Comments on: New Details on Venus' Clouds from Venus Express

By: Joshua Brotman

Joshua Brotman — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:34:56 +0000

Chicago Astronomer Joe

Most of the early landers never got around this problem: they crash landed. The few with parachutes actually ejected the parachutes before they reached an altitude hot enough to burn it up. Then they simply crash landed on luck… and many probes simply made atmospheric measurements without intentions of making it to the surface.

By: Chicago Astronomer Joe

Chicago Astronomer Joe — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:14:13 +0000

Here is a question that I and others have had about the Russian Venus landers that has not really been answered.

It is understood that on the surface of the planet, it incredibly hot…so much that the metal on the machines apparently melted. Couple with the high pressure and corrosive atmosphere…it's a nasty place.

Then how…could the cloth-like material that made up the parachute, have survived for any amount of time on the way down to the surface?

By: Jorge

Jorge — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:43:35 +0000

No, David, I can't agree with that.

For a number of reasons, but I think it'll suffice if I explain you one: It's the vast array of uninformed individuals that chooses the small array of uninformed politicians that decide how and when to finance scientific endeavours and what to do with scientific knowledge.

If their ignorance isn't fought by the people who know best, they'll become dumber and dumber, will elect dumber and dumber politicians and the money dwindles or is wasted on nonsense and knowledge is discarded or (even more) severely misused. And we just cannot afford that to happen. There's too much at stake.

That's why sites such as this one are so important, BTW.

By: David

David — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:48:38 +0000

Jorge,
Point taken. However, I would argue that we need to play a good game of offense rather than defense. Defending against the vast array of individuals (I'm being charitable in calling them a neutral term) who subscribe to "disinformation" is like counting the stars. An endless, tedious task. Let's use pics like the ones posted to keep them guessing….or at least enourage them to look beyond the length of their nose. Or better yet, lets simply ignore them.

By: Jorge

Jorge — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:46:31 +0000

I'm far from thinking the illustration of contrasts and stuff like that is not done properly. It is. The images are great in that regard. I just think the colour choice might be different and still convey the same information, without inducing even more in error the uninformed.

There's way too much disinformation in astronomy in particular and science in general to make it clever to try not to inadvertently enhance it.

By: David

David — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 02:59:49 +0000

I think the images are important in bringing out contrasts that would not otherwise be apparent, and I therefore appreciated the effort in illustrating a different perspective. The same technique is used with other planetary observations and should not be discounted. If someone gets the wrong impression from viewing the evidence, they can always take a closer look at other images and/or data.

By: Tammy Plotner

Tammy Plotner — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:57:31 +0000

Hi, hi, Nancy, Nancy! (giggle… )

Hey, I really liked this article. It caught my eye because I like to observe Venus with a deep violet filter and the effect is much the same.

Or is the affect?

Good job!

By: Jorge

Jorge — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:36:56 +0000

I'm not sure I like how they chose to colourise these photos. They are making the clouds look too much like Earth's (in the bottom picture especially), while they could hardly be more different. People might get the wrong impression if they aren't aware of how artificial the colours are (the photos are not shot in the visible part of the spectrum, but in the ultraviolet).

(Oh, and Nancy, you got a "the the" on the first paragraph)