• iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    Why would you even want to use the sky crane system on Venus? It has a thick atmosphere. You use a more appropriate landing mechanism. And if your lander that’s gonna be destroyed in a couple hours costs a billion dollars then that’s just an issue with production. Produce several, relatively unsophisticated landers and reserve the billions of dollar missions to like an airship or something.

    • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Can you fly in a carbon dioxide atmosphere? Why do we need to send rover landers? Why don’t we upgrade to quadcopter drones that can get around more? Perhaps with a base station?

      • iridaniotter [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        24 hours ago

        It’s density that matters, and Venus has a very dense atmosphere. If you go high enough it becomes Earthlike in some ways. Landers can get certain data that is impossible to obtain from afar. Same reason we land on Mars. I have no idea how you’d begin to make a rover for Venus. It would break down in hours or you’d need to invent computers that can operate at several hundred degrees.