NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-14 14:27:23

NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

Bruce Dorminey ,
Contributor

I cover over-the-horizon technology, aerospace and astronomy. Full Bio 

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

Tweet This

rover would move about courtesy of a 26-foot airfoil sail.


“We want to find a largely flat landing site that looks more like an asphalt parking lot and less like a sand trap,”

NASA continues working towards a Venus landsail surface rover that could see launch as early as 2023 and mark the first time in a generation that any probe has landed on the planet’s hot, rocky surface. After a five month journey from Earth, the lander-rover — about the size of a windsurfing board — would begin a nominal 50-day surface mission.

If funded, NASA would launch this landsail “Zephyr” rover as a $400 million Discovery class mission with a coupled orbiter and lander. Once safely in Venus orbit, the rover-lander would detach for its journey through the planet’s thick atmosphere. Following an upright wheels-down landing, pyrotechnics would then cut the rover loose to explore the surface.

Loaded with some 50 pounds of science equipment, the landsail rover would move about courtesy of a 26-foot airfoil sail.

“The rover’s “sail” is actually rigid, like a vertical wing with solar cells on its surface,” Geoffrey Landis, the rover’s study scientist and a physicist at NASA Glenn Research Center, told me. “But under Venus conditions these cells are very inefficient.”

Artist’s concept of the Zephyr landsail rover on Venus’ surface. Credit: NASA Glenn Research Center.

In fact, humanity’s lengthy absence from Venus’ surface has not been due to a lack of interest in what has often been termed the forgotten planet. After all, Venus lies closer to us than Mars , but its hostile surface environment inherently comes with Herculean technical challenges.

The planet’s surface pressures are 92 times that of Earth with surface temperatures averaging 450 Celsius (842 F). That’s far and above the standard baking temperature of the average household oven.* However, days on Venus are akin to life under the most menacing cloud cover here on Earth — only one percent of the Sun’s total solar output makes it to the surface.

NASA notes that the Venus’ surface has thus far only been visited by stationary Soviet and American probes, none of which were able to operate for more than a couple of hours on the surface.

What sort of landing site would the Zephyr need?

“We want to find a largely flat landing site that looks more like an asphalt parking lot and less like a sand trap,” said Landis.

Surface of Venus as imaged by Venera 9 (top) and Venera 10 (bottom).
Credit: USSR / Preserved by the NASA National Space Science Data Center

The old Soviet Venera 10 landing site at the foot of Venus’ Theia Mons shield volcano looks just perfect, says Landis. He notes that the site — not far from Venus’ equator in the planet’s northwestern quadrant, is very flat with some wind. With Venus’ superdense atmosphere, however, wind speeds of only 2 miles per hour should be sufficient to propel the rover up to a hundred yards a day; or about mile over the course of the mission.

The estimated 400-pound landsail rover’s science package would be bare-bones. Think a high-resolution color panoramic camera; weather instrumentation; a robotic arm and drill with an alpha particle x-ray spectrometer to determine chemical compositions; and radio communications technology which would use the mission orbiter as a communications relay back to NASA’s Deep Space Network.

“When Venus is at its closest to Earth, the communications time-lag from Venus and back is a little over four minutes,” said Landis. “That’s too long to control from Earth in real time, so we will have the rover parked with the sail slack while the ground controllers examine the terrain and decide the next target.”

Once ground-control’s commands have been sent to the orbiter, says Landis, the orbiter would then relay the commands to the rover.

As for science from the surface?

Planetary scientists think that much of Venus is very geologically-young geologically due to some sort of inexplicable catastrophic overturning that transfers heat from the planet’s interior onto its surface. As a result, the planet appears to be rife with recent lava flows.

Zephyr may find answers to such quandaries if it’s funded and reaches the surface. Landis and colleagues hope to garner follow-on funding for the mission later this year.

Meanwhile, Landis and his team continue to grapple with new silicon carbide and gallium nitride semiconductor technology that essentially did not exist a decade ago in order to enable the rover’s electronics to function under high pressures and in such high temperatures.

“Without the high temperature electronics,” said Landis, “we wouldn’t even be able to think about this.”

*This story has been updated from an earlier version to correct a misstatement regarding average Venus surface temperatures.

Follow me on Facebook, Twitter and Google +. And like my ‘Distant Wanderers’ exoplanet Facebook page.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-14 14:35:43

So basically this rover operates at native Venusian temperatures without cooling. I suppose this technology might be adapted to manned vehicles, ones where a small portion of the vehicle is cooled Particularly the Gallium arsenide semiconductors. I think a nuclear reactor might be called for to power a manned rover

GW Johnson · 2016-05-15 11:53:09

There are no electrics/electronics that function at 450 C. Any controls, and any data gathering equipment, will have to be cooled. Maintaining that cooled space will cost a huge amount of energy. Solar PV is useless for that at 1% of Earth-normal.

I think you are looking at a concept idea that has not been thought through yet.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-15 14:12:58

GW Johnson wrote:

There are no electrics/electronics that function at 450 C. Any controls, and any data gathering equipment, will have to be cooled. Maintaining that cooled space will cost a huge amount of energy. Solar PV is useless for that at 1% of Earth-normal.
I think you are looking at a concept idea that has not been thought through yet.
GW

So you are saying electricity won't flow at 450 C? Everything is an electrical insulator?

GW Johnson · 2016-05-15 16:28:43

Tom, you idiot! I said nothing of the kind!

I said there are no materials from which to make electrical, and especially electronic, equipment that would function at such temperatures.

Please learn to read.

There are no semiconductors ready for application that function above 95 C. Period.

And there are very few things we can use as wire insulation above just about that same temperature. Asbestos and rock fiber are just about all there is, and they make very poor wire insulation.

Not my opinion, this is demonstrable fact.

GW

Antius · 2016-05-15 17:06:32

I don't see the point in sending a surface probe to Venus. The place is a barren wasteland where nothing could possibly have lived in geologically recent times. And the temperatures and resurfacing would remove any evidence of ancient life. What could we possibly learn of value that we don't know already? Contrast this with Mars, where there is a good possibility that microbes survive to this day and every possibility that humans will live there a century hence.

If it were to be done, the way forward would be short duration missions using sacrificial cooling. Water boiling off will remove over 2MJ/kg of heat. This would allow the use of conventional systems and materials for as long as the cooling lasted. To get the most out of such a lander, it would be beneficial to control it in real time since its effective life would be a few hours at most. This is best achieved by putting a Mars hab in orbit such that a human crew can coordinate the mission in real time. But again, it is difficult to foresee any returns that could justify the cost.

Last edited by Antius (2016-05-15 17:08:38)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-15 20:38:35

Antius wrote:

I don't see the point in sending a surface probe to Venus. The place is a barren wasteland where nothing could possibly have lived in geologically recent times. And the temperatures and resurfacing would remove any evidence of ancient life. What could we possibly learn of value that we don't know already?

It doesn't have to be alive to be of value. We could for instance access the resources of Venus for future terraforming, we would want to know what was in its rock strata. We could leave a drill rig on the surface and float up whatever powers it for periodic cooling, then drill for core samples. Venus also has an active geology similar to Earth, it has young volcanoes that aren't billions of years old. In short Venus is Earth's twin below the surface, while Mars is more like Earth's twin above its surface. Venus also has a healthier gravitational field for humans and its atmosphere provides protection from radiation.

Contrast this with Mars, where there is a good possibility that microbes survive to this day and every possibility that humans will live there a century hence.
If it were to be done, the way forward would be short duration missions using sacrificial cooling. Water boiling off will remove over 2MJ/kg of heat.

And can also be used as a source of power - a steam engine powered by the heat of the atmosphere. What you need is an airship that condenses water out of the atmosphere, for the steamship to periodically visit to fuel up with water for its steam engine powered by Venus.

This would allow the use of conventional systems and materials for as long as the cooling lasted. To get the most out of such a lander, it would be beneficial to control it in real time since its effective life would be a few hours at most. This is best achieved by putting a Mars hab in orbit such that a human crew can coordinate the mission in real time. But again, it is difficult to foresee any returns that could justify the cost.

GW Johnson · 2016-05-16 08:27:09

Venus could really benefit from some kind of terraforming. Most of that atmosphere needs removal. Tough problem, but if about 90% of it were gone, the surface would cool to usable levels after the passage of some centuries, I would think. Then the problem becomes, where do we get the water we will need?

Of course, the technologies needed to do any of this are far in our future.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-05-16 08:28:00)

Terraformer · 2016-05-16 08:53:09

If I was designing an extended surface mission for Venus, I think I'd use a flying probe that can drop to the surface for forays. Collect power and water whilst in the upper atmosphere, and then make short trips to the surface.

But if there's anything of astrobiological interest on Venus, it will be in the upper atmosphere, so I'd focus efforts there. Either a solar plane or a aerostat - probably the latter, since it's of the most interest to human exploration.

Antius · 2016-05-16 09:49:03

Terraformer wrote:

If I was designing an extended surface mission for Venus, I think I'd use a flying probe that can drop to the surface for forays. Collect power and water whilst in the upper atmosphere, and then make short trips to the surface.
But if there's anything of astrobiological interest on Venus, it will be in the upper atmosphere, so I'd focus efforts there. Either a solar plane or a aerostat - probably the latter, since it's of the most interest to human exploration.

That would certainly be more scientifically useful, as the same craft can then explore multiple sites. And the time in the 'hot zone' doesn't need to be extensive - a few minutes perhaps, just long enough to collect a sample and then retreat to the upper atmosphere. The skin for such a vehicle could be made from high strength steel, which would keep about 60% of its room temperature strength at 450 Centigrade. An RTG could provide the power needed for steady flying and, as Tom pointed out, a cold source is effectively stored energy that can be used for surface manoeuvres. You could deliver multiple samples to a high atmosphere lab for analysis or incorporate a lab into the plane itself.

Antius · 2016-05-16 10:04:31

GW Johnson wrote:

Venus could really benefit from some kind of terraforming. Most of that atmosphere needs removal. Tough problem, but if about 90% of it were gone, the surface would cool to usable levels after the passage of some centuries, I would think. Then the problem becomes, where do we get the water we will need?
Of course, the technologies needed to do any of this are far in our future.
GW

I can remember reading that if all the sulphuric acid on Venus were converted to water, it would form a global layer about an inch deep. That amounts to 10 trillion metric tonnes. That is poor in the context of a whole ecosystem, but may be enough for human needs if we live in relatively compact cities recycling extensively. If a billion people live on Venus with a per capita water inventory of 1tonne each, then we would have only used 0.01% of the planet's total water inventory.

As for importing water: Even if 90% of the planet's atmosphere were removed (we have discussed how that might be done elsewhere) the surface pressure would still be 9 bars. With that sort of atmospheric density, simple drag chutes would be sufficient to reduce terminal velocities to levels where a delivery vehicle could rely on crumple zones for deceleration when it reaches the surface. Hence, we could import water by filling steel shells with water and dropping them into an area of Venusian desert. Then collect them using a dirigible and transport them to the cities for use. Where would the water come from? Wherever it is cheapest. That's the universal law of economics. Probably water-rich near Earth objects initially, as these can divert materials to Venus with the least delta-V and orbital adjustment. I bet it would still be more expensive than extracting water from native sulphuric acid. I would be willing to bet that a partially terraformed Venus would resemble a dry Vulcan, with human beings developing inventive ways of using as little water as possible.

Last edited by Antius (2016-05-16 10:07:30)

GW Johnson · 2016-05-17 17:07:43

My own take would be to initiate thermonuclear fusion in the atmosphere of Venus with a spherical implosion wave resulting from many dozens of thermonuclear weapons, all exploded simultaneously, in a spherical pattern.

That would blow off 90+ % of the atmosphere into space, leaving a molten magma surface. After several centuries, the molten crust would solidify, leaving us with a solid surface at conditons we might actually deal with. No guarantees, though.

There is reason to believe that Venus undergoes a complete crustal meltdown, every half a billion years or so, because there are no plate tectonics there. This is because there is no water content left to fluidize the magma in the mantle. It was all lost to space long ago.

If this is really true, then there is NO long-term hope of ever truly terraforming Venus.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-05-17 17:09:42)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-18 18:32:29

GW Johnson wrote:

Venus could really benefit from some kind of terraforming. Most of that atmosphere needs removal. Tough problem, but if about 90% of it were gone, the surface would cool to usable levels after the passage of some centuries, I would think. Then the problem becomes, where do we get the water we will need?
Of course, the technologies needed to do any of this are far in our future.
GW

I could think of a better use for that atmosphere. Perhaps you have heard that the United Arab Emirates is thinking of building an artificial mountain. Suppose we built a mountain 36.25 miles tall, by inflating it with carbon dioxide underneath? Next we dump a bunch of water in the atmosphere by diverting a few comets. The water vapor would stay in the atmosphere, dilute the sulfuric acid, then we could grow plants on top of that mountain. Best way to terraform is to start small, produce something that has real immediate benefit, then expand from there.

RobertDyck · 2016-05-18 21:26:37

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:
Venus... Most of that atmosphere needs removal.
I could think of a better use for that atmosphere.

There's still my idea. Should I repeat?

Antius · 2016-05-19 05:06:30

GW Johnson wrote:

My own take would be to initiate thermonuclear fusion in the atmosphere of Venus with a spherical implosion wave resulting from many dozens of thermonuclear weapons, all exploded simultaneously, in a spherical pattern.
That would blow off 90+ % of the atmosphere into space, leaving a molten magma surface. After several centuries, the molten crust would solidify, leaving us with a solid surface at conditons we might actually deal with. No guarantees, though.
There is reason to believe that Venus undergoes a complete crustal meltdown, every half a billion years or so, because there are no plate tectonics there. This is because there is no water content left to fluidize the magma in the mantle. It was all lost to space long ago.
If this is really true, then there is NO long-term hope of ever truly terraforming Venus.
GW

I think in terms of transforming the planet into any semblance of Earth it probably is true. In fact it is probably true for Mars as well for different reasons. The Earth is a very unique place.

A limited paraterraforming approach is foreseeable on both Venus and Mars and would work in most other places. Within small, enclosed environments, limited resources can be used to greater effect. On Mars, a limited eco-system is possible under open skies with the resources we know to be present, but it won't be an ecosystem where humans can live as they do on Earth. With luck, it may eventually be a place where we can grow some food, but by the time that happens I would be willing to bet that humans no longer rely on open field agriculture. I think we need to accept the fact that different places have different endowments and characteristics and expecting to tyransform them into new Earths has more to do with romantisicm than with practicality or even real need.

Last edited by Antius (2016-05-19 05:14:42)

Terraformer · 2016-05-19 12:31:51

With Mars - and most places in fact - I see the goal of "terraforming" to be the creation of atmospheres which (1) are dense enough to allow the construction of large enclosed habitats, without having to worry about micrometeorites or radiation; and (2) can support an ecosystem of hardy (probably genetically modified) organisms, which will allow the atmosphere to be used for the production and storage of volatiles (such as oyxgen - if the O2 concentration on Mars is 10 mb pp, it's a lot easier to simply extract it from the atmosphere, instead of having big tanks to keep concentrations right within the habitats).

When it comes to Venus, then, I'm in favour of leaving the surface alone for the time being, importing a lot of water, and developing an airborne ecosystem (hmmm, hydrogen balloon kelp?). Maybe later we can look at covering it with high altitude reflective balloons to cool the planet to the point that the bulk of the atmosphere collapses into a CO2 sea, which will over time hopefully react with the surface and lock away all that CO2.

RobertDyck · 2016-05-19 12:53:33

Terraformer wrote:

With Mars - and most places in fact - I see the goal of "terraforming" to be the creation of atmospheres which (1) are dense enough to allow the construction of large enclosed habitats, without having to worry about micrometeorites or radiation

Sounds like Mars now. Micrometeoroids burn up about 30km above the surface, and 3/4 of radiation is blocked.

an airborne ecosystem (hmmm, hydrogen balloon kelp?)

Brilliant idea! My idea of genetically modified airborne archaea was based on Carl Segan's paper from 1961. He suggested algae, but that was when scientists thought Venus had a 6 bar atmosphere. I tried adding detail for updated conditions.

Kelp, showing an air bag for each leaf...

And Spanish Moss absorbs moisture directly from the air, through humidity and dew and rain, and even absorbs nutrients such as calcium directly from air. Calcium arrives as dust. So floating plants that thrive in the clouds of Venus?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-05-14 14:27:23

NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#2 2016-05-14 14:35:43

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#3 2016-05-15 11:53:09

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#4 2016-05-15 14:12:58

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#5 2016-05-15 16:28:43

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#6 2016-05-15 17:06:32

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#7 2016-05-15 20:38:35

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#8 2016-05-16 08:27:09

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#9 2016-05-16 08:53:09

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#10 2016-05-16 09:49:03

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#11 2016-05-16 10:04:31

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#12 2016-05-17 17:07:43

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#13 2016-05-18 18:32:29

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#14 2016-05-18 21:26:37

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#15 2016-05-19 05:06:30

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#16 2016-05-19 12:31:51

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

#17 2016-05-19 12:53:33

Re: NASA Venus Landsail Rover Could Launch In 2023

Board footer