In "The Challenge of Exploring Venus" I do not think the author supports the idea that studying Venus is a worthy pursuit very well. He also supports it a little and instead focuses on the dangers of the planet. Some of the dangers he says is that no spacecraft has even lasted a few hours on Venus, and that tempratures are around 800 degrees. The planet has to harsh of an atmosphere for us to visit.

The author almost seems like he should be supporting not going to Venus. In the third paragraph he talks about how deadly of an enviroment it is. He says that the atmosphere is made of almost 97 percent carbon dioxide, and that the clouds are made of highly corrosive sulfuric acid. These things alone would make it nearly impossible for any type of life to exist, so why explore a place where its imposible for anything to have ever lived there. With 97 percent carbon dioxide it could have been a possibility for plant life, but he then adds that on the surface it is over 800 degrees Fahenheit. With that kind of heat its impossible to survive.

To make things worse the author is not just talking about an unmaned spacecraft visit, he is talking about humans visiting it. With the atmospheric pressure around 90 times greater than Earth, we would die before we even reached the surface. Even if you were to get to the surface the there are still many obsticals to overcome. Life for example volcanoes, powerful earthquakes and lightning strikes.

One of the only times the author supports his idea is in paragraph 4. The author says "Astronomers are fascinated by Venus because it may well once have been the most Earth-like planet in our solar system. Long ago, Venus was probably covered largely with oceans and could have supported various forms of life, just like Earth." While that may sound interesting that is a huge probably. They are basing this off the fact that Venus has some of the same features of Earth like valleys and mountains. That is to big of a risk to take because it could cost millions of dollars and even a life if we sent a human there.

In paragraph 5 the author talks about ideas that could be used to send humans there like a blimp. To me that just sounds to risky because you can do all the testing you want but it only takes one small mistake for everything to go south. The value of Venus that he talks about is insight gained and because human curiosity will likely lead us into many equally intimidating endeavors. The values he talks about here are simply not enough. The risks by far outweights the rewards.

That was why to me the author did not support his idea well enouth. To me he gave more dangers that he did rewards. Plus risking a human life is not to be taken lightly, you need to be 100% certain that they will survive. With tempratures above 800 degrees and an atmospheric preassure 90 times greater than Earth I don't see how anyone could survive. Even when a drone does not survive how is a human supposed to? That is why the author did not support the idea well enough.