The last human-made spacecraft that landed on Venus was Soviet Vega 2 in 1985.
The question will resolve positively as soon as it becomes known that any new spacecraft makes a landing on Venus or descends into the Venusian atmosphere. The probe must remain in communication after achieving the sub-sonic speed (<400 m/s) and the altitude <10 km above the surface.
Before this happens, each answer will be resolve to NO as soon as the respective time period is over.
I do not bet on my own markets.
Related question:
/OlegEterevsky/when-will-the-next-probe-successful
Relaced with the new question:
/OlegEterevsky/when-will-the-next-probe-successful-45fed400e274
1,000
3.00@traders Based on the discussion in the comments, it looks like I wasn't clear regarding the special case of the atmospheric probes. Does the probe descending under the parachute count or not if it is not designed to land softly?
Because of that, I will reformulate this question to include any probes that stay in communication after achieving subsonic velocity in Venusian atmosphere. If you made your bets under different assumptions about the resolution criteria, please sell your stakes and I let me know. I'll reimburse the difference in price.
I will also create a separate question (or two) specifically about landers.
@OlegEterevsky Would it be possible to N/A the current question and open new ones? I care a lot more about the “profit” line than account balance :)
@OlegEterevsky Based on the discussion in the comments below, I'm going to resolve this as N/A, since some bets were made under wrong assumptions and people care about the price of those bets reflecting on their profit.
@OlegEterevsky Posted the new version of the question:
/OlegEterevsky/when-will-the-next-probe-successful-45fed400e274
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAVINCI
If DaVinci survives and transmits from the surface, would that qualify?
@JoshuaWilkes It will resolve this as YES, if the lander stays in communication after reaching subsonic speed.
@OlegEterevsky "YES, if the lander stays in communication after reaching subsonic speed." -> I don't think just becoming subsonic should count as a "soft landing".
With the current description, reaching subsonic speed is only sufficient for probes designed to stay in the atmosphere, which is not the case for DAVINCI or VLF.
@dp9000 I'm not sure what's the right way to draw the line here.
From reading the mission profile for VLF it looks like it doesn't have a parachute, so it will possibly not even go subsonic before the impact. So it probably wouldn't resolve the market.
DAVINCI on the other hand has a parachute and is intended to study the atmosphere. When I was writing the question I didn't think about a lander that would slowly descend, but ultimately wouldn't be designed to land softly. I think this could be read as fulfilling the requirements of the market. @JoshuaWilkes, what do you think?
@OlegEterevsky The market title totally mismatches this plan for resolution.
" It will resolve this as YES, if the lander stays in communication after reaching subsonic speed"
I think I've already invested mana based on this statement, and it's unreasonable to change it now.
I do agree that the title is a poor fit for the description though.
(I believe VLF will reach subsonic speeds, but I'm happy to lose mana betting against people who disagree, especially at current prices)
@JoshuaWilkes I invested substantial mana with the assumption that the probe had to be intended to land or stay long-term in the atmosphere, based on the combination of the old title and description. I think the changes substantial alter the meaning of the question, I’d very much like this market N/A’d and a new one created.
@spider Fore me resolving as N/A would obviously be less expensive. I just thought that it would be nicer to keep the existing market and reimburse the losses, since fundamentally it's clarification of existing criteria.
@JoshuaWilkes has the biggest stakes on YES. If he's ok with resolving as N/A, I'll do it.
@spider you invested a lot of that mana after these conversations had taken place and the information was available to explain to you why I was taking positions against you that you reinforced.
I am going to agree to this being NAed but it's because I think that your initial decision to allow descent probes to count was probably unfair on early bettors.
At the risk of sounding entirely too much like an arsehole there are lessons to be learned here
@JoshuaWilkes Yeah, I'm striving to write questions with clear resolution criteria, but sometimes it is difficult. I'll try extra-hard to avoid edge-cases like the one that appeared in this market.
Only current planned lander is Ventura D, not launching before June 2031 window (https://nauka.tass.ru/nauka/17501765), potentially longer given current condition of Roscosmos and Russian state priorities. Then again, maybe Luna 25 shows modern Russia is able to commit resources if it could be national prestige? Uncertain.
Lead time on new landers seems like it'd be at the very least the better part of a decade, and even then only if someone capable of moving fast got suddenly interested (China?). Even for the most rushed scenario I'd expect more proposals and drafts floating around than I'm able to find. Seems unlikely.
Given overall space boom and the return to planetary science, mid to late 2030s seems more likely than not. Missions the summer 2034 window, though, would be tough to imagine.