I always wondered why NASA never sent any surface probes to Venus, until I read about the insane engineering (and lots of trial and error) that went into the Soviet Union's Venera program. Despite all that effort, the successful Venera probes only lasted minutes on the surface before failing.
The fact a lander is only going to return an hour (at best) of science data is why NASA hasn't bothered with Venus. There's a low chance of initial success and then no real opportunity for a mission extension if things actually go well. A Mars lander returns a lot more science per dollar than a Venus lander will.
The DAVINCI upcoming Venus mission (2031) has a descent stage, but surface operations are not part of the prime mission. Just taking pictures and readings on gas composition as it goes down towards the surface
> “The probe will touch-down in the Alpha Regio mountains but is not required to operate once it lands, as all of the required science data will be taken before reaching the surface.” said Stephanie Getty, deputy principal investigator from Goddard. “If we survive the touchdown at about 25 miles per hour (12 meters/second), we could have up to 17-18 minutes of operations on the surface under ideal conditions.”
There will be a companion orbiter, as well, called VERITAS:
I was trying to highlight why NASA has largely ignored Venus since Magellan. I'm glad NASA is heading back to Venus, it's just been a gravity assist target for thirty years.
I think a larger mission with some sort of airship dropping little science packages would yield quite a trove of data without the entire mission burning up in an hour. Hopefully the success of the little Martian helicopter gives mission planners something to think about. -edited to add, something like a molten salt battery could travel to Venus completely inert and only become active as it warms, also acting as a heat sink.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-radio-we-could-send-to-hell