The author presents a strong argument suggesting a worthy pursuit to study Venus depsite dangerous endeavors, however, his statments regauarding un-reliability on current technology, the necessary actions to conduct research, and numerous failed attempts to reach Venus greatly outweigh the good outcomes of this mission. Venus is considered the planet that is most similar to Earth. The passage explained that scientist speculate if there was once life on Venus considering it incredible geographical and size similarities to earth. Although further research could test their theories, Venus has very extreme weather conditions harmul to man and other objects. A closer look and gathering of evidence is expected to make this mission a success. However, modern day technology is barely able to keep up efficiently by just the use of humans. These issues are far too risky to consider pursuing.

Venus has features such as mountains, craters, and even valleys that are also seen on Earth. According to the article, its atmosphere is 97% carbon dioxide with temperatures averging 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Atmospheric pressure is 90 times greater than Earth with can crush nearly anything that tries to reach its surface and even liquefy metals. The second paragraph discussed how spacecrafts in the past barely lasted a few hours and since there hasn't been a spacecraft sent there in more than three decades. This evidence shows that despite the success of reaching Venus, we are not even close to even slowly progressing and fixing smaller issues with spacecrafts traveling there and back to Earth. By not providing evidence of some sort of pregression or steps closer to considering sending humans to Venus, the author weakens his arguments over the better outcomes of conducting research.

Conducting research requires numerous forms of evidence, samples, test, etc. In paragraph 5, the author makes suggestions of creating a spacecraft to sustain temperatures of at least 170 degrees Fahrenheit and levitating thirty-plus miles over the surface to observe the planet. Although this may be the most safest and efficient approach, he even stated that it would require getting "up close and personal" to collect samples. The whole idea is to reach Venus and collect data to compare to Earth and Venus' previous history. Without being able to collect samples, the author weakens his argument to study Venus despite the dangers it presents.

Lastly, modern day technology is known for its speed and cinvenience to access information. In paragraph 7, the author discussed how electronics we simplified to last at least three weeks in simulating conditions to Venus. He explained, "modern computers...tend to be more delicate when it comes to extreme physicakl conditions." He supported this claim by informing readers that older technology, mechanical computers, have been re-evaluated and seem to have better calculations but involve levers and such. This weakens his argument because it would mean that this mission wouldn'tt be helpful if the right technology can't be utilized to help calculate and evalutate information.

All in all, the author makes very good claims as to why NASA should continue to pursue further research on Venus. It would help determine if there was previous life, if it once operated as successful as earth, and if Earth could potentially be headed in the same direction. However, the extreme weather conditions, actions necessary for research, and un-cooperative technology make this pursuit seem far less worth it considering how danger it is for humans and even the spacecrafts sent to examine the planet. Ultimately, the project can be deemed as impossible if facts given in the article remain the same.   