Skip to main content
Space Exploration

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The little arrows mean that, as Dietrich Epp correctly pointed out, that aerobraking is available. 27000 is a very theoretical value, that takes into account the losses of a rocket escaping the thick atmosphere of Venus $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 4, 2016 at 21:04
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Think about the enormous rockets you need just to get from Earth's surface to LEO. That's the 9400 right at the bottom of the diagram. But you clearly don't need those enormous rockets to get from LEO back to the surface. You don't event need rockets 10% of the size. You just need to nudge yourself into the atmosphere and let aerobraking take care of the rest. Same with Venus. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 4, 2016 at 21:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well, I'm rather confused now about what this data even means, tbh. Rather than continue in the comments here, I've decided to open another question, because I am that confused by it at this point. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 4, 2016 at 22:36
  • $\begingroup$ Here's your citation: Does a mission to Venus orbit require less propellant than a similar mission to Mars? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2016 at 3:55
  • $\begingroup$ More frequent launch windows and shorter flight time could also have been considered when time was of the essence during the space race. No one knew how hostile Venus surface was. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2016 at 11:20