Life on Venus too? The latest NASA data leads to an incredible discovery!



NASA recently found more evidence of life on Mars, but now, a research team in Cardiff has found evidence for life on Venus!
How is this possible?
#space #nasa #venus

Please support my NEW PATREON CHANNEL! AS LITTLE AS 10 CENTS A DAY!!
DISCORD MEMBERSHIP, EXCLUSIVE CONTENT AND EARLY RELEASES PLUS 15% OFF MERCH!
https://www.patreon.com/AngryAstronaut
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/AngryAstro
Follow me on twitter:
https://twitter.com/Astro_Angry

source

28 thoughts on “Life on Venus too? The latest NASA data leads to an incredible discovery!”

  1. NASA has surely put lifedetecting instruments on every probe that had contact with a planet. They only do not tell, and do not tell what has been detected. How can I know this?. Because of a combination of economy and curiosity by those making the decisions. It is most economical to load every probe with so many instruments as possible, instead of sending specific probes for specific purposes. So NASA is lying. And then what instruments do they use? I guess microscopes combined with videorecorders, and spectrometers to analyze chemical activity,

    Reply
  2. Doubtful. Venus has a ton of volcanism present, and the conditions beneath the surface are exactly what is needed for inorganic production of phosphine. It can be neat to think about, but it's not very likely from lifeforms, at least in the case of Venus. High levels of phosphine found on, say, Europa, Titan, our own moon, or Mars, or almost anywhere else, yes that would be exciting, but phosphine on Venus is about as surprising as finding a hair in your general tso's chicken on Saturday night πŸ˜…

    Reply
  3. One can assume soviet polluted Venus witht earth dna when they landed -from the parachute which even if it was made of plastic (?) should contain contminates. maybe they find … and it earth stuff – one cant avoid contaminates from the other parts even -and i dont think soviets cared much

    Reply
  4. "Life is everywhere" is a narrative that comes against the facts that someone (God) seeded life on this planet after this planet was made habitable …Life in any form needs conditions that will made life possible …and all other planets are NOT able to provide a platform for life to exists…and the more research we do the more this is true.. ….what I am saying is so simple and clear …but the same people who have a narrative that a baby in it's mothers womb is not a living thing / a life….bring you life is on every planet /could be ….as fact ….rather than extremely unlikely ….people use your logic rather than believe things like …some one found a rock in Antarctica ..then called it a meteor ….when rocks are blasted out of volcanoes that are in Antarctica all the time?…then they declared this same rock to have come from Mars…just how THEY reached this conclusion is laughable at best…..then THEY declared this same rock to have a type of micro fossilized life form (when it was not)….this is not science but science fiction made into "fact" by a media that is "the lie factory"…but like "treckies" dressing up in their favorite sifi costumes and believing in anything …this is what this is!!!…research indeed ..LOL

    Reply
  5. β€œALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS, EXCEPT EUROPA.

    ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

    USE THEM TOGETHER. USE THEM IN PEACE.”

    ― Arthur C. Clarke, 2010: Odyssey Two

    Reply
  6. The first thing they need to do is get all of the religious people out of the discussion. They have an answer and search for evidence to support it, dismissing contradictory evidence out of hand. Once you've done that, you can use the scientific method freely. A religious scientist makes as much sense as a N*azi life coach for Jews.

    Reply
  7. What would it take to increase the rotation of Venus. Something like the Earths speed. Then what would it take to create Sulfur dioxide from the sulfur in the atmosphere? See where I'm going here?

    Reply
  8. Off topic a bit, but I was looking at SpaceX and their unique quick, rapid testing approach vs the more traditional approach ala Grumman Lockheed or Boeing.

    Once Starship becomes operational, there will be savings due to reusability. However with 9 engines on Starship and 33 engines on the booster, given five tests 250 engines are lying in the ocean with no mission completion. How do we account for these loses? How do we compare this test approach with say the old Saturn V or even SLS ?

    Reusable spaceships sounds reasonable, but what are the true economics given development, testing and then through finished product ?

    AA any ideas ?

    Reply

Leave a Comment