The Great Venus Airship that isn’t NASA / Brad Guth
12 views
Skip to first unread message
BradGuth
Aug 4, 2011, 10:07:03 AM8/4/11
to Guth Usenet (public but censored)
The “Guth Venus” composite rigid airship/shuttle (500 x 75 meters):
You should expect revisions, because I’m still on a learning curve and
otherwise yourself and others could help by offering as many details
or suggestions as you like. Pretending that Venus is somehow
unmanageable or that the laws of physics and best available science
doesn’t count really isn’t an option, unless you’re trying to prove
something about yourself.
This planet Venus related topic is not going to be about your average
Hindenburg or even anything as simple as any nuclear submarine that
can also manage to fly, but that doesn’t mean it’s not technically
doable given sufficient materials, engineering and otherwise
configured for the planet Venus. The outside dimensions, shape and
its volume might shift or have to vary in order to suit a given
interpretation and mission requirement, but as for offering a rigid
composite airship and interplanetary shuttle, this concept is
perfectly within existing physics and materials that at least some of
us already know of.
This sort of monstrous airship might look somewhat like an enormous
MK-48 torpedo with a bit more of a Shkval pointy end, plus having some
control surfaces and perhaps eventually landing skids.
First off, you do need to realize that hollow glass spheres of
sufficient volume and containing H2 can actually float within our
extremely thin and low density atmosphere that also represents 10%
greater gravity than Venus has to offer, as well as Venus giving 65 kg/
m3 buoyancy near ground level (better yet while cruising within the
somewhat cooler and heavier season of nighttime).
You will also need to realize that such fused basalt, silica/quartz or
especially those of carbonado/diamond glass spheres would be nearly
uncrushable in this composite application. You should also realize
that such hollow spheres (say 10 mm +/-50% diameters) can easily
(depending on the external filler or binders) displace 67% of any
given structural cubic volume, and the smaller those spheres the
tougher and/or more crush resistant they get.
You do realize that high temperature rated composite worthy materials
such as silica AeroGel that weigh hardly anything and don’t easily
melt have existed for quite some time, and could be utilized as a
filler or binder on behalf of creating structural geometries utilizing
such hollow glass spheres filled with 0.1 bar H2 that’s worth 9 mg/m3
at ST(0.1 P) right here on Earth.
You do realize that a structural composite of such hollow glass
spheres and fully enclosed as offering a given block or unit of
whatever geometric waffle structure could actually weigh as little as
60 kg/m3, though even 120 kg/m3 would certainly not be a bad thing
considering a solid m3 of aluminum on Venus weighs 2378 kg (roughly 20
fold greater).
If you’d like having an outer tough skin or clad of titanium alloy
that’s worth 4.48~4.51 g/cm3 on Earth or 4 g/cm3 on Venus, when
applied to this composite rigid airship you still need to realize
there’s absolutely no shortage or deficiency of any airship reserve
buoyancy. A titanium alloy (Ti-5Al-2.5Sn or even a pure grade 4) clad
of 2.5 mm thick is only adding 10 kg/m2. (btw; our moon likely has
teratonnes of raw titanium just laying on that naked deck, and there’s
no good reason to believe the unusually high metallicity of Venus is
titanium deficient)
I’ve recalculated the honeycomb hull as with an outer titanium clad
being worth 81 kg/m3.
Actually I’d forgotten that even a solid block of aluminum or titanium
alloy not only weighs but 90.5%, but that volume also has the -65 kg/
m3 buoyancy advantage, plus whatever the 67% displacement of our
hollow glass spheres can manage to reduce the raw volumetric composite
mass. Whereas having the substantial bulk of our airship hull as a
structural rigid composite shell that also reasonably insulates and
weighs roughly 83 kg/m3 (including the 2.94 kg/m3 of hydrogen within
the 50% honeycomb is worth 1.47 +81 = 82.47 kg/m3) while parked on the
surface of Venus, means that we can have ourselves a very large and
massive composite rigid airship that’s incredibly tough, hardly weighs
anything empty, and really not even all that much extra mass once
fully outfitted and literally gassed up. In yet another recalculated
analogy way of looking at this, we are talking about a finished
honeycomb composite outer shell/hull of average density being worth
perhaps 83 kg/m2 once everything is taken into account, and it can
take a lot of thermal punishment as well as deal with most everything
else.
105e3 m2 of exterior surface that is worth 83 kg/m2: 8.715e6 kg
Giving infrastructure and outfitting lots to work with: 4.285e6 kg
Obviously the primary internal skeletal framing and the considerable
grids of internal trusses and expanded metal beams is going to have at
most the titanium maximum density of 4 g/cm3 (though typically
expanded and otherwise shaped or formed so as offering an average
structural volumetric density of never exceeding 1 g/cm3, and
otherwise stamped and/or expanded so as to representing tough
geometries worth as little as 100 kg per structurally shaped m3, so
that’s certainly not going to sink this rigid airship that’s offering
an internal usable gas volume of 1.5e6 m3 for accommodating mostly H2,
that even while parked on that toasty surface and everything
compressed (inside and out) at 96 bar isn’t going to make all that
toasty H2 weigh but 2.94 kg/m3, which still gives us 62 kg/m3 of
buoyancy to work with, so we can obviously afford to apply a great
deal of structural inert outer shell plus considerable internal
infrastructure mass, with loads of systems outfitting and perhaps
accommodate 100+ crew with ample provisions to burn, so to speak.
You do realize that an outer finish layer of either foamed glass or
ceramic tiles isn’t an unproven method of further protecting our
enormous airship/shuttle craft from its initial reentry heat. Such
reentry protection by way of adding a layer of disposable ceramic
tiles that shouldn’t have to exceed 125 kg/m3 at Venus gravity/
density, is of course necessary in order to protect our very large
composite hull that’s only rated up to 1000 K (1800 K if titanium
clad), but again at perhaps an average of 5 cm tile thickness is only
adding another 6.5 kg/m2 including whatever binders, so even at a
gross outer hull/shell density of 89.5 kg/m3 there’s just not going to
be enough volume of that porous/foamed ceramic mass applied in order
to sink this airship, not even if you’d care to double that all-
inclusive composite density, because in that Venus soup of thick and
dense atmosphere and 90.5% gravity, it seems we could float an iron
clad armored battleship.
Worse case as fully outfitted, I’m thinking this composite airship
could manage to lift 80e3 tonnes worth of payload off the deck without
off-loading or pulling any vacuum (that’s the same as picking up
88.5e3 tonnes worth of payload mass on Earth). Of course as this kind
of torpedo looking airship gains altitude and cools off it loses lift
capacity, but that’s certainly not a show stopper either, because the
lifting gas also loses density, not to mention consumed fuels and
whatever else can be tossed or vacuumed out. The H2 density alone
will change from 2.94 kg/m3 down to less than .01 kg/m3 (that’s like
having lost 4.4e3 tonnes of inert mass at the altitude of 65 km, and
not that in interior of this well insulated airship interior would
ever get that 243 K frozen by day or cryogenic cold by night).
You do realize that such an actively evolving planet like Venus has no
apparent shortages of raw elements for terrific metallicity as well as
oxygen, water and creating fuels for direct thermal combustion or via
fission reactions, not to mention William Mook’s nifty fusion
alternatives.
You do realize that by way of having a cool outpost/gateway situated
at Venus L2 would be a whole lot simpler and way better OASIS kind of
mission logistics than anything our ISS or its replacement could
possibly represent.
You do further realize that with sufficient propulsion and minimal
payload is where this airship/shuttle could manage to climb and cruse
well enough above those acidic clouds, as possibly 75 km where it’s
seriously cryogenic cold by night or even 218 K frozen to death by day
(as well as nighttime cool enough all the way down to 50 km as being
within them wet acidic clouds).
You do realize that exiting Venus from a starting elevation of 75+ km
and perhaps 1 km/sec isn’t all that insurmountable (there’s actually a
layer of O2 somewhat above 90 km), and by no means does the whole
monstrous thing have to leave, because they’d just need a small
shuttle craft in order to get safely back out to Venus L2.
Just because structural worthy insulation materials are not currently
available at your local WalMart or Sears, doesn't mean they can't be
developed and specifically made for this application. The actual raw
hollow spheres filled with 0.1 bar of H2 can manage to deliver a
thermo isolation value of .0009765 w/K/m/hr (that’s allowing less than
1 mw/K/m/hr), and perhaps the full composite might represent as little
as 0.1 w/k/m/hr.
Basalt or silica glass spheres as filled with H2 at perhaps not more
than 0.1 bar (1.47 psi) seems kind of engineering duh-101, at least it
seems perfectly simple enough to little old me that such hollow glass
spheres are not going to transfer all that much heat. Obviously you
and most others seem to have no way of knowing or figuring out what
the crush factor is, much less the R-factor per applied meter, only
because these composites are not sold at WalMart or Sears. 3M and
several others as millimeter and micro-sphere providers actually have
some good information on the web about their hollow glass spheres, but
that means you have to know how to read or at least having someone
else reading and explaining it for you.
In other words, it seems that our resident naysay and perpetual denial
FUD-masters as supposedly smarter than all the rest of us combined, as
well as seemingly first-hand experienced at most everything and
otherwise all-knowing about most everything imaginable, whereas it
seems they really can't seem to figure out how to go about making any
such composite rigid airship. How about instead, do any of you
wizards happen to know of anyone that could?
This is not suggesting that any such composite rigid airship-shuttle
intended for Venus is ever going to be easy or cheap, because it’ll
likely take a decade by the time we get it there and it’ll cost us
almost a tenth as much as going after OBL all of those Muslim WMD.
http://costofwar.com/en/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629
http://news.yahoo.com/u-cost-war-least-3-7-trillion-counting-110411362.html
Taking true energy consumption of our military industrial complex
plus logistics, actual operations and the global energy inflation into
account could easily double or even triple that for representing the
all-inclusive global cost of war. (just saying how totally screwed we
are, and notice how that “cost of war” for only America puts a zero
value upon all the carnage of the mostly innocent in addition to our
guys that haven’t exactly faired nearly as well as expected, as well
as the global inflation impact which hasn’t been factored in). But at
this late point of no return, who’s really counting?
Btw; this next part is obviously exaggerating a wee bit, because
there’s no way hydrocarbons are going to last another thousand years.
Over the next millennium as our hydrocarbon resources are depleted and/
or becoming too spendy even for the Rothschilds, how many all-
inclusive trillions upon trillions of dollars (that's at least $1e24)
do you think an extremely nearby planet that’s absolutely loaded with
all sorts of nifty and easily accessible metallicity elements as well
as offering its very own cache of local energy that’s renewable or in
terrific surplus (Venus simply having way more than its fair share),
is actually going to be worth to the rest of us? (or do you brainless
mainstream idiots and old farts still think Venus is merely a
worthless pile of hot rocks?)
What is it about this extremely nearby planet Venus that is supposedly
lacking in raw elements or in rare or essential element value?
(certainly not lacking water unless you still think those thick acidic
clouds are merely of inert crystal dry dust)
Of course we can always keep screwing around with blowing our time,
resources and hard earned loot on the likes of Mars, Ceres and of
course further out where there’s no technological advantage or hope of
ever naturally sustaining our kind of complex life without bringing
most of everything along with us, as well as zilch possibility of ever
bringing anything of sufficient value back home. Just saying, even if
those other worlds or moons offered raw platinum and gold just laying
in pure form all over their surface, who the hell can afford to pay
millions per kg? (not to mention that most all of such payments would
have to get forked over to the most wealthy and powerful individuals,
which you’d think might tend to bother some of us)
Venus on the other hand could turn out being another private venture
capital kind of terrific gold rush, plus offering multiple other
precious elements as free-for-all treasure hunts, unless those pesky
locals object (in which case we can always accuse them of having WMD,
and proceed to kick their ET butts until they get out of our way)
Of course all the usual mainstream FUD-masters and predictable
naysayers are going to insist that the regular laws of physics simply
do not apply to the planet Venus, and of materials suited for much
higher temperatures here on good old Earth simply can’t be applied for
anything Venus related. So perhaps you can understand as to why I
tend to return the favor with all the love and affection I can muster.
It seems they (our mainstream status-quo peers) keep insisting that
it’s always hot enough to melt lead, and actually it’s way more than
hot enough to melt tin, but why on Earth or especially on Venus would
anything about the composite rigid airship involve either lead or tin?
(at worse using aluminum isn’t going to melt below 933K, although
conventional titanium alloys are good for 1933 K)
Btw; heat without hardly any o2 and darn little surface h2o makes
almost any wei9rd environment (hot or cold and no matters how
potentially toxic) kind of passive or inert. So, I still don’t get
the gist of why these folks that usually claim being so all-knowing
and first hand expertise at most everything (yet still having to
pretend at who they really are and of what they’ve actually
accomplished) can’t manage to deal with any of this Venus stuff
without blowing their closed mindset gaskets and breaking wind, and as
though no other soul on Earth is even half as smart as they are.
(being that they’re always so smart, I kinda wonder how the hell they
managed to let the nation down so badly)
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
You should expect revisions, because I’m still on a learning curve and
otherwise yourself and others could help by offering as many details
or suggestions as you like. Pretending that Venus is somehow
unmanageable or that the laws of physics and best available science
doesn’t count really isn’t an option, unless you’re trying to prove
something about yourself.
This planet Venus related topic is not going to be about your average
Hindenburg or even anything as simple as any nuclear submarine that
can also manage to fly, but that doesn’t mean it’s not technically
doable given sufficient materials, engineering and otherwise
configured for the planet Venus. The outside dimensions, shape and
its volume might shift or have to vary in order to suit a given
interpretation and mission requirement, but as for offering a rigid
composite airship and interplanetary shuttle, this concept is
perfectly within existing physics and materials that at least some of
us already know of.
This sort of monstrous airship might look somewhat like an enormous
MK-48 torpedo with a bit more of a Shkval pointy end, plus having some
control surfaces and perhaps eventually landing skids.
First off, you do need to realize that hollow glass spheres of
sufficient volume and containing H2 can actually float within our
extremely thin and low density atmosphere that also represents 10%
greater gravity than Venus has to offer, as well as Venus giving 65 kg/
m3 buoyancy near ground level (better yet while cruising within the
somewhat cooler and heavier season of nighttime).
You will also need to realize that such fused basalt, silica/quartz or
especially those of carbonado/diamond glass spheres would be nearly
uncrushable in this composite application. You should also realize
that such hollow spheres (say 10 mm +/-50% diameters) can easily
(depending on the external filler or binders) displace 67% of any
given structural cubic volume, and the smaller those spheres the
tougher and/or more crush resistant they get.
You do realize that high temperature rated composite worthy materials
such as silica AeroGel that weigh hardly anything and don’t easily
melt have existed for quite some time, and could be utilized as a
filler or binder on behalf of creating structural geometries utilizing
such hollow glass spheres filled with 0.1 bar H2 that’s worth 9 mg/m3
at ST(0.1 P) right here on Earth.
You do realize that a structural composite of such hollow glass
spheres and fully enclosed as offering a given block or unit of
whatever geometric waffle structure could actually weigh as little as
60 kg/m3, though even 120 kg/m3 would certainly not be a bad thing
considering a solid m3 of aluminum on Venus weighs 2378 kg (roughly 20
fold greater).
If you’d like having an outer tough skin or clad of titanium alloy
that’s worth 4.48~4.51 g/cm3 on Earth or 4 g/cm3 on Venus, when
applied to this composite rigid airship you still need to realize
there’s absolutely no shortage or deficiency of any airship reserve
buoyancy. A titanium alloy (Ti-5Al-2.5Sn or even a pure grade 4) clad
of 2.5 mm thick is only adding 10 kg/m2. (btw; our moon likely has
teratonnes of raw titanium just laying on that naked deck, and there’s
no good reason to believe the unusually high metallicity of Venus is
titanium deficient)
I’ve recalculated the honeycomb hull as with an outer titanium clad
being worth 81 kg/m3.
Actually I’d forgotten that even a solid block of aluminum or titanium
alloy not only weighs but 90.5%, but that volume also has the -65 kg/
m3 buoyancy advantage, plus whatever the 67% displacement of our
hollow glass spheres can manage to reduce the raw volumetric composite
mass. Whereas having the substantial bulk of our airship hull as a
structural rigid composite shell that also reasonably insulates and
weighs roughly 83 kg/m3 (including the 2.94 kg/m3 of hydrogen within
the 50% honeycomb is worth 1.47 +81 = 82.47 kg/m3) while parked on the
surface of Venus, means that we can have ourselves a very large and
massive composite rigid airship that’s incredibly tough, hardly weighs
anything empty, and really not even all that much extra mass once
fully outfitted and literally gassed up. In yet another recalculated
analogy way of looking at this, we are talking about a finished
honeycomb composite outer shell/hull of average density being worth
perhaps 83 kg/m2 once everything is taken into account, and it can
take a lot of thermal punishment as well as deal with most everything
else.
105e3 m2 of exterior surface that is worth 83 kg/m2: 8.715e6 kg
Giving infrastructure and outfitting lots to work with: 4.285e6 kg
Obviously the primary internal skeletal framing and the considerable
grids of internal trusses and expanded metal beams is going to have at
most the titanium maximum density of 4 g/cm3 (though typically
expanded and otherwise shaped or formed so as offering an average
structural volumetric density of never exceeding 1 g/cm3, and
otherwise stamped and/or expanded so as to representing tough
geometries worth as little as 100 kg per structurally shaped m3, so
that’s certainly not going to sink this rigid airship that’s offering
an internal usable gas volume of 1.5e6 m3 for accommodating mostly H2,
that even while parked on that toasty surface and everything
compressed (inside and out) at 96 bar isn’t going to make all that
toasty H2 weigh but 2.94 kg/m3, which still gives us 62 kg/m3 of
buoyancy to work with, so we can obviously afford to apply a great
deal of structural inert outer shell plus considerable internal
infrastructure mass, with loads of systems outfitting and perhaps
accommodate 100+ crew with ample provisions to burn, so to speak.
You do realize that an outer finish layer of either foamed glass or
ceramic tiles isn’t an unproven method of further protecting our
enormous airship/shuttle craft from its initial reentry heat. Such
reentry protection by way of adding a layer of disposable ceramic
tiles that shouldn’t have to exceed 125 kg/m3 at Venus gravity/
density, is of course necessary in order to protect our very large
composite hull that’s only rated up to 1000 K (1800 K if titanium
clad), but again at perhaps an average of 5 cm tile thickness is only
adding another 6.5 kg/m2 including whatever binders, so even at a
gross outer hull/shell density of 89.5 kg/m3 there’s just not going to
be enough volume of that porous/foamed ceramic mass applied in order
to sink this airship, not even if you’d care to double that all-
inclusive composite density, because in that Venus soup of thick and
dense atmosphere and 90.5% gravity, it seems we could float an iron
clad armored battleship.
Worse case as fully outfitted, I’m thinking this composite airship
could manage to lift 80e3 tonnes worth of payload off the deck without
off-loading or pulling any vacuum (that’s the same as picking up
88.5e3 tonnes worth of payload mass on Earth). Of course as this kind
of torpedo looking airship gains altitude and cools off it loses lift
capacity, but that’s certainly not a show stopper either, because the
lifting gas also loses density, not to mention consumed fuels and
whatever else can be tossed or vacuumed out. The H2 density alone
will change from 2.94 kg/m3 down to less than .01 kg/m3 (that’s like
having lost 4.4e3 tonnes of inert mass at the altitude of 65 km, and
not that in interior of this well insulated airship interior would
ever get that 243 K frozen by day or cryogenic cold by night).
You do realize that such an actively evolving planet like Venus has no
apparent shortages of raw elements for terrific metallicity as well as
oxygen, water and creating fuels for direct thermal combustion or via
fission reactions, not to mention William Mook’s nifty fusion
alternatives.
You do realize that by way of having a cool outpost/gateway situated
at Venus L2 would be a whole lot simpler and way better OASIS kind of
mission logistics than anything our ISS or its replacement could
possibly represent.
You do further realize that with sufficient propulsion and minimal
payload is where this airship/shuttle could manage to climb and cruse
well enough above those acidic clouds, as possibly 75 km where it’s
seriously cryogenic cold by night or even 218 K frozen to death by day
(as well as nighttime cool enough all the way down to 50 km as being
within them wet acidic clouds).
You do realize that exiting Venus from a starting elevation of 75+ km
and perhaps 1 km/sec isn’t all that insurmountable (there’s actually a
layer of O2 somewhat above 90 km), and by no means does the whole
monstrous thing have to leave, because they’d just need a small
shuttle craft in order to get safely back out to Venus L2.
Just because structural worthy insulation materials are not currently
available at your local WalMart or Sears, doesn't mean they can't be
developed and specifically made for this application. The actual raw
hollow spheres filled with 0.1 bar of H2 can manage to deliver a
thermo isolation value of .0009765 w/K/m/hr (that’s allowing less than
1 mw/K/m/hr), and perhaps the full composite might represent as little
as 0.1 w/k/m/hr.
Basalt or silica glass spheres as filled with H2 at perhaps not more
than 0.1 bar (1.47 psi) seems kind of engineering duh-101, at least it
seems perfectly simple enough to little old me that such hollow glass
spheres are not going to transfer all that much heat. Obviously you
and most others seem to have no way of knowing or figuring out what
the crush factor is, much less the R-factor per applied meter, only
because these composites are not sold at WalMart or Sears. 3M and
several others as millimeter and micro-sphere providers actually have
some good information on the web about their hollow glass spheres, but
that means you have to know how to read or at least having someone
else reading and explaining it for you.
In other words, it seems that our resident naysay and perpetual denial
FUD-masters as supposedly smarter than all the rest of us combined, as
well as seemingly first-hand experienced at most everything and
otherwise all-knowing about most everything imaginable, whereas it
seems they really can't seem to figure out how to go about making any
such composite rigid airship. How about instead, do any of you
wizards happen to know of anyone that could?
This is not suggesting that any such composite rigid airship-shuttle
intended for Venus is ever going to be easy or cheap, because it’ll
likely take a decade by the time we get it there and it’ll cost us
almost a tenth as much as going after OBL all of those Muslim WMD.
http://costofwar.com/en/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629
http://news.yahoo.com/u-cost-war-least-3-7-trillion-counting-110411362.html
Taking true energy consumption of our military industrial complex
plus logistics, actual operations and the global energy inflation into
account could easily double or even triple that for representing the
all-inclusive global cost of war. (just saying how totally screwed we
are, and notice how that “cost of war” for only America puts a zero
value upon all the carnage of the mostly innocent in addition to our
guys that haven’t exactly faired nearly as well as expected, as well
as the global inflation impact which hasn’t been factored in). But at
this late point of no return, who’s really counting?
Btw; this next part is obviously exaggerating a wee bit, because
there’s no way hydrocarbons are going to last another thousand years.
Over the next millennium as our hydrocarbon resources are depleted and/
or becoming too spendy even for the Rothschilds, how many all-
inclusive trillions upon trillions of dollars (that's at least $1e24)
do you think an extremely nearby planet that’s absolutely loaded with
all sorts of nifty and easily accessible metallicity elements as well
as offering its very own cache of local energy that’s renewable or in
terrific surplus (Venus simply having way more than its fair share),
is actually going to be worth to the rest of us? (or do you brainless
mainstream idiots and old farts still think Venus is merely a
worthless pile of hot rocks?)
What is it about this extremely nearby planet Venus that is supposedly
lacking in raw elements or in rare or essential element value?
(certainly not lacking water unless you still think those thick acidic
clouds are merely of inert crystal dry dust)
Of course we can always keep screwing around with blowing our time,
resources and hard earned loot on the likes of Mars, Ceres and of
course further out where there’s no technological advantage or hope of
ever naturally sustaining our kind of complex life without bringing
most of everything along with us, as well as zilch possibility of ever
bringing anything of sufficient value back home. Just saying, even if
those other worlds or moons offered raw platinum and gold just laying
in pure form all over their surface, who the hell can afford to pay
millions per kg? (not to mention that most all of such payments would
have to get forked over to the most wealthy and powerful individuals,
which you’d think might tend to bother some of us)
Venus on the other hand could turn out being another private venture
capital kind of terrific gold rush, plus offering multiple other
precious elements as free-for-all treasure hunts, unless those pesky
locals object (in which case we can always accuse them of having WMD,
and proceed to kick their ET butts until they get out of our way)
Of course all the usual mainstream FUD-masters and predictable
naysayers are going to insist that the regular laws of physics simply
do not apply to the planet Venus, and of materials suited for much
higher temperatures here on good old Earth simply can’t be applied for
anything Venus related. So perhaps you can understand as to why I
tend to return the favor with all the love and affection I can muster.
It seems they (our mainstream status-quo peers) keep insisting that
it’s always hot enough to melt lead, and actually it’s way more than
hot enough to melt tin, but why on Earth or especially on Venus would
anything about the composite rigid airship involve either lead or tin?
(at worse using aluminum isn’t going to melt below 933K, although
conventional titanium alloys are good for 1933 K)
Btw; heat without hardly any o2 and darn little surface h2o makes
almost any wei9rd environment (hot or cold and no matters how
potentially toxic) kind of passive or inert. So, I still don’t get
the gist of why these folks that usually claim being so all-knowing
and first hand expertise at most everything (yet still having to
pretend at who they really are and of what they’ve actually
accomplished) can’t manage to deal with any of this Venus stuff
without blowing their closed mindset gaskets and breaking wind, and as
though no other soul on Earth is even half as smart as they are.
(being that they’re always so smart, I kinda wonder how the hell they
managed to let the nation down so badly)
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
Aug 4, 2011, 10:27:34 AM8/4/11
to Guth Usenet (public but censored)
> http://news.yahoo.com/u-cost-war-least-3-7-trillion-counting-11041136...
intended, but at times he does manage to connect a few of those
science, engineering and physics dots, and then he starts to
deductively rethink in a positive/constructive kind of investigative
way. However, in order for anything to ever mind-set click with Mook,
he pretty much has to discover it for himself, because it usually
doesn’t matter what others have investigated, having to say or however
they manage to deductively think and interpret is simply not worth
anything unless it was all about his idea to start with. But that’s
still okay along as those same laws of physics and the best available
science can be fairly applied on my behalf.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/2857e861f580aee1?scoring=d&
On Jul 21, 5:34 am, William Mook <mokmedi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right, what Guth says about Venus airships has some merit.
http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/tasks/taskImage.cfm?TaskID=96&tdaID=...
http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/2009/01/asrg-missions-venus-balloon...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16797-nasa-may-send-fleet-of-sp...
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=35987
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/231/4744/1407.abstract
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega_program
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117700000648
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:oaKyshb-0eYJ:www.lpi.usra.e...
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DfMps_ZQ7WEJ:www.planetaryp...
http://blog.spacefiles.com/2007/10/im-really-fond-of-using-balloons-f...
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:dJZY3xT0rZcJ:www.dept.aoe.v...
http://www.space.com/8398-robot-blimps-soar-worlds.html
Yes in deed, and nowadays there's actually quite a bit of improved
science and modern technological opportunity to help us fully exploit
that Venusian atmosphere for its terrific buoyancy and calm retrograde
flowing environment that's so nicely protected below them thick and
robust acidic wet clouds that happen to contain many teratonnes of
good old fashioned water that’s actually quite easy to distill out.
Obviously the likes of our resident bogus contributors such as FUD-
masters HVAC, BDK, Hagar and always their pretend-Atheist rabbi Saul
Levy that always has to kosher fart his way to the top, along with any
number of other systemic brown-nosed clowns and serial pervasive
minions of their GOP/ZNR redneck Mafia and insider cabal of morons,
that always claim to know absolutely everything there is to know about
damn near everything, are not taking any of this serious about “Guth
Venus” or Venus Airship” without a good fight to the death of us all.
Of course they have each acted/reacted the same way about utilizing
our moon or even that of its L1 (aka Selene L1), as well as always
naysay about others interpreting anything of their mainstream status-
quo history the least bit differently than approved by their insider
restricted cabal that also tells our government whatever they can or
can not do.
This is not to say that anything about creating a substantial rigid
composite airship as including a shuttle platform application for
accommodating humans exploring Venus is ever going to be all that
simple or cheap, because it’ll cost less than 10% as much as 9/11 and
going after OBL and those Muslim WMD, and about half the time.
However, with applied physics and reasonable expertise is where
creating such an airship/shuttle combo for getting safely into and
later away from Venus without having to roast ourselves to death, is
conceivably doable. Fortunately for us, the planet Venus is always
passing within 100 LD every 19 months, so that’s really kind of
nearby.
Of course it would certainly be rather nice having a truly zero-delta-
V OASIS outpost/gateway for the final assembly and supplying of our
large airship/shuttle, such as applying the disposable reentry heat
shield while utilizing our Earth-moon L1 or even the much cooler and
less gamma radiated Venus L2 would have been absolutely terrific.
Otherwise we can always stick with deploying those Mook miniatures
that'll efficiently float and even effectively navigate below them
clouds, even going down to the surface as operating nearly
indefinitely and at a very low unit cost, gathering terrific images
with as much resolution as anyone could ever desire, and with their
gamma spectrometry is how the entire inventory of surface metallicity
can be mapped and quantified down to a few meters resolution, along
with all those live and/or active geothermal gasses easily identified
(similar to our foiled OCO mission).
The option of sending any number of fully robotic and remote piloted
airships into and cruising well below them thick and acidic clouds
really isn't all that tricky or spendy, along with a Magellan-2.0 SAR
mapping satellite capable of obtaining better than 10 meter
resolution, as well as providing the mother-ship or microwave
transponder node for accommodating the science data streams from all
the small probes flying below them clouds would seem perfectly
logical. However, this could mean that our dysfunctional NASA would
have to admit to any number of embarrassing things withheld about the
planet Venus, and perhaps their insider cabal of our public-funded
NASA and DARPA simply can't allow such honesty regardless of the short
or long term consequences.
Btw, the “alt.astronomy” likes of our warm and fuzzy HVAC, BDK, Hagar
and their pretend-Atheist rabbi Saul Levy are perhaps unflyable,
mostly because of their unusually fat asses and worthless redneck
brain mass would simply fall way short of all norms for mission safety
standards, just like FUD-masters couldn’t possibly manage to fly in
water or even float nor much less survive in water regardless of the
best physics and technology applied, because no matters what they’d
only sink like a rock. Perhaps that’s why their pathetic tactic of
topic/author stalking and topic hijacking into unrelated newsgroups is
kind of their usual FUD-master policy of their faith-based public
media damage-control, because they really have nothing else to
constructively contribute (not that they’d ever try being on-topic and
purely constructive, because that’s obviously not their job).
However, others with something positive or constructive to share about
any of this are not going to be on the receiving end of any of my
loose cannons, that is unless you want to pick a fight over religion
or politics to begin with.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages