The central idea of this article is "That studying venus i s a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents." I do not agree that the article supports this idea. The author talks about all the geological/environmental challenges it presents, talks about how we haven't set a space craft there in three decades that wasn't even manned and only lasted a few hours, and how the planet isn't liveable.

The first reason I don't think the author supports the idea is because more than half of the essay is them talking about how Venus is awful when it comes to the actual form and environment of Venus. The environment of Venus was spoken about throughout the essay stating "97 percent carbon dioxide blankets Venus. Even more challenging are the clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acis in Venus's atmosphere." This is creates huge challenge for scientists to explore Venus. The plsnet is also too hot like 10x way too hot. It states in the article, "On the planet's surface, temperatures average over 800 degrees fahrenheit, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than what we experience on our own planet." The author talks about how the environment is SO extreme that it would crush submarines and liquefy many metals.

The second reason I don't think the author supports the idea is they talk about how they haven't sent anything there in three decades. They can't send anything there because of how bad the conditions are on Venus and nothing has ever survived. It states in the article, "Humans have sent numerous spacecraft to land on this cloud-draped world. Each...mission was unmanned....since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." The reason they haven't anything is because we don't have the ability to. The conditions there are too extreme for even our technology to withstand and like what I am going to discuss in the next paragraph it would take decades to develop that technology.

The last reasons I don't think the author supports the idea, that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents because the planet is not even liveable. Throughout the article the author constantly talks about how extreme the environment is, how it could basically kill any humans with it's gas and heat, and we would still need decades od innovations to even think about even sending something there. If we even developed that technology we would have to prove it to be safe as well. It took us years to even send people to the moon and people STILL die while in space just for common reasons.

In conclusion, we may be the twin to Venus but it will take us years and years and years to even get close to sending man or even things to Venus because of the enviromental issues. Venus is unliveable and most things would never survive there for long periods of time. We also have no put any time and effort to really discover Venus and other things to help get us to explore Venus. For these reasons that I have stated above, I conclude that the author does not support the idea that "That studying venus i s a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents."