Fresh Analysis Shows Something Is Seriously Off With The Planet Venus
Recent analysis of historic Venus mission data — combined with modern restoration techniques — is reshaping our understanding of Earth’s neighboring planet.
Although Venus was once imagined as a humid, life-friendly world hidden beneath thick clouds, spacecraft observations revealed something far more extreme: a surface environment defined by crushing pressure, intense heat around 475°C, and a dense carbon-dioxide atmosphere driving a runaway greenhouse effect.
watch this informative video about Venus:
The Soviet Venera program provided the only direct images ever captured from the Venusian surface. After several early probes were destroyed by pressure during descent, engineers redesigned their landers as heavily armored titanium pressure vessels with internal cooling systems.
This allowed Venera 7 (1970) to transmit the first surface data from another planet, followed by Venera 9 and 10 (1975), which returned the first panoramic photographs. These images showed a rocky landscape illuminated by diffuse sunlight — disproving predictions that the surface would be in complete darkness — and revealed multiple geological terrains, including slopes, plains, and volcanic rock formations.
The most advanced missions, Venera 13 and 14 (1982), delivered color panoramas, soil-composition measurements, and even the first recorded sounds from another planet. Their images showed a landscape tinted deep orange by atmospheric filtering, while onboard instruments confirmed basaltic rock and extremely slow surface winds moving through very dense air.
Decades later, digital reprocessing of archived telemetry has improved these images, revealing finer details of soil texture, rock layering, and horizon distance. Some controversial claims about possible moving objects in the images have largely been explained as mechanical debris from the landers themselves rather than evidence of life.
Since those missions, exploration has shifted toward orbital radar mapping and atmospheric studies. While modern spacecraft and instruments — including radar orbiters and infrared observations — have expanded scientific knowledge of Venus, no mission since 1982 has captured new photographs from the surface. As a result, restored Venera images remain humanity’s only ground-level visual record of the planet.
With several new Venus missions planned by international space agencies in the coming decade, scientists hope to return to the surface and build on the discoveries first made by the rugged Soviet landers that briefly survived one of the most hostile environments in the solar system.
References for Further Research
-
NASA Solar System Exploration – Venus Overview
Comprehensive scientific summary of Venus’ atmosphere, geology, and exploration history.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/venus/ -
NASA Planetary Data System (PDS) – Venera Mission Archives
Repository of mission data, including restored Venera imagery and instrument readings.
https://pds.nasa.gov/ -
Soviet Venera Mission Reports (1970–1983)
Original technical papers detailing engineering design, surface measurements, and imaging systems. Many translated versions are available via NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS).
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/ -
Ksanfomality, L. V. (2012). “Possible Signs of Life on Venus from Venera-13 Data.”
Published analysis proposing biological interpretations of image anomalies (widely debated and later challenged). Appeared in Solar System Research. -
Magellan Mission (NASA, 1989–1994)
Orbital radar mapping mission that produced the most detailed global surface maps of Venus.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/magellan/ -
Venera 15 & 16 Radar Mapping Results (1983–1984)
Soviet synthetic aperture radar studies of Venus’ northern hemisphere; foundational for understanding volcanic and tectonic structures. -
Vega 1 & 2 Missions (1985)
Combined Venus lander and balloon missions providing atmospheric chemistry and wind measurements. -
Parker Solar Probe – Venus Flybys (2020s)
Near-infrared observations detecting thermal emission from Venus’ surface through atmospheric windows.
https://parkersolarprobe.jhuapl.edu/ -
Titov, D. V., et al. (2018). Venus II: Geology, Geophysics, Atmosphere, and Solar Wind Environment.
A comprehensive modern scientific volume synthesizing decades of Venus research.
About the author: John O’Sullivan is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball among 45 scientists) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). He is a seasoned science writer, retired teacher and legal analyst who assisted skeptic climatologist Dr Ball in defeating UN climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the multi-million-dollar ‘science trial of the century‘. From 2010 O’Sullivan led the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists who compiled the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ debunking alarmist lies about carbon dioxide plus their follow-up climate book. His most recent publication, ‘Slaying the Virus and Vaccine Dragon’ broadens PSI’s critiques of mainstream medical group think and junk science.
Kurt Lettau
| #
Request advice please, sorry, but I don’t understand ?
The Greenhouse effect (** caused by RAGs) is invoked:
” … a surface environment defined by crushing pressure, intense heat around 475°C, and a dense carbon-dioxide atmosphere driving a runaway greenhouse effect.”
Please explain authors of :
… [2010 O’Sullivan led] the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists who compiled the book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ debunking alarmist lies about carbon dioxide plus their follow-up climate book…
I thought you debunked this idea and explain the Venus atmospheric conditions using the alternate: ‘Auto-compression and Convection Hypothesis’ ?
Supporting the alternate more credible hypothesis, for example, see also:
** “Climate Truths” (2024), by Dr Robert Ian Holmes and Brendan Godwin, Chap 3: pp74-101.
There’s a lot of points and counterpoints raised in this chapter which lends more credence to this explanation.
Reply
very old white guy
| #
And we should be concerned because?
Reply
Kurt Lettau
| #
Suggest, for the obvious reason that the same fake (unverified) greenhouse gas theory is peddled to justify trillions of dollars spent on mitigating ‘global warming’ here on planet Earth… ?
Also, the unverified and wildly inaccurate IPCC modelling being driven by the ‘greenhouse gas’ CO2 atmospheric increase – as the primary cause and claiming humans are to blame (AGW) for most of the increase in CO2.
Venus is being falsely presented (in my opinion, after studying the literature) constantly, as the poster-child of what can happen if we don’t keep supporting the fake narrative.
PS: I’m also A Very Old White Guy (does over 76 rate?)
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
They also conveniently forget that Mars has an atmosphere that is over 90 percent CO2 and it is cold. Or how about Neptune with its atmosphere of that worse methane atmosphere. Propagandist only look for evidence to support their beliefs while scientist look for evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
Reply
Kurt Lettau
| #
I did not include Mars in the argument because of its lower average atmospheric pressure (0.0061 bar) and other [see, again: ** “Climate Truths”, 2024], this time refer to pp 54-58:
” … Physical laws are universal. Despite vast planetary differences in insolation, internal heat, atmospheric composition and gravity, a planetary tropopause is always around 0.1 bar (10kPa) of pressure. This seems to indicate that physical laws dictate for auto-compression to dominate, an atmospheric pressure of this level is required. The main means of energy transmission above 0.1 bar is convection, while below that pressure, radiation dominates energy transfers. As can be seen (Figure (2.1) a temperature gradient is always set up at pressures of above 0.1 bar. At pressures below 0.1 bar, auto-compression and convection break down as the atmosphere is too thin to sustain them, and radiative effects then predominate; but at this pressure level, RAGs (Radiatively Active Gases) such as CO2 cause COOLING of the stratosphere and mesosphere – not warming (Clough et al., 1992) (Figure 3.1)…”
Of course for Earth there are additional potential effects:
– Natural climate cycles (at least 16 known), and
– Cosmoclimatology (active clouds),
-Other ??
Anyway, fascinating stuff to be further investigated, explored and argued by the experts/professionals in the field.
[my opinion:
I wish that there was more honesty(?)/clarity in this very diverse subject for partial informed amateurs like me, to more easily navigate/be-informed?
What about also allowing a serious discussion on all credible hypotheses.]
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Kurt.
Venus has an atmosphere 92 x the Earth’s despite significantly less mass and no magnetic field to protect that atmosphere from stronger solar winds There is a fundamental flaw in our beliefs in why atmospheres exist that needs to be corrected before we deal with the composition of the atmosphere. Gravity is not a function of mass and because Newton’s formula is wrong, all the accepted masses of the planets are wrong. There are no gas planets.
Herb
very old white guy
| #
Close enough.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John and PSI Readers,
I prefer to read the text of the 20+ minute video. So I believe that you you and readers should read (https://principia-scientific.com/what-is-good-science/).
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi John O’Sullivan,
Please explain how my simple comment of February 13, 2026 at 7:14 pm is appearing two days later than the 3 comments above it.
Have a good day
Reply