Would you risk your life to search for answers that might just end up dissapointing you? Well I'm asssuming that the author of this article would. The author talks more about the bad things about Venus than the good things, which doesn't help his/her claim that it "is a worthy pursuit despite the dangers it presents". In this article, the author talks more about the hardships Venus's enviroment would provide than the benefits, he/she talks about how hard it would be to build a spacecraft to even withstand Venus's envirmonet, and he/she doesnt't provide any points or ideas to why we should want to visit there.

The author mentions that Venus's atmosphere is 97 percent carbon dioxide. Not only is the atmosphere 97 percent carbon dioxide, it also contains "clouds of highly corrosive sulfuric acid". Temperatures on Venus average around 800 degrees fahrenheit, Venus has the hottest surface temperature of any planet, which would be impossible to maintian human life, and the atmospheric pressure is 90 times what we have here on earth. All of paragraph 3 is just talking about the negative's of Venus, which doesn't support the authors claim that these risks are worth finding out any information.

In paragraph five, the author talks about how NASA is trying to build a spacecraft that can withstand Venus's envirmonet. He/she explains in paragraph 2 that no spacecraft that has been sent to Venus has ever survived the landing for more than a few hours. The author talks about how NASA wants to build a blimp that will hover 30 miles above the surface of Venus so that is can avoid the harsh conditions on the surface, although right after this, he/she states that even 30 miles up off the surface, Venus is still going to be around 170 degrees Farenheit. The extremly high air pressure, heat, harsh storms, etc will all have to be concidered when trying to build a spacecraft that will be able to survive on Venus. Once again, these paragraphs are not explainging much good that is coming out of a manned trip to Venus.

Throughout the article, the author talks about very little benefits that come when sending a man to Venus. Scientists do believe that Venus was once covered with large oceans and might have had a variety of life forms. But this means nothing to us now if it's all destroyed. We will never for sure know if there was once life there, all of the evidence is gone. Honestly, what is the point in even going to Venus? Temperatures of 800 degrees would have burnt everything. Besides, why does is matter to us if there was once life there? We should focus on Earth and how we need to start taking care of it, before it ends up like Venus. There was no solid point in this article that honestly pursuaded me to want to send someone to visit Venus.

In conclusion, I do not think the author supported his claim well, he talked more about the negative parts of Venus, about how hard it would be to build something to trasport them there, and he/she never really states anything persuading the reader about why it would be good to visit Venus. Although it would be intresting to find out stuff about Venus's past, no one will ever know the absolute truth. 