Venus' average temperature of over eight hundred, clouds of sulfuric acid, and great atmospheric pressure makes it highly unlikey for inhabbitting. Despite these conditions, it is considered Earth's twin. This is because of the similar size and density of the two planets. For these reasons, and more, the exploration of Venus has been attempted. But what makes dangers of traveling there worth what could be found? Is this topic done justice from by the author?

What would make the danger of going to Venus worth it? In paragraph four, the author states "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once been the most Earth-like [...] a crucial consideration given the long time frames of space travel." In the sentences taken from the article, the author mentions how Venus is covered in mountains, valleys, craters, and how there is a possibility of it being covered by ocean many, many years before hand. Right after, the author says that there have been theories about how it could have supported various life forms. Later on in paragraph four, the author states that Venus has a similar terain to Earth and is the nearest option and and crucial consderation. The author could have done more to support the idea that Venus is worth studying. They gave three pieces of supporting evidence on why it was worth studying and did not go on to further explain why these three examples made Venus worth studying.

Do the dangers of Venus outweigh the reasons to study it? The author of "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" belives they do not, but lacked a further explanation as to why. There were good ideas brought to the table about why Venus would be worth the dangers of the exploration. However, the author briefly mentioned them in one paragraph and did not elaborate on their reasons.