The author supports his idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers with both the dangers and solutions. First states all the reasons that Venus is very unstable to land on and that no space craft has been able to land on long enough. Second he claims that NASA has two different plans to get there and surviving long enough to get samples and seeing what the ground is like. These both show that idea just might be worthy to pursuie.

First the author starts with all reason Venus is unable to be visited and that we have tried but was unable to land for more than a couple of hours. Venus is closer to earth and is easier to get to. But since both the surface and atmoshere is in chaos a spacecraft couldn't stay long. The article states "beyond high pressure and heat, Venusian geology and weather present additional impediments like erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes, and frequent lightning strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface". Since all of the weather is messed up it make it worst to get there and stay long enough to bring enough samples back to study.

Second, the author says that NASA has two plans to get there and survive long enough to get samples and maybe even stay to study them. One way would be Send a blimp-like vehicle to hover over Venus surface about 30 or so miles but still the atmoshere would give them limited access to the ground. So they could only take pictures and videos. But another idea is that we can use old tech to send to the ground and could last a long time. The article states " these devices make calculations by using gears and levers and do not require electronics at all". If these machines go to the surface, gather data, and it could bring it back to study.

To conclude, the author's article supports the idea that going to Venus might be risky but also worth it. The author states in the article the reason it is hard to go by there are ways you could get there.