests as part of a 200-hour legacy survey using JCMT. “We’re getting a clue here that there is some steady source, which is the point of legacy surveys—to show whether that’s true or not,” said Greaves.
However, it’s DAVINCI+ (Deep Atmosphere Venus Investigation of Noble gases, Chemistry, and Imaging Plus) that could provide a phosphine detection in-situ. Scheduled to arrive in 2031, during a fatal 63-minute descent it will sample the Venusian atmosphere half a dozen times and fire lasers through it and measure the gases.
“They have four of these laser wavelengths to allocate and only three are decided,” said Greaves. “We made our case for phosphine and we’re just waiting for hear back.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2023/07/06/phosphine-confirmed-deep-within-venus-atmosphere-a-possible-sign-of-life/?sh=488e03531106
-
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.
-
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.
They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.
-
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.
They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.
There is no where on earth as unlikely for life as staying afloat in the clouds of venus.
Earth is different because there is life everywhere. Life has time to try and move into a new nitch. There is no giant resevior of life on venus, its all magically staying afloat in the clouds, and reproducing at high speed cause it only gets slow long as it falls, always getting enough water and nutrients.
Once you learn about the requirements for that life to exist, it becomes pretty silly
-
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.
They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.
There is no where on earth as unlikely for life as staying afloat in the clouds of venus.
Earth is different because there is life everywhere. Life has time to try and move into a new nitch. There is no giant resevior of life on venus, its all magically staying afloat in the clouds, and reproducing at high speed cause it only gets slow long as it falls, always getting enough water and nutrients.
Once you learn about the requirements for that life to exist, it becomes pretty silly
life could not evolve on Venus today, but we do not know the history of the Venusian atmosphere. Life could have evolved on the surface in water before there was enough CO2 to create a greenhouse effect, and that life could have evolved floating forms that survived as the planet heated up. I think this is highly unlikely, but not impossible. On Earth, the atmosphere changed profoundly as life evolved, life came into existence in an oxygen-poor atmosphere and could not come into existence in our current oxygen-rich atmosphere.
-
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.
They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.
There is no where on earth as unlikely for life as staying afloat in the clouds of venus.
Earth is different because there is life everywhere. Life has time to try and move into a new nitch. There is no giant resevior of life on venus, its all magically staying afloat in the clouds, and reproducing at high speed cause it only gets slow long as it falls, always getting enough water and nutrients.
Once you learn about the requirements for that life to exist, it becomes pretty silly
Yeah that’s Venus not as we know it now but as it was in the past. It’s believed that Venus stayed habitable both up to a more recent time than Mars and was more suitable for life when it was habitable. The runaway greenhouse of modern Venus seems to be a relatively recent thing in terms of the age of the Solar System.
-
6. Plausible Evolutionary Trajectories on Other Worlds
6.7. Life in a Planetary Atmosphere
Given that the biosphere on Earth is so centered on the surface and subsurface of our planet, it may seem strange to consider the planetary atmosphere as a habitat, given its low density, sparse amount of nutrients, and scarcity of liquids. However, even Earth’s atmosphere serves as a temporary habitat, mostly for long distance transportation of microbial life. It is now recognized that the transport of microbes from Earth’s surface to the clouds is a common phenomenon [150,151] and that clouds harbor a diverse range of microbial life, including archaea, bacteria, eukaryotes, and viruses [152,153]. Viable microbes have even been found in the stratosphere, at an altitude of 38 km [151]. And microbes have been shown to be physiologically active and metabolizing in cloud droplets [153], but so far reproduction has not been demonstrated in the aerial habitat, so Earth’s atmosphere cannot yet be considered as a permanent habitat for life. However, if it is not, that should not be surprising, because natural selection has likely focused on temporary survival rather than adopting a life cycle permanently sustained in Earth’s clouds given that the environmental conditions on Earth’s surface are so well-suited for life [154]. Another challenge for clouds on Earth as a permanent habitat is that they are not continuous, so any microorganism will eventually be deposited back on the surface by precipitation within a few days or weeks at most [155].
However, many other planetary bodies do have permanent clouds such as Venus, Titan, and the gas giants of our Solar System. Venus is especially interesting in this respect because oceans may have existed on the Venusian surface until roughly 700 million years ago [156]. Even if habitable conditions on Venus existed for a much shorter time, life may have been transferred by asteroids from Earth or even Mars when Venus was still habitable; or it may have independently originated on the surface given environmental conditions likely resembling those of the early Earth [157]. At some point in history, the Venusian surface became uninhabitable with temperatures of about 737 K and 92 bar pressure; and life, if it survived, would only have had the atmosphere left as a last refuge. Schulze-Makuch and Irwin [7] summarized why the Venusian atmosphere, particularly the lower cloud layer at an altitude from 48 to 60 km, could be a habitat for life: (1) The lower atmosphere is thick, so microbial transport between the surface and the cloud layer would be easier than in Earth’s atmosphere. (2) The clouds of Venus are much larger, providing more continuous and stable environments than clouds on Earth. (3) Current conditions in the lower cloud layer of Venus are relatively benign at 300–350 K, 1 bar pressure, and a pH of 0—conditions of temperature, pressure, and pH under which thermoacidophilic microbes are known to thrive on Earth. (4) Cloud particles are projected to last for several months in the Venusian atmosphere compared to only days on Earth [158]. (5) The Venusian atmosphere is super-rotating, thus cutting the nighttime significantly and thereby allowing for more photosynthesis. (6) Water vapor is reasonably dense in the lower cloud layers of Venus. (7) Oxygenated species, such as SO2 and O2, coexist in thermodynamic disequilibrium with reducing species such as H2S and H2.
The Venusian atmosphere also harbors an unknown mechanism for absorbing more than half of all the UV irradiation the planet receives. Limaye et al. [159] suggested that this could be the result of an energy capture process by an aerial biosphere. Schulze-Makuch et al. [160] speculated that this UV absorber could be elemental sulfur, especially cycloocta sulfur (S8), which has the intriguing capacity to adsorb UV radiation and re-radiate it in the visible light spectrum. Thus, microbial life coated with S8 would be able to photosynthesize, in principle. This sulfur-based photosynthesis could produce an ecosystem in the Venusian cloud layer in which the sulfur that is oxidized during photosynthesis is later reduced by chemoautrophic microorganisms.
A related model was suggested by Seager et al. [154], who envisioned hydrophilic filaments in addition to the elemental sulfur that could accumulate the critical liquids the microbes would need. They suggested that the life cycle in the Venusian atmosphere would involve drying out of the microorganisms as liquid droplets containing them evaporated during settling. The smaller desiccated spores would fall into the lower haze layer at an altitude of 33–48 km, from which most of them would eventually return to the lower cloud layer by upward diffusion or convection, where they would be rehydrated by cloud condensation and complete their life cycle. In both hypotheses, some of the microorganism would fall to the Venusian surface and be lost, but microbial reproduction within the lower cloud layer would make up for the lost biomass.
https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/6/9/130
-
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.
They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.
There is no where on earth as unlikely for life as staying afloat in the clouds of venus.
Earth is different because there is life everywhere. Life has time to try and move into a new nitch. There is no giant resevior of life on venus, its all magically staying afloat in the clouds, and reproducing at high speed cause it only gets slow long as it falls, always getting enough water and nutrients.
Once you learn about the requirements for that life to exist, it becomes pretty silly
Yeah that’s Venus not as we know it now but as it was in the past. It’s believed that Venus stayed habitable both up to a more recent time than Mars and was more suitable for life when it was habitable. The runaway greenhouse of modern Venus seems to be a relatively recent thing in terms of the age of the Solar System.
No one is talking about venus of the past. I'm talking present. Go and learn about all the tricks and special situations needed for imagined life to exist on venus today. Its rather unlikely.
However lets put all this aside. The whole phosphine thing is no different than "i saw a strange light so it MUST be aliens". Someone is claiming that since we cannot rule out alien life, it MUST be alien life....
This whole life thing on venus is based a prospective detection of phosphine (lots of people argue its not even there, or if so at much lower levels). It's then said that if it exists and has the levels they think it has, it can't be geologic. However we don't even have a basic grasp of how many active volcanos venus has (just discoverd one recently). We know SOOO little about the geology (much less the geochemistry) of Venus, that its a little silly to claim it must be life.
Would it be super amazing and awesome of it was life? Of course! However were at the level of swamp gas and satellite reflections for proof of life on Venus.
-
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.
They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.
There is no where on earth as unlikely for life as staying afloat in the clouds of venus.
Earth is different because there is life everywhere. Life has time to try and move into a new nitch. There is no giant resevior of life on venus, its all magically staying afloat in the clouds, and reproducing at high speed cause it only gets slow long as it falls, always getting enough water and nutrients.
Once you learn about the requirements for that life to exist, it becomes pretty silly
Yeah that’s Venus not as we know it now but as it was in the past. It’s believed that Venus stayed habitable both up to a more recent time than Mars and was more suitable for life when it was habitable. The runaway greenhouse of modern Venus seems to be a relatively recent thing in terms of the age of the Solar System.
No one is talking about venus of the past. I'm talking present. Go and learn about all the tricks and special situations needed for imagined life to exist on venus today. Its rather unlikely.
However lets put all this aside. The whole phosphine thing is no different than "i saw a strange light so it MUST be aliens". Someone is claiming that since we cannot rule out alien life, it MUST be alien life....
This whole life thing on venus is based a prospective detection of phosphine (lots of people argue its not even there, or if so at much lower levels). It's then said that if it exists and has the levels they think it has, it can't be geologic. However we don't even have a basic grasp of how many active volcanos venus has (just discoverd one recently). We know SOOO little about the geology (much less the geochemistry) of Venus, that its a little silly to claim it must be life.
Would it be super amazing and awesome of it was life? Of course! However were at the level of swamp gas and satellite reflections for proof of life on Venus.
I’m not sure how you can just dismiss what Venus was like before when that’s the whole crux of the argument, the same way as it is with Mars. It wouldn’t be likely that life would evolve as either planet is now. It’s more about if there any survivors from the past into the present.
-
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.
They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.
There is no where on earth as unlikely for life as staying afloat in the clouds of venus.
Earth is different because there is life everywhere. Life has time to try and move into a new nitch. There is no giant resevior of life on venus, its all magically staying afloat in the clouds, and reproducing at high speed cause it only gets slow long as it falls, always getting enough water and nutrients.
Once you learn about the requirements for that life to exist, it becomes pretty silly
Yeah that’s Venus not as we know it now but as it was in the past. It’s believed that Venus stayed habitable both up to a more recent time than Mars and was more suitable for life when it was habitable. The runaway greenhouse of modern Venus seems to be a relatively recent thing in terms of the age of the Solar System.
No one is talking about venus of the past. I'm talking present. Go and learn about all the tricks and special situations needed for imagined life to exist on venus today. Its rather unlikely.
However lets put all this aside. The whole phosphine thing is no different than "i saw a strange light so it MUST be aliens". Someone is claiming that since we cannot rule out alien life, it MUST be alien life....
This whole life thing on venus is based a prospective detection of phosphine (lots of people argue its not even there, or if so at much lower levels). It's then said that if it exists and has the levels they think it has, it can't be geologic. However we don't even have a basic grasp of how many active volcanos venus has (just discoverd one recently). We know SOOO little about the geology (much less the geochemistry) of Venus, that its a little silly to claim it must be life.
Would it be super amazing and awesome of it was life? Of course! However were at the level of swamp gas and satellite reflections for proof of life on Venus.
I’m not sure how you can just dismiss what Venus was like before when that’s the whole crux of the argument, the same way as it is with Mars. It wouldn’t be likely that life would evolve as either planet is now. It’s more about if there any survivors from the past into the present.
Why any life at all?
Something is absorbing some uv in the atmosphere we know nothing about. Its possible there might be some phosphone gas, but if its there, we can't rule out geochemistry because we know nothing about venus's basic geological processes.
So of course its life? Anyone can cook up a scenario where custom designed alien life "could" be alive there right now. But why? Aliens is ALWAYS the wrong answer to something unexplained. We should prove aliens with evidence for them, not lack of evidence against. Otherwise we go in circles like this one. There is no actual evidence for aleins on venus, but everyone talks about it because there isn't strict and absolute evidence against aliens on venus...
-
What was NASA's rationale for naming the DAVINCI mission after the great Italian Renaissance polymath Leonardo da Vinci?
-
we know next to nothing about the geology of venus. Not a fan of everytime there might be a wiff of a gas in the atmosphere, it means there is near impossible to exist life there. We don't even know how volcanically active the planet really is, much less what all the major geochemical processes that are occurring there.
Life really feels like the least likely scenario here - not just because of lack of knowledge. But because once you consider what is required for said life to exist for eons, magically staying afloat, getting the resources to reproduce fast enough, ect. It all feels incredibly contrived.
They were saying the same thing about certain extreme locations on Earth where we have actually ended up finding life. In fact the kind of argument you are putting forward at least as far as the Earth is concerned has consistently proved to be wrong.
There is no where on earth as unlikely for life as staying afloat in the clouds of venus.
Earth is different because there is life everywhere. Life has time to try and move into a new nitch. There is no giant resevior of life on venus, its all magically staying afloat in the clouds, and reproducing at high speed cause it only gets slow long as it falls, always getting enough water and nutrients.
Once you learn about the requirements for that life to exist, it becomes pretty silly
Yeah that’s Venus not as we know it now but as it was in the past. It’s believed that Venus stayed habitable both up to a more recent time than Mars and was more suitable for life when it was habitable. The runaway greenhouse of modern Venus seems to be a relatively recent thing in terms of the age of the Solar System.
No one is talking about venus of the past. I'm talking present. Go and learn about all the tricks and special situations needed for imagined life to exist on venus today. Its rather unlikely.
However lets put all this aside. The whole phosphine thing is no different than "i saw a strange light so it MUST be aliens". Someone is claiming that since we cannot rule out alien life, it MUST be alien life....
This whole life thing on venus is based a prospective detection of phosphine (lots of people argue its not even there, or if so at much lower levels). It's then said that if it exists and has the levels they think it has, it can't be geologic. However we don't even have a basic grasp of how many active volcanos venus has (just discoverd one recently). We know SOOO little about the geology (much less the geochemistry) of Venus, that its a little silly to claim it must be life.
Would it be super amazing and awesome of it was life? Of course! However were at the level of swamp gas and satellite reflections for proof of life on Venus.
I’m not sure how you can just dismiss what Venus was like before when that’s the whole crux of the argument, the same way as it is with Mars. It wouldn’t be likely that life would evolve as either planet is now. It’s more about if there any survivors from the past into the present.
Why any life at all?
Something is absorbing some uv in the atmosphere we know nothing about. Its possible there might be some phosphone gas, but if its there, we can't rule out geochemistry because we know nothing about venus's basic geological processes.
So of course its life? Anyone can cook up a scenario where custom designed alien life "could" be alive there right now. But why? Aliens is ALWAYS the wrong answer to something unexplained. We should prove aliens with evidence for them, not lack of evidence against. Otherwise we go in circles like this one. There is no actual evidence for aleins on venus, but everyone talks about it because there isn't strict and absolute evidence against aliens on venus...
Arguments that just dismiss even the slightest possibility of life are just exercises in defeatism in my book as they seem to be putting cynicism in front of any actual data or even scientific investigation. I mean why even bother searching for even the possibility of life if you’re just going to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even started.
-
Arguments that just dismiss even the slightest possibility of life are just exercises in defeatism in my book as they seem to be putting cynicism in front of any actual data or even scientific investigation. I mean why even bother searching for even the possibility of life if you’re just going to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even started.
Agreed. There were alot of presumptions 100 years ago as there are now and likely still will be 100 years from now. I seem to recall scientists pondering the possibility of floating life on Jupiter in Sagan's time, which is largely dismissed now, so why not investigate what Venus has? If Mars and Venus were both, even if briefly, Earthlike, with waters spawning lifeforms, then a look is worthwhile.
At the least I'd like to see the matters of phosphine on Venus and methane on Mars narrowed down. I'd be equally excited, for Mars, if the methane turned out to be volcanic in origin, but there's hints it could be tied to seasonal and water interaction...which were it on Earth would scream life.
How far can Davinci+ address the life-on-Venus question? Is it mostly just analyzing spectroscopy?
-
'just spectroscopy' covers such a huge range of measurements. DAVINCI has multiple methods for detailed chemical analyses. It will set bounds on phosphine, organics (and their complexity), and a range of chemical balances that if they are out of what would be expected from non biotic processes could suggest life (sorta like large amounts of oxygen and methane in Earth's atmosphere, but would be more subtle in the case of life in Venus' atmosphere).
I also doubt that many would say that's there's no life in the atmosphere of Venus, just that it's likelihood based on what we know about life (from one planetary system) says that there are many challenges. And the identification of possible phosphine is at the edge of detectability and therefore are questionable.
-
How far can Davinci+ address the life-on-Venus question? Is it mostly just analyzing spectroscopy?
Life is made of complex organic molecules containing C, H and O with a little N and P. If the mass spectrometer sees complex organics with those elements then people will want to follow up. I think the instrument is capable of separate measurements of the gas phase and the cloud particles.
As for PH3, I don't think that is a strong biosignature. Phosphorous chemistry in the Venus atmosphere is likely to be complicated. Most phosphorous compounds are low melting point solids on Earth. On Venus they will be gases in the lower atmosphere.
In general the chemistry of the Venus atmosphere is complex and not well understood. There is a strong UV absorber which is not predicted by any of the models and scientists have no idea what it is. It absorbs half the incoming solar energy. UV destroys biological molecules, so a UV absorbing compound would be very important to Venus cloud lifeforms.
-
How much will Rocket Lab’s private mission to Venus compliment the data coming from this mission.
-
How much will Rocket Lab’s private mission to Venus compliment the data coming from this mission.
Assuming the mission flies, it will carry a single very constrained science instrument, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363303808_Deducing_the_Composition_of_Venus_Cloud_Particles_with_the_Autofluorescence_Nephelometer_AFN
Hypothesized organics, if present in Venus aerosols,
may be detected by the AFN as a precursor to precise identification via future missions.
I don't think this can do anything the DAVINCI mass spec doesn't do a lot better.
-
How much will Rocket Lab’s private mission to Venus compliment the data coming from this mission.
Assuming the mission flies, it will carry a single very constrained science instrument, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363303808_Deducing_the_Composition_of_Venus_Cloud_Particles_with_the_Autofluorescence_Nephelometer_AFN
Hypothesized organics, if present in Venus aerosols,
may be detected by the AFN as a precursor to precise identification via future missions.
I don't think this can do anything the DAVINCI mass spec doesn't do a lot better.
However if the Rocket Lab Venus mission works as in it successfully enters the Venusian atmosphere and able to return data. Many other Venusian atmospheric micro probes could be send for a very low cost per mission. Especially since the VERITAS mission is being postpone indefinitely or worse due to budgetary shortfall.
-
Assuming the mission flies, it will carry a single very constrained science instrument, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363303808_Deducing_the_Composition_of_Venus_Cloud_Particles_with_the_Autofluorescence_Nephelometer_AFN
From the paper, the instrument is an improved version of an instrument that flew on Pioneer Venus. The main capability is to measure the refractive index, size, shape and number of the cloud particles. My impression is that it is an overcomplicated and fragile design.
The organic detection capability seems to be based on technology developed by a small company. My impression is that it is very immature, unproven, and has not been used before. The paper says:
"The excitation and emission wavelengths chosen for the AFN were motivated by laboratory work performed by Firebird Biomolecular Sciences (FBS) which demonstrated that a wide variety of simple organic compounds (OC), when reacted with concentrated sulfuric acid, will give a mixture of more complex products that are fluorescent when excited over a large range of UV and visible excitation wavelengths. The FBS team generated various mixtures of sulfuric acid (>70%) with different OCs. They found that virtually all the tested OCs (including single carbon species such as formaldehyde) were converted into mixtures with coloration and fluorescence spectra profiles highly dependent on the reaction conditions."
My impression is that they can't identify specific organic compounds. They don't say if they have tested inorganic materials which are believed to be in the clouds to see if if they also produce florescence which could confuse the measurements.
The probe has very limited resources, with only five minutes of operating time and a data rate of only 125 bytes / sec . This is insufficient to transmit all the raw data. They propose to train a neural network to reduce the raw data on board the probe and derive the properties they are looking for. I think that might be a fragile solution which will fail if they run into anything that is unexpected, complex and interesting.
The mass spectrometer on DAVINCI is vastly more capable and useful. Rocketlab would be better off with a simpler, less capable instrument which would be a better fit for the very limited capabilities of their probe. They also need to stop talking about 'searching for life in the clouds of Venus.' They don't have that capability.
-
Assuming the mission flies, it will carry a single very constrained science instrument, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363303808_Deducing_the_Composition_of_Venus_Cloud_Particles_with_the_Autofluorescence_Nephelometer_AFN
From the paper, the instrument is an improved version of an instrument that flew on Pioneer Venus. The main capability is to measure the refractive index, size, shape and number of the cloud particles. My impression is that it is an overcomplicated and fragile design.
The organic detection capability seems to be based on technology developed by a small company. My impression is that it is very immature, unproven, and has not been used before. The paper says:
"The excitation and emission wavelengths chosen for the AFN were motivated by laboratory work performed by Firebird Biomolecular Sciences (FBS) which demonstrated that a wide variety of simple organic compounds (OC), when reacted with concentrated sulfuric acid, will give a mixture of more complex products that are fluorescent when excited over a large range of UV and visible excitation wavelengths. The FBS team generated various mixtures of sulfuric acid (>70%) with different OCs. They found that virtually all the tested OCs (including single carbon species such as formaldehyde) were converted into mixtures with coloration and fluorescence spectra profiles highly dependent on the reaction conditions."
My impression is that they can't identify specific organic compounds. They don't say if they have tested inorganic materials which are believed to be in the clouds to see if if they also produce florescence which could confuse the measurements.
The probe has very limited resources, with only five minutes of operating time and a data rate of only 125 bytes / sec . This is insufficient to transmit all the raw data. They propose to train a neural network to reduce the raw data on board the probe and derive the properties they are looking for. I think that might be a fragile solution which will fail if they run into anything that is unexpected, complex and interesting.
The mass spectrometer on DAVINCI is vastly more capable and useful. Rocketlab would be better off with a simpler, less capable instrument which would be a better fit for the very limited capabilities of their probe. They also need to stop talking about 'searching for life in the clouds of Venus.' They don't have that capability.
If that’s the case I wonder why RL have decided to go that route.
-
Assuming the mission flies, it will carry a single very constrained science instrument, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363303808_Deducing_the_Composition_of_Venus_Cloud_Particles_with_the_Autofluorescence_Nephelometer_AFN
From the paper, the instrument is an improved version of an instrument that flew on Pioneer Venus. The main capability is to measure the refractive index, size, shape and number of the cloud particles. My impression is that it is an overcomplicated and fragile design.
The organic detection capability seems to be based on technology developed by a small company. My impression is that it is very immature, unproven, and has not been used before. The paper says:
"The excitation and emission wavelengths chosen for the AFN were motivated by laboratory work performed by Firebird Biomolecular Sciences (FBS) which demonstrated that a wide variety of simple organic compounds (OC), when reacted with concentrated sulfuric acid, will give a mixture of more complex products that are fluorescent when excited over a large range of UV and visible excitation wavelengths. The FBS team generated various mixtures of sulfuric acid (>70%) with different OCs. They found that virtually all the tested OCs (including single carbon species such as formaldehyde) were converted into mixtures with coloration and fluorescence spectra profiles highly dependent on the reaction conditions."
My impression is that they can't identify specific organic compounds. They don't say if they have tested inorganic materials which are believed to be in the clouds to see if if they also produce florescence which could confuse the measurements.
The probe has very limited resources, with only five minutes of operating time and a data rate of only 125 bytes / sec . This is insufficient to transmit all the raw data. They propose to train a neural network to reduce the raw data on board the probe and derive the properties they are looking for. I think that might be a fragile solution which will fail if they run into anything that is unexpected, complex and interesting.
The mass spectrometer on DAVINCI is vastly more capable and useful. Rocketlab would be better off with a simpler, less capable instrument which would be a better fit for the very limited capabilities of their probe. They also need to stop talking about 'searching for life in the clouds of Venus.' They don't have that capability.
As I remember it, notionally the 2021 proposal was to have three missions of increasing complexity:
(1) an atmospheric probe carrying a single instrument, the autofluorescence nephelometer, to: (a) establish the presence of (not identify) organic matter in the cloud layer; (b) establish the shape and refraction index of the larger Mode 3 particles (assuming that biological material is less likely to be round);
(2) an aerostat with minisondes, to: (a) measure temperature, pressure, wind speed, and pH in the cloud layer; (b) using a laser spectrometer, search for possible bioindicator gases (oxygen, water vapour, ammonia, phosphine, methane as the main candidates) as well as attempt to constrain the identity of any organic matter if (1)a yielded a positive result;
(3) sample return with orbiter and two-stage atmospheric probe; the sample would then be studied on Earth for complex organic molecules, homochirality, unusual isotopic fractioning, etc.
Only the last one would give a dispositive result for life - even out of equilibrium gases wouldn't be evidence on their own. However, as a single mission sample return would be unlikely to get any funding as a private initiative, and could easily succumb to complexity. The incremental approach is meant to address that, hence they are starting from a single instrument and limited goals. If they have positive results, they can move forward to the other steps. I don't think there is a simpler instrument than the AFN that could also provide results that would justify follow-ups. It's also not meant to replace DAVINCI.
NASA talks about "searching for life on Mars" all the time even if its missions haven't had the capability to do that since the Viking landers (which did fail because they found something that was unexpected, complex and interesting). I don't think the spin is fundamentally wrong so long as there is a path to it.
-
SNIP to shorten things
Arguments that just dismiss even the slightest possibility of life are just exercises in defeatism in my book as they seem to be putting cynicism in front of any actual data or even scientific investigation. I mean why even bother searching for even the possibility of life if you’re just going to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even started.
Science isn't about what we want. Its about finding what is.
I'm all for finding if there is life on Venus. However, the entire discussion has no solid evidence and sucks all air out of the room, making life almost a forgone conclusion.
-
If that’s the case I wonder why RL have decided to go that route.
Several reasons, I suspect.
1) it's all they can afford in terms of mass and funding;
2) the Venus experts who designed the instrument don't have a lot of experience building flight hardware and didn't talk to anyone who did;
3) a review process where the instrument would get criticized for low TRL wasn't applied.
-
SNIP to shorten things
Arguments that just dismiss even the slightest possibility of life are just exercises in defeatism in my book as they seem to be putting cynicism in front of any actual data or even scientific investigation. I mean why even bother searching for even the possibility of life if you’re just going to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even started.
Science isn't about what we want. Its about finding what is.
I'm all for finding if there is life on Venus. However, the entire discussion has no solid evidence and sucks all air out of the room, making life almost a forgone conclusion.
So in other words you have no actual decent counter argument other than you personally don’t like the discussion.
-
If that’s the case I wonder why RL have decided to go that route.
Several reasons, I suspect.
1) it's all they can afford in terms of mass and funding;
2) the Venus experts who designed the instrument don't have a lot of experience building flight hardware and didn't talk to anyone who did;
3) a review process where the instrument would get criticized for low TRL wasn't applied.
Two and three seem curious decisions to take. It almost sounds like the mission is far more likely to fail than succeed.
-
SNIP to shorten things
Arguments that just dismiss even the slightest possibility of life are just exercises in defeatism in my book as they seem to be putting cynicism in front of any actual data or even scientific investigation. I mean why even bother searching for even the possibility of life if you’re just going to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even started.
Science isn't about what we want. Its about finding what is.
I'm all for finding if there is life on Venus. However, the entire discussion has no solid evidence and sucks all air out of the room, making life almost a forgone conclusion.
So in other words you have no actual decent counter argument other than you personally don’t like the discussion.
Show me any science behind the idea. Aside from handwavey maybe tiny amounts of phosphine gas? Literally nothing. Otherwise lets talk about science.
-
One reason the discussion about 'life in the clouds of Venus' started is that people were trying to explain the unknown uv absorber. They couldn't explain it with simple molecules. Somebody pointed out that aliens studying Earth would also find an absorption feature they would struggle to understand, caused by all the chlorophyll in land plants. Some people think that the Venus absorber might be a similar situation. I think somebody found that some types of bacteria could produce a similar absorption in the uv. So if you are interested in life on Venus then you ought to be interested in the unknown uv absorber.
One unsolved issue is exactly where in the Venus atmosphere the absorber is. There are two models. One has the absorber uniformly mixed into the clouds above 64km. Another has the absorber in a thin layer right at the top of the cloud around 70km. If you want to design a mission to sample the absorber it would be very helpful to know which model is correct. This seems to me like the sort of simple but impactful measurement which might be a good fit for a very small, cheap probe. The Davinci mission will take their first samples somewhere between 65 and 70 km altitude, so it is possible that that mission might miss the absorber altogether. Presumably starting at higher altitude, above the cloud tops, would require a more complicated parachute system.
Different sources give different numbers for the altitude of the cloud top. I have seen 70km, 75km and 'almost 80 km' mentioned. Above the clouds there are haze layers, probably of photochemical origin. The 80 km level on Venus is about the same pressure as the surface of Mars, so sampling that level would probably run into the same requirement for a supersonic parachute as the Mars landers face. The Rocketlab probe doesn't have a parachute. It might be able to get some data on the high altitude atmosphere if their instrument can cope with a supersonic air stream.
A good source for Venus cloud science and the unkown uv absorber is here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-018-0552-z
-
Show me any science behind the idea. Aside from handwavey maybe tiny amounts of phosphine gas? Literally nothing. Otherwise lets talk about science.
See post #18 upthread.
-
I think I was a little too harsh in my comments on the Rocketlab Venus mission. I thought that DAVINCI, like the Huygens probe to Titan, had a capability to collect the cloud particles and analyze them separately from the gas. After reading about DAVINCI I don't see any mention of this. I am unsure what their strategy to study the composition of the cloud particles is, or if they have one.
I now believe that the Rocketlab mission will do some things that DAVINCI doesn't do. DAVINCI does not appear to do any analysis of particle size, shape or refractive index. The refractive index changes as the proportion of water in the sulfuric acid droplets changes. Recent results from Venus Express indicate that it might be too high for a simple mixture of sulfuric-acid and water. This would mean that another substance is also present.
I'm not sure which mission is more capable when it comes to detecting organics in the cloud drops. The DAVINCI instrument is based on SAM from Mars Curiosity which was very sensitive to organic compounds.
A good overview of the Rocketlab mission is here:
https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/9/7/385
The NSF thread on the mission is here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51581.0
-
SNIP to shorten things
Arguments that just dismiss even the slightest possibility of life are just exercises in defeatism in my book as they seem to be putting cynicism in front of any actual data or even scientific investigation. I mean why even bother searching for even the possibility of life if you’re just going to dismiss it out of hand before you’ve even started.
Science isn't about what we want. Its about finding what is.
I'm all for finding if there is life on Venus. However, the entire discussion has no solid evidence and sucks all air out of the room, making life almost a forgone conclusion.
So in other words you have no actual decent counter argument other than you personally don’t like the discussion.
Show me any science behind the idea. Aside from handwavey maybe tiny amounts of phosphine gas? Literally nothing. Otherwise lets talk about science.
Saying science a lot doesn’t qualify as an effective discussion.
-
Just released FY25 budget proposal has these proposed changes for DAVINCI and VERITAS:
"This budget supports the VERITAS mission to launch during an available Venus opportunity in
2031-2032. NASA reduced the future Discovery and Planetary SmallSat budgets which will delay the
release of the next Discovery and SIMPLEx AOs to no earlier than FY 2026. This budget also delays the
DAVINCI mission launch from 2029 to an available Venus opportunity in the 2031-2032 timeframe."
Page PS-46
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/nasa-fy-2025-congressional-justification.pdf?emrc=65ef360b75003 (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/nasa-fy-2025-congressional-justification.pdf?emrc=65ef360b75003)
-
The GAO's annual assessment of major NASA projects was reporting a June 2029 launch date with PDR in June 2025 at a cost of between $1.2 and $1.6B.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf (https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf)
Page 90, sheet 99
-
Have we heard anything more about RocketLab's Venus mission?
-
The GAO's annual assessment of major NASA projects was reporting a June 2029 launch date with PDR in June 2025 at a cost of between $1.2 and $1.6B.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf (https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf)
Page 90, sheet 99
As I recall, that is within the range from when the project was approved. I believe that the GAO report includes total NASA costs including such things as launch, which are outside the PI costs that are frequently focused on for Discovery missions.
-
The GAO's annual assessment of major NASA projects was reporting a June 2029 launch date with PDR in June 2025 at a cost of between $1.2 and $1.6B.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf (https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf)
Page 90, sheet 99
As I recall, that is within the range from when the project was approved. I believe that the GAO report includes total NASA costs including such things as launch, which are outside the PI costs that are frequently focused on for Discovery missions.
I did a quick search through Space News and did not find a budget other than the hand-wavy "$500 million for Discovery." I do think they were expected to be close to a billion dollars apiece, but I want to find a more authoritative source. A prior GAO report might provide that.
-
The GAO's annual assessment of major NASA projects was reporting a June 2029 launch date with PDR in June 2025 at a cost of between $1.2 and $1.6B.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf (https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-106767.pdf)
Page 90, sheet 99
As I recall, that is within the range from when the project was approved. I believe that the GAO report includes total NASA costs including such things as launch, which are outside the PI costs that are frequently focused on for Discovery missions.
I did a quick search through Space News and did not find a budget other than the hand-wavy "$500 million for Discovery." I do think they were expected to be close to a billion dollars apiece, but I want to find a more authoritative source. A prior GAO report might provide that.
The AO listed PI costs as $500M FY19. Various charts that I remember on full NASA costs were closer to $1B. Add in inflation and NASA requested mission development delays, and the costs listed in the GAO report don't seem to be surprising to me.
-
Have we heard anything more about RocketLab's Venus mission?
Not much news but Peter Beck and Sara Seager appear to have given a minor interview in November:
https://payloadspace.com/rocket-lab-takes-on-venus/
Seager describes fundraising among MIT alums for the nephelometer:
The process for fundraising has been unconventional, to say the least.
“First we had no money. We were just volunteering. We had a tiny amount of money to give to our instrument builder for a concept study to hammer out a prototype. And then we had to get the money from the MIT alums to build the instrument. Then we got actual real money, like enough money to redesign and rebuild the instrument,” Seager said. “In science we don’t usually operate that way.”
And Beck basically says the mission has been a loss leader for Rocket Lab:
Beck said that if an external agency wanted to contract a science mission with this system in the future, the cost would be in the same ballpark as CAPSTONE, at tens of millions. For this mission [Venus Life Finder] though, he said the cost will be significantly lower.
“We’re not running off and spending tens of millions of shareholders’ dollars on a science project, that’s for sure,” Beck said.
Rocket Lab isn’t earning any revenue on this mission [Venus Life Finder]—it wasn’t even really in the cards, according to Beck, who describes it as a “nights and weekends project,” pulled together from scraps of past missions. The commercial benefit could instead come from proving to government funders that missions of this magnitude are possible to do quickly and at low cost.
“We do believe that this will create a new business line for us at the end of it,” Beck said.
Not mission specific, but there have been positive developments ruling out certain explanations for the phosphine readings over the past week or two:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/29/science/venus-gases-phosphine-ammonia/index.html
-
The AO listed PI costs as $500M FY19. Various charts that I remember on full NASA costs were closer to $1B. Add in inflation and NASA requested mission development delays, and the costs listed in the GAO report don't seem to be surprising to me.
Ah yes, that had not factored into my brain--how long is the delay? Any delay will result in increased inflation. But I cannot find definitive information on that. Has the launch slipped from 2029 to 2032?
Update: Wikipedia lists a launch date of 2032, but I never totally trust Wikipedia, I just use it as a starting point.
-
Have we heard anything more about RocketLab's Venus mission?
I have no evidence, but I suspect it'll be a long time if it happens. It was more of a publicity thing. Thats alot of personel, time, and money to spend on something that won't earn the company anything. Just like how spacex work on mars is 100% on twitter. Its great to talk about, but doesn't really get far.
-
Have we heard anything more about RocketLab's Venus mission?
I have no evidence, but I suspect it'll be a long time if it happens. It was more of a publicity thing. Thats alot of personel, time, and money to spend on something that won't earn the company anything. Just like how spacex work on mars is 100% on twitter. Its great to talk about, but doesn't really get far.
It's also very much dependent on tech and experience they are developing for other things. So they probably won't start really nailing down the design until after (as one example) the ESCAPADE mission flies, and they get some data back from those two spacecraft, and experience with managing spacecraft in interplanetary space.
But the Rocket Lab Venus mission has it's own thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51581.100) so anymore discussion should really happen over there.
-
The AO listed PI costs as $500M FY19. Various charts that I remember on full NASA costs were closer to $1B. Add in inflation and NASA requested mission development delays, and the costs listed in the GAO report don't seem to be surprising to me.
Ah yes, that had not factored into my brain--how long is the delay? Any delay will result in increased inflation. But I cannot find definitive information on that. Has the launch slipped from 2029 to 2032?
Update: Wikipedia lists a launch date of 2032, but I never totally trust Wikipedia, I just use it as a starting point.
From the FY 2025 NASA Budget Request, page 399 (PS-48):
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fy-2025-full-budget-request-congressional-justification-update.pdf
Given budget constraints in FY 2025, this budget request reduces DAVINCI funding and delays the mission launch from 2029 until an available Venus opportunity in the 2031-2032 timeframe. Further mission planning in the coming year will determine a more definitive mission schedule.
-
Have we heard anything more about RocketLab's Venus mission?
I have no evidence, but I suspect it'll be a long time if it happens. It was more of a publicity thing. Thats alot of personel, time, and money to spend on something that won't earn the company anything.
I think it was also announced before they indicated a major shift in their rocket strategy. I otherwise agree with you.
So much of the space game is like Three Card Monty where we are looking at one shiny object as another one slides off the table. Did I ever mention that I went to the Golden Spike press announcement? I wonder what happened to them?
-
Given budget constraints in FY 2025, this budget request reduces DAVINCI funding and delays the mission launch from 2029 until an available Venus opportunity in the 2031-2032 timeframe. Further mission planning in the coming year will determine a more definitive mission schedule.
Thank you. So that's at least a 2-year slip, with of course two years of inflation to add to the budget. I'll have to keep looking to see if we had a full life-cycle budget estimate before.
-
From the FY 2025 NASA Budget Request, page 399 (PS-48):
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/fy-2025-full-budget-request-congressional-justification-update.pdf
Given budget constraints in FY 2025, this budget request reduces DAVINCI funding and delays the mission launch from 2029 until an available Venus opportunity in the 2031-2032 timeframe. Further mission planning in the coming year will determine a more definitive mission schedule.
[/quote]
Part of the budget magic to bring VERITAS back was to delay DAVINCI to support two Discovery missions in the Discovery funding wedge. I suspect that given budget forecasts, NASA can fund development on one New Frontiers or two Discovery missions at a time, but not both at once in prime funding years.
-
Have we heard anything more about RocketLab's Venus mission?
I have no evidence, but I suspect it'll be a long time if it happens. It was more of a publicity thing. Thats alot of personel, time, and money to spend on something that won't earn the company anything. Just like how spacex work on mars is 100% on twitter. Its great to talk about, but doesn't really get far.
It's also very much dependent on tech and experience they are developing for other things. So they probably won't start really nailing down the design until after (as one example) the ESCAPADE mission flies, and they get some data back from those two spacecraft, and experience with managing spacecraft in interplanetary space.
But the Rocket Lab Venus mission has it's own thread (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=51581.100) so anymore discussion should really happen over there.
Aye, if rocketlab does go through with the mission I suspect it'll be launched on a neutron. All their staff is busy designing that and other things. They probably don't have the bandwidth to work on something like the venus mission.