PDA

View Full Version : Venera 9 's boulders panorama



Barabino
2014-Jul-13, 08:03 AM
In the photos from that unlucky planet, usually we see obvious basaltic plains, clearly formed by molten lava...


http://mentallandscape.com/C_Venera10_Processed.jpg


but in the first photos of Venera 9, we see a more familiar landscape of millions of boulders... where do they come from? :confused:

http://mentallandscape.com/C_Venera09_Processed.jpg

On Earth, I'd suppose that freezing water cracked bigger rocks... but on Venus, no ice and no water ever existed... :evil:

or can volcanoes emit directly middle-sized rocks like this?

ravens_cry
2014-Jul-13, 08:35 AM
Not a clue. Scale is a bit hard to tell to be honest, so it's hard to say if those are boulders.
A bit off topic. I think the Venera landers were definitely one of the Soviet space program's most notable and all too often unsung achievements. All too often, publications show low quality, 1-bit Xeroxed multi-generational copies of the images, while Don Mitchell's images show the true beauty of Venus. Hellish in a very literal sense, yet still possessing a certain kind of familiarity, however illusionary.

Barabino
2014-Jul-13, 11:04 AM
Eh, the Venera mission was a gloomy disappointment... The photos from Mars showed roughly what we expected... instead the photos from Venus showed a literal dry muslim hell instead of Perelandra or a jungle planet...

http://www.pandora.ca/pictures62/010135.jpg

ravens_cry
2014-Jul-13, 05:32 PM
Well, Mars ain't no Malacandra neither.

Swift
2014-Jul-13, 10:47 PM
Earthly volcanoes can eject very large boulders. I'm no expert, but that doesn't look like those kinds of boulders, which I believe are more rounded. Those look particularly slab-like.

Maybe earlier crust or lava flows, now broken up into slabs by some force (venus-quakes?).

I'm guessing.

Squink
2014-Jul-14, 12:36 AM
Where'd Venera 9 land? Was it near any of Venus' 1000 or so known impact craters (http://www.universetoday.com/22521/craters-on-venus/) ? A meteor'll bust up the bedrock pretty good.

dgavin
2014-Jul-14, 07:27 AM
Actually I could come of with a possible volcanic explanation. Lava bombs in the high temperatures of Venus cool much slower then on earth. This gives time for gravity to flatten them more. Add the high pressure of Venus in, that can also fatten still molten lava, and I think those rocks make a bit more sense.

grapes
2014-Jul-14, 09:21 AM
Here's some info on it:

http://mentallandscape.com/V_Lavochkin2.htm

R.A.F.
2014-Jul-14, 12:22 PM
Eh, the Venera mission was a gloomy disappointment...

The Venera missions were successful in that we now know more about the surface of Venus than we did before those missions.

How that can be classified as a "gloomy disappointment"?, I do not know.

Swift
2014-Jul-14, 01:30 PM
The Venera missions were successful in that we now know more about the surface of Venus than we did before those missions.

How that can be classified as a "gloomy disappointment"?, I do not know.
Excellent point. These landings were done in the 1970s and the Russians did some remarkable work with the technology of the day. The only disappointment is that humans haven't gone back (I say "humans" not meaning manned landings, but robotic landings from any space agency on Earth).

Barabino
2014-Jul-14, 03:33 PM
Maybe earlier crust or lava flows, now broken up into slabs by some force (venus-quakes?).

I'm guessing.

But everybody says Venus has volcanism but NO tectonic activity... hence no big earthquakes there (a meagre consolation prize... like healing from acne when having cancer :-/ )

Barabino
2014-Jul-14, 03:54 PM
The Venera missions were successful in that we now know more about the surface of Venus than we did before those missions.

How that can be classified as a "gloomy disappointment"?, I do not know.

That was a further proof that universe is hostile to humans and to life in general... :-(

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/FarewellFantasticVenus.jpg/220px-FarewellFantasticVenus.jpg

Gillianren
2014-Jul-14, 04:50 PM
Yes--and we survive anyway.

Barabino
2014-Jul-18, 12:21 PM
I love that ayn-randish attitude :D

Gillianren
2014-Jul-18, 03:45 PM
Um, no. Ayn Rand is [rant deleted]. My point is that the universe is enormous and hostile to life, yet despite that, we survive. Isn't that more wonderful than if it were everywhere and we weren't lucky at all?

Barabino
2014-Jul-20, 06:54 PM
if we were everywhere, we could have the ego boost that universe is made for us, instead of us being a drop in the sea... the search for ET life is at bottom a search for a finalism of the universe... :-(

Gillianren
2014-Jul-20, 07:24 PM
Even if life were everywhere, that wouldn't mean the universe is made for us. Especially if life were everywhere, I should think, because we wouldn't be very special if life were everywhere.

Swift
2014-Jul-20, 09:53 PM
Please, let's not turn this thread into a discussion of either ETs or Ayn Rand. Neither is on topic.

Squink
2014-Jul-26, 04:53 PM
Nice piece on the Venera missions at Planetary Society:
Standing on Venus in 1975 (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2014/0724-standing-on-venus-in-1975.html)
Includes rejiggering of Venera 9's distorted panorama so as to approximate the view of an eye on the surface.

publiusr
2014-Jul-26, 05:21 PM
Eh, the Venera mission was a gloomy disappointment... The photos from Mars showed roughly what we expected... instead the photos from Venus showed a literal dry muslim hell instead of Perelandra or a jungle planet...



Sad indeed. I take joy in the fact that the probe was so well built.

It was launched atop a Proton K that was meant to lob Zond circumlunar capsules, as well as station modules--and example of how manned space flight acts as a force driver which helps--not hinders--robotic exploration, David Darling notwithsatnding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-K