Did the author support their idea well in this article? I do believe he did. I saw many reasons as to why we should at least try to go to venus. He gave many reasons as to how Venus is very simillar to Earth and could be inhabited one day. He also gave many reasons as to how it could be dangerous, and why people haven't really been able to do so yet. They mention things about what Venus has done to other space crafts in the past, and what it can do to others now even.

The author gives many reasons as to why Venus is reffered to as Earths "twin." He says, "Venus is the closest planet to Earth in density and size, and occasionally the closest in distance too." In this he tells us that Venus is like Earth in the ways of how dense it is and how large it is. He also says that it is occasionally close to us, so that shows us that it could be just like Earth, but with some differences. The author also says in paragraph 4, "it may have once been the most Eath-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported many forms of like, just like Earth." With this he is telling us that there could be fossils, or we could one day maybe inhabit Venus if needed, with adaptations of course.

The author also says that the journey would be dangerous. He mentions in paragraph 2 "each previous mission was unmanned, and for a good reason, since no space craft has survived the landing for more than a few hours." In this he is telling us just how dangerous it is, because tipically you would think of a machine being tougher than the human body, but as you think about it you can see just as fast as that machine was destroyed. If that machine was destoryed so quickly imagine how quickly the human body would be. He also says "not a single spacecraft has touched down on Venus in more than three decades." This also lets us know how hard it would be to get there and how fast, if the right materials aren't used, something can be destroyed during the trip.

The author then gives us NASA's plan as to how somebody would be able to access Venus in paragraph 5. He tells us that "NASA's possible solution to the hostile conditions on the surface of Venus would be to allow scientists to float above the fray." He gives us this idea so that we can think about it being a safer route and that maybe with this method somebody could be able to make it. With his evidence in the previous paragraphs we can conclude it would be very dangerous to land on Venus, but not to be above it. He also gives us a scenario of what it would be like for the scientists floating above. He tells us, "a vehicle hovering over Venus would avoid the unfriendly ground conditions by staying up out of their way.. temperatures would still be toasy at arounf 170 degrees Fahrenheit, but the air pressure would be close to that of sea level on Earth... radiation would not exceed Earth levels. Not easy conditions, but survivable for humans." By telling us this he is saying that it wouldn't be the most comfortable thing, but it would be liveable. He is showing us that it would be possible, and if they really wanted to, they could explore Venus.

In paragraph 8 he mentions that the "scientist floating above would only give limited insignt," with this we can see that there still wouldn't be everythig solved, but we would still be closer than we've ever gotten. He also says in paragraph 8, "most forms of light cannot penetrate the dense atmosphere, rendering standard forms of photography and videography ineffective." Meaning that the scientists wouldn't be able to photograph anything on Venus to look at later. The scientists would only be able to look at things closet than anybody ever has, but not be able to document any of it. With this we can also see that we wouldn't be able to see what Venus looked like from Earth, making it hard to report back on findings and research.

All in all I beleive the author did support his idea well. He gave the pros and cons and was able to explain everything out. I myself don't know it it would be worth all the money in supplies, but I do think with NASA's idea we can get closer than we've ever gotten before. The conditions would be liveable, but maybe a little uncomfortable, and we could get some good information on Venus. If Venus is as closely related to Earth as the author makes it out to be, then maybe it could be worth a shot, but I am still debating on it. It's nothing the author did, because he did explain and support everything very well, but I've always had very strong opinions on everything.