Mars attracts, but did Barack Obama pick the wrong planet for a manned expedition?

Instead of the Martian mission he touted this week, the US president should have considered Venus instead, one Nasa expert says

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 12 October, 2016, 12:34pm
UPDATED : Wednesday, 12 October, 2016, 8:24pm

President John F. Kennedy made history in the 1960s when he kicked America’s space program into overdrive, resulting in history’s first manned mission to the moon.

And US President Barack Obama wants to do something similar: launch a major expedition to an unexplored body in the solar system, jump-start a frenzy of economic and scientific activity to help get us there, and claim lots of credit for creating jobs as well as promoting science and technology.

On Tuesday, Obama published an op-ed at CNN laying out his vision once again for visiting Mars.

“We have set a clear goal vital to the next chapter of America’s story in space: sending humans to Mars by the 2030s and returning them safely to Earth, with the ultimate ambition to one day remain there for an extended time,” he wrote.

China unveils designs for orbiter, lander and rover for its first unmanned mission to Mars

The Obama administration has been pursuing a visit to Mars for years. But Obama may be overlooking an easier target, if the arguments of one Nasa researcher and numerous supporters are to be believed. While Mars may seem like an attractive destination, we should consider sending people to Venus instead, these people argue.

Obama’s essay conjures images of Nasa habitats on the red planet as seen in the the film “The Martian.” But that future is a long way off: as the author of “The Martian” has said, it’s far more likely that NASA’s first manned Mars mission will involve humans orbiting a few times and coming back. Even Elon Musk says he’ll be creating a “cargo route” to Mars long before he sends actual people to land there.

Mars is a challenging destination. It’s far away, the gravity is a fraction of Earth’s - posing additional health hazards beyond the lack of atmospheric radiation shielding - and human need to be suited up just to breathe outside.

Humans on Mars in 10 years: Elon Musk’s plans for a colony on the red planet

By contrast, Venus is a lot closer to Earth than Mars is. At their closest points, Venus is 40 million kilometres away, compared to Mars’s 54 million kilometres. That means you’d need less time and fuel to get there, reducing the cost. And although Venus’s surface temperature is hot enough to melt metal, and the crushing pressure will squish you like a bug, the upper atmosphere is actually rather habitable.

“At about 50 kilometers above the surface the atmosphere of Venus is the most earthlike environment (other than Earth itself) in the solar system,” wrote Geoffrey Landis, a Nasa scientist, in a 2003 paper. Landis has spent much of his career dreaming up ways to make a human trip to Mars actually feasible, so he knows what he’s talking about.

At high altitude, Venusian temperatures are hot but not unbearable, and the barometric pressure drops to the equivalent of one Earth atmosphere. Visitors would have droplets of sulfuric acid to worry about, but only if their skin is directly exposed.

Proponents of colonising Venus say the logical endpoint would be enclosed floating cities in the clouds. These colonies could be filled with breathable oxygen which could be created right from Venus’s own atmosphere. Even if such a colony’s walls were breached, you wouldn’t have an explosive decompression like you would on Mars, because the pressure in Venus’s atmosphere would prevent a rapid leak of air.

If sending humans to Venus makes so much sense, why aren’t we paying more attention to it? Perhaps that’s because, according to PBS, humans are obsessed with landing on things as a way to claim them. Planting a flag is a lot more dramatic than throwing one out an airlock.