/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11347177
yeah well too bad. There's sort of a case for nuclear ramjets on jupiter, but Venus I don't think so. http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/annual/jun02/510Maise.pdf
Thing is that the budget for planetary science isn't all that much and there's a lot of places to explore. Some places are higher than others. And there's certainly not enough money to develop a nuclear ramjet for venus and that's not planetary science's mission either. That's the space technology mission directorate's job. They get even less money and have even been held hostage by senator Shelby. Also, a bunch of proposed planetary science missions got absolutely fucked when NASA cancelled the development of the advanced stirling radioisotope generator(ASRG). It would have been a more efficient RTG. It was supposed to supply power for months to years, but there were reliability issues so it started acting funny after just 7 days. So if you are too dependent on one tech you can really get fucked over if it don't work out. One thing some of the planetary science missions do is partner with industry to develop some of the needed tech. Another reason why Venus isn't too popular is that when industry hears about Venus, they just leave the room. Keep an eye on NASA's proposed long lived insitu explorer mission though. They want to send a lander that can last 1 month on Venus. It's a precursor to what planetary scientists consider the ultimate venus mission, landing a long lasting seismometer on Venus.