Typical NASA

making missions ten times more expensive than need be
.............................................................................................................................................................................................

Let SpaceX do it for 1/10 the cost.
for example in the article it is stated

• After reaching the planet, the manned shuttle would attach to a separate rocket that contains the deflated, folded research station. As it plummets towards the surface, the station would deploy a parachute, unfold itself, fill with tanks of helium sent for the ride, and then (hopefully) stay afloat at a non-lethal altitude.

Why bother with (expensive) Helium if the atmosphere of Venus it 100 times denser than that of Earth?

and

• After a month of research from the strategic position above the clouds, the crew’s shuttle would have to detach from the research station, rocket back into orbit, and rejoin the orbiting spacecraft that would take it back to Earth

why does it need to be manned?

The 'return to earth' capability would cost a LOT. So would 'life support for humans.

instead of a publicity stunt why not do something useful?
Why not establish a PERMANENT robotic research station in orbit around Venus?

No need for 'return to orbit with the crew' or 'return to earth at the end of the mission'.

and no need for free-fall toilets.