This document is the EnVision Venus orbiter proposal, submitted in October 2016 in response to ESA's M5 call for Medium-size missions for its Science Programme, for launch in 2029. Why are the terrestrial planets so different? Venus should be the most Earth-like of all our planetary neighbours: its size, bulk composition and distance from the Sun are very similar to those of Earth. Its original atmosphere was probably similar to that of early Earth, with abundant water that would have been liquid under the young sun's fainter output. Even today, with its global cloud cover, the surface of Venus receives less solar energy than does Earth, so why did a moderate climate ensue here but a catastrophic runaway greenhouse on Venus? How and why did it all go wrong for Venus? What lessons can be learned about the life story of terrestrial planets in general, in this era of discovery of Earth-like exoplanets? Were the radically different evolutionary paths of Earth and Venus driven solely by distance from the Sun, or do internal dynamics, geological activity, volcanic outgassing and weathering also play an important part? Following the primarily atmospheric focus of Venus Express, we propose a new Venus orbiter named EnVision, to focus on Venus' geology and geochemical cycles, seeking evidence for present and past activity. The payload comprises a state-of-the-art S-band radar which will be able to return imagery at spatial resolutions of 1 - 30 m, and capable of measuring cm-scale deformation; this is complemented by subsurface radar, IR and UV spectrometers to map volcanic gases, and by geodetic investigations.

The identification of impact craters on planetary surfaces provides important information about their geological history. Most studies have relied on individual analysts who map and identify craters and interpret crater statistics. However, little work has been done to determine how the counts vary as a function of technique, terrain, or between researchers. Furthermore, several novel internet-based projects ask volunteers with little to no training to identify craters, and it was unclear how their results compare against the typical professional researcher. To better understand the variation among experts and to compare with volunteers, eight professional researchers have identified impact features in two separate regions of the moon. Small craters (diameters ranging from 10 m to 500 m) were measured on a lunar mare region and larger craters (100s m to a few km in diameter) were measured on both lunar highlands and maria. Volunteer data were collected for the small craters on the mare. Our comparison shows that the level of agreement among experts depends on crater diameter, number of craters per diameter bin, and terrain type, with differences of up to $\sim\pm45%$. We also found artifacts near the minimum crater diameter that was studied. These results indicate that caution must be used in most cases when interpreting small variations in crater size-frequency distributions and for craters $\le10$ pixels across. Because of the natural variability found, projects that emphasize many people identifying craters on the same area and using a consensus result are likely to yield the most consistent and robust information.