If it makes you feel better, the Earth missions are not shown. There are a lot.
Also, they seem to have left out missions that end in the Lagrange points. L1 is about 1% of the way to the Sun, and SoHO (for one) went there in 1996 and is still operating there. L2 is 1% in the opposite direction, and WMAP and Planck are/were there in 2009 when that map was made.
Finally, I think Stereo A and B may not be not there either; they trail/lead the Earth in its orbit; now they are almost on the opposite side of the Sun compared to Earth (http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/where.shtml).
It will be very interesting to see how and when this outreach will turn into a show of territorial solidarity. It will happen sooner or later! In fact, looking at the rate at which they are now discovering exoplanets, and probably will soon find some intelligent life too, I am curious how this outreach would become the zone that is under the protection or stewardship of planet earth. Or someone else's if that be the case.
I would rather see to-scale diagrams of a single space mission. Does anyone know of any?
This is part of a larger desire of mine that data given to the public is more "real" and less "pedagogical". Not a criticism of the current article, clearly they are focusing one something different.
I was surprised to see Venus (43) is on a par with Mars (40, although there have been several missions since 2009) and far more than the number of missions to the Sun (9).
I assume Venus is easier to send missions to than the Sun or Mars, but the relatively large number of missions seems strange considering the planet's atmosphere, which is not friendly to spacecraft or photography and instrumentation based on visible light. (Or maybe that's why there have been so many missions, to lift the veil ...)
Does anyone have any insights into why Venus has been such a popular mission destination?
Why shouldn't it be? Except for the question of the presence of life Venus is a much more exciting planet to study, with thick atmosphere with high-speed winds and it's shrouded surface. It might be suitable for human colonization too — at 50 km altitude the gravity, pressure and temperature are almost the same as on Earth. Also, most of the missions were Soviet, so it might be that USSR wanted to secure the lead in Venus exploration.
At current technology level Mars seems an easier option. The problem with Venus is an atmosphere containing sulfuric acid and winds reaching 300 km/h, where failure results in a descent to an approximation of hell.
I went to a lecture a while ago by Geoffrey Landis, one of the people behind the moon lander. He suggested that Venus was actually easier than Mars if you imagine a floating capsule a kilometer above the surface. The atmosphere at that level is room temperature, and the pressure is about 1 bar. The only problem is sulfuric acid, and as he put it, "space has lots of things more deadly than sulfuric acid, which is something we've had a lot of experience dealing with."
Imagine springing a leak on Mars. You'd be rushing to fix it before everyone dies. In the Venusian clouds, the pressure would be the same, inside and out, and you'd simply patch it then clean up the mess.
I don't see how a leak in Venus differs much from one on Mars. A leak won't immediately exhaust the air, in the worst case( neglecting explosion, and a leak is always confined with sections( as in would be in Venus ) ) you will get a few minutes to get into a suit and repair the problem. On the other hand sulfuric acid is nasty, breathing it causes long term problems. And what happens to equipment when the acid gets inside, while you are repairing, where there isn't a plastic/ceramic shield. For external repair you will definitely also require a full body specialized suit.
But let's say we would have guaranteed protection against it. What do you do with 300+km/h winds? I'm sure there is turbulence and gusts that would wreck the blimp.
This poster could use a timestamp. As other commenter mentioned, this map is from 2009 [0], but even not minding that, if I were ever to print it and put in on a wall, the date would be relevant to anyone who looked at it.
19 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 49.1 ms ] threadAlso, they seem to have left out missions that end in the Lagrange points. L1 is about 1% of the way to the Sun, and SoHO (for one) went there in 1996 and is still operating there. L2 is 1% in the opposite direction, and WMAP and Planck are/were there in 2009 when that map was made.
Finally, I think Stereo A and B may not be not there either; they trail/lead the Earth in its orbit; now they are almost on the opposite side of the Sun compared to Earth (http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/where.shtml).
This is part of a larger desire of mine that data given to the public is more "real" and less "pedagogical". Not a criticism of the current article, clearly they are focusing one something different.
Not exactly complete, but an interesting look at how they avoided the Van Allen belts.
I assume Venus is easier to send missions to than the Sun or Mars, but the relatively large number of missions seems strange considering the planet's atmosphere, which is not friendly to spacecraft or photography and instrumentation based on visible light. (Or maybe that's why there have been so many missions, to lift the veil ...)
Does anyone have any insights into why Venus has been such a popular mission destination?
Imagine springing a leak on Mars. You'd be rushing to fix it before everyone dies. In the Venusian clouds, the pressure would be the same, inside and out, and you'd simply patch it then clean up the mess.
I don't see how a leak in Venus differs much from one on Mars. A leak won't immediately exhaust the air, in the worst case( neglecting explosion, and a leak is always confined with sections( as in would be in Venus ) ) you will get a few minutes to get into a suit and repair the problem. On the other hand sulfuric acid is nasty, breathing it causes long term problems. And what happens to equipment when the acid gets inside, while you are repairing, where there isn't a plastic/ceramic shield. For external repair you will definitely also require a full body specialized suit.
But let's say we would have guaranteed protection against it. What do you do with 300+km/h winds? I'm sure there is turbulence and gusts that would wreck the blimp.
[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6957391