The authors support of the idea of going to Venus is not very well known, we can only infer whether they are for it or against it because they never fully specify. The author give some pros and cons to the exploration of the planet but does not pick one side more than the other. I believe that they author is against the idea of Venus exploration.

The authors pros and cons list combat eash other because, the author gives a pro on the exploration of Venus but instantly combats it with another con to weigh it out. One example of this is in paragraph 5 when the author states that the conditions of floating above planet Venus would be difficult but survivable for humans. However, right after making that statement, the authors first sentence in paragraph 6, combats the idea that it is survivable for humans because the article states, "However, peering at Venus from a ship orbiting or hovering safely far above the planet can provide only limited insight on ground conditions because most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere, rendering standard forms of photography and vidoeography ineffective." From that statement we can infer that the author doesn't really see the exploration of humans going being very useful but, we can only infer because the author never specifies, for or against.

Another way we can infer that the author is against it, is by looking at paragraph 3 when the author is talking truthfully about the planet. The author explains that planet Venus has a thick atmorsphere of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide and that the planet's surface temperature averages out at over, 800 degrees Fahrenheit. The way that the author describes Venus, is not in a way of much liking or making it sound like a good planet to send our people to. The author explains how dangerous Venus is by listing the weather barreries like "...erupting volcanoes, powerful earthquakes and frequent lightening strikes to probes seeking to land on its surface.", all in paragraph 3. By listing how dangerous the weather is, listing how hot and unlivable it is, and by saying that the lightening frequently strikes the probes trying to get into the planets atmosphere to land, we can only infer that the author doesn't really think that the dangers of humans being out into this kind of situation, is worth it.

Additionally, one last way we can infer that the author doesn't favor the idea of Venus exploration is that when in paragraph 2, the author states, "Each previous mission is unmanned, and for good reason, since no spacecraft survived the landing for more than a few hours." That statment really pushes the idea that the author defiently doesn't not favor the idea of the exploration using man and spacecraft. But once again, we can only infer because the author never gave a clear personal opinion.

In conculsion, I believe that the author does not favor the exploration and does not think that the study of Venus is a worthy pursuit depsite the dangers it provides. The pros and cons weigh each other out, the planet is too dangerous with the heat, the weather, and the obsticles on the surface. The overall thought of the author shows no favor towards the exploration of Venus.