In "The challenge of Exploring Venus" The author suggests that studying Venus should be pursued, despite the dangers it brings. After evaluating the passage I do not believe that the author supports this idea well. In multiple paragraphs he states that Venus has a harsh enviorment, makes collecting information from venus seem impossible, and does not give enough evidence as to why we should explore Venus and the knowledge that could be gained.

In paragraph two and three the author explains why there is not much information on venus and how harsh the enviorment is. In the second paragraph, the authors tells the readers, although Venus is the most similar in size and density and sometimes in distance, we have not sent a spacecraft to Venus in over three decades. He then goes on to explain that no spacecraft has survived the landing for more than a couple hours because of its extreme enviorment. By making giving the audience this information in the second paragraph, it already gives Venus a bad reputation.

In paragraph three, the authors goes into detail as to why no spacecraft has survived the landing and why humans could not possibly go there. He starts off by saying how the atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide, talks of the sulfuric acid clouds that also inhibit the planet, the extreme temperatures that average over 800 degrees Farenheit, and atmospheric pressure which is 90 times greater than ours on Earth. It would crush a submarine adept to diving to the deepest parts of our oceans on Earth. With all of this information, he makes Venus sound impossible to explore and gather information on.

The author then uses paragraph four to give the readers a reason as to why scientists are still interested in Venus. The author states that Venus could have been similar to Earth in its earlier years. Scienstists say that it was probably covered in oceans and could have supported life. another great facot is that Venus is still the nearest option for a planetary visit. But in paragraph 5 and the six the author starts to talk about safe options for humans to go there. The author uses evidence from NASA as to what we could do; use a blimp like vehicle or a ship that hovers about 30 miles above the Venusian landscape. However viewing venus from above would not give NASA any insight on what is going on below. The reason the author gives the reader as to why we should explore Venus does not seem interesting enough and the only safe way we could get to venus once again, makes collecting information seem unlikely.

Overall, the author does not give a compelling argument as to why we should explore Venus more. All of the information he provides only seems to be disputed by other facts. The whole article makes Venus out to be an impossible planet to truly explore and accquire information on until we have better technology or Venus's enviorment changes.