Venus Airships / by Brad Guth

[BradGuth]

Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
excluded for this rigid airship configuration.

For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
airship.

Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
and nasty acidic clouds.

Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see
(depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).

Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
terrestrial 5:1.

In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).

There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
landing skids (just in case).

Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
clouds (80~85 km by day) .

This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.

In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
systems and main propulsion.

Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.

Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.

Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
accomplishing those Venus expeditions.

Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html

Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
and Geoffrey A. Landis
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
especially since much of their airship application is operated within
a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.

This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
bashing for all they can muster.
. – Brad Guth

[LIBERATOR[_2_]]

On May 4, 2:31*pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> reinforced balloon. *Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> rather toasty dry and calm environment. *Think of this application as
> a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> airship.
>
> Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see
> (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. *It’s
> somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> terrestrial 5:1.
>
> In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> landing skids (just in case).
>
> Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> systems and main propulsion.
>
> Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of *roughly
> 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise *to the
> geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> science. *This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> *http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> and Geoffrey A. Landis
> *http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> *This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> contributed their honest expertise. *In other words, I’m not the bad
> guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> bashing for all they can muster.
> . – Brad Guth

Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk or www.disclosureproject.org

[BradGuth]

On May 5, 12:34 am, LIBERATOR > wrote:
>
> Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUkorwww.disclosureproject.org

Thanks to our popular mainstream media that'll publish and/or exclude
whatever they're told by those in charge, and otherwise by that of our
"no child left behind" policy, I didn't here a darn thing about it,
and Usenet/Groups certainly didn't make much if anything of it.
(wonder why)

Besides the fact that ETs do exist, and that it's quite likely they
have also existed/coexisted on Venus (because that's technically
doable), what if anything of this "Disclosure Project" doings had
anything whatsoever to do with any composite rigid airship, as
intended for cruising Venus?

In other words, why did you fail to grasp the meaning or intent of
this topic "Venus Airships"?
.. - Brad Guth

[Hagar]

"BradGuth" > wrote in message
...
Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
excluded for this rigid airship configuration.

> snip drivel <
And, pray tell Brad, where would the above ship be manufactured ? On the
surface of Venus, you say? I don't think so. Oh, I see ... you'd build it
on Mars and then have the Acme Intergalactic Airship Towing Company move it
to Venus and insert it into the proper orbit.
Good plan, Brad. Keep up the fine work.
Ed Conrad wants to talk to you .... something about an ossified brain ...

[BradGuth]

On May 5, 7:25 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
> "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > snip drivel <
>
> And, pray tell Brad, where would the above ship be manufactured ?
> On the surface of Venus, you say? I don't think so. Oh, I see ... you'd
> build it on Mars and then have the Acme Intergalactic Airship Towing
> Company move it to Venus and insert it into the proper orbit.
> Good plan,Brad. Keep up the fine work.
> Ed Conrad wants to talk to you .... something about an ossified brain ...

Dear "snip drivel",
Most certainly not in your backyard, or by way of any of your "snip
drivel" certified friends. It seems your profound nayism and lack of
constructive contributions to this or for that matter of most any
topic is equal to none other than whatever DARPA expects of their
brown-nosed minions. As such, your warm and fuzzy services are no
longer needed, especially since you show no honest signs of being the
least bit qualified or even knowing of those qualified in rigid
airship R&D. Did I miss anything?

In other words, you and others of your disinformation spewing kind are
either bogus to start with or totally dumbfounded past the point of no
return, and as such you each need those DARPA instructions as to wipe
your butt or blow your nose, not that you'd know one such brownish
hole from another.

If you had anything on-topic and constructive to say, you'd have said
it.

BTW, of where this rigid and mostly composite airship is created is
immaterial, and of how it gets deployed to Venus and through those
robust acidic clouds is apparently outside your best expertise,
because if you were the least bit human, as such you would have shared
a little something for accomplishing that aspect.

In case you somehow misunderstood the intent of this topic, there's no
required airship orbit, other than aligned for the rather bumpy
reentry of getting this rigid airship down to the initial 50 km,
before descending to its nominal 25 km (+/- 5 km) intended cruising
altitude. Possibly something as halo station-keeping within Venus L2
might be required for the data relay or mission transponder in
addition to whatever's left in orbit upon having released the airship
for its extended expedition of cruising below them thick clouds.
. - Brad Guth

[Hagar[_2_]]

"BradGuth" > wrote in message
...
On May 5, 7:25 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
> "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > snip drivel <
>
> And, pray tell Brad, where would the above ship be manufactured ?
> On the surface of Venus, you say? I don't think so. Oh, I see ... you'd
> build it on Mars and then have the Acme Intergalactic Airship Towing
> Company move it to Venus and insert it into the proper orbit.
> Good plan,Brad. Keep up the fine work.
> Ed Conrad wants to talk to you .... something about an ossified brain ...

Dear "snip drivel",
Most certainly not in your backyard, or by way of any of your "snip
drivel" certified friends. It seems your profound nayism and lack of
constructive contributions to this or for that matter of most any
topic is equal to none other than whatever DARPA expects of their
brown-nosed minions. As such, your warm and fuzzy services are no
longer needed, especially since you show no honest signs of being the
least bit qualified or even knowing of those qualified in rigid
airship R&D. Did I miss anything?


Yea, you dumb ****, you didn't answer my question, which is:
Where will you build them and how will you get them into the
atmosphere of Venus. A straight forward question, to which
you obviously do not have an answer, you loon.

Considering the sulphuric content of said atmosphere (minor detail),
what materials of construction were you going to use ?? No generalities
please, since that seems to be your forte.
do you plan to use?? Titanium you say, holy moley, it'll drop like a rock

[BradGuth]

On May 5, 6:32 pm, "Hagar" > wrote:
> "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On May 5, 7:25 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> > darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> > an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> > excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > > snip drivel <
>
> > And, pray tell Brad, where would the above ship be manufactured ?
> > On the surface of Venus, you say? I don't think so. Oh, I see ... you'd
> > build it on Mars and then have the Acme Intergalactic Airship Towing
> > Company move it to Venus and insert it into the proper orbit.
> > Good plan,Brad. Keep up the fine work.
> > Ed Conrad wants to talk to you .... something about an ossified brain ....
>
> Dear "snip drivel",
> Most certainly not in your backyard, or by way of any of your "snip
> drivel" certified friends. It seems your profound nayism and lack of
> constructive contributions to this or for that matter of most any
> topic is equal to none other than whatever DARPA expects of their
> brown-nosed minions. As such, your warm and fuzzy services are no
> longer needed, especially since you show no honest signs of being the
> least bit qualified or even knowing of those qualified in rigid
> airship R&D. Did I miss anything?
>
> Yea, you dumb ****, you didn't answer my question, which is:
> Where will you build them and how will you get them into the
> atmosphere of Venus. A straight forward question, to which
> you obviously do not have an answer, you loon.
>
> Considering the sulphuric content of said atmosphere (minor detail),
> what materials of construction were you going to use ?? No generalities
> please, since that seems to be your forte.
> do you plan to use?? Titanium you say, holy moley, it'll drop like a rock

If I were put in charge, the last kind of folks I'd have on this team
are those continually spouting off with those naysay loaded questions
that usually have nothing whatsoever to do with the R&D phase, such as
where it's going to be built and for those methods of getting this
airship safely deployed below them Venus clouds is entirely another
can of worms, much like yourself.

Since I’m unlike most in Usenet/Groups, whereas I'm not all-knowing
nor otherwise a crack wizard at everything is perhaps why I've merely
posted this topic as a worthy idea, with allowances for design
variations and methods that'll take kindly to the toasty environment
of Venus. Silly me for thinking your supposed expertise and better
numbers would ever help further this topic along.

In case you’re still interested, I'm assuming we'd start at something
of a 1/10th scaled down prototype. However, at 50 km by season of
nighttime is potentially freezing, as well as getting some of that
acidic haze as fallout from those thick clouds, and that's why
cruising at 25 km by night seems likely.

BTW, your comment “Titanium you say, holy moley, it'll drop like a
rock” is proof-positive that you have no idea what airship buoyancy
Venus has to offer. A relatively thin outer shell of titanium is not
a mission killer, although tough and high temperature certified
composites as rated for reentry trauma shouldn’t be all that
unlikely. Why don’t you suggest whatever makes Hagar a happy camper.
. – Brad Guth

[BradGuth]

In the simplest form, a sphere within a sphere is perfectly capable of
becoming a rigid airship, of sustaining the most pressure or vacuum
per any given form. Think of this rigid airship as a series of such
spheres aligned and interconnected as to forming this otherwise blimp
like airship.

A 100 meter outer sphere of 5.236e5 m3, having a 0.1 m thick composite
hull offers an internal volumetric sphere of 99.8 meters, for a gross
internal volume of 5.2046e5 m3.

If we use 2.5 kg/m3 as the nighttime buoyancy of what’s roughly
available at 45~50 km

5.236 * 2.5 = 13.09e5 kg gross buoyancy

If the volume worth of this shell/hull being .0314e5 m3, and if this
composite hull required 100 kg/m3 = 3.14e5 kg

13.09e5 – 3.14e5 = 9.95e5 kg as the net buoyancy (- infrastructure)

Obviously 995 tonnes leaves us with a sufficient amount of buoyancy
per sphere, as capacity for accommodating internal infrastructure and
matters of displacing this interior with hydrogen, or that of merely
pulling a vacuum, and otherwise incorporating all of the necessary
systems for airship management, including those insulated and heat
exchanged compartments of science instruments.

The external CO2 itself becomes the ballast whenever necessary. In
other words, without intentionally doing so, there’s no way in hell
(so to literally speak) of this rigid airship ever falling out of that
Venusian sky, as the buoyancy increases to 65+ kg/m3 before coming in
contact with that geothermally heated surface, and greater yet as you
head down into the low lands or basins of Venus where it’s really hot.

At 1/10th scale, utilizing a 10 meter sphere we’re looking at 9.95
tonnes, so obviously doable though bigger is defiantly better, and of
cruising at 25 km instead of the initial 50 km is going to drastically
increase that buoyancy, as well as keeping this airship entirely
within the crystal dry S8 and CO2 atmosphere of what’s becoming
somewhat toasty but otherwise without h2o it’s not the least bit
acidic unless parked over some nasty geothermal steaming vent.

Fortunately, if the crew in remote operation of this otherwise robotic
airship were station-keeping within their cool POOF City of Venus L2,
means the control management loop isn’t but a few seconds, not that
any such POOF City need be the case, even though it would be rather
nice. Otherwise via terrestrial command, we’re talking of minutes to
hours per command loop due to the great amount of difference in range
from Earth. However, being this is an airship that’s going nowhere
all that fast, and it isn’t going to bump into or otherwise fall into
anything unexpected, at least other than encountering VHS(Venus
Homeland Security) forces, means that whatever command loop delay
isn’t all that important.
. – Brad Guth


On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> airship.
>
> Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see
> (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> terrestrial 5:1.
>
> In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> landing skids (just in case).
>
> Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> systems and main propulsion.
>
> Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
> geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> and Geoffrey A. Landis
> http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> bashing for all they can muster.
> . –BradGuth

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

LIBERATOR > wrote in news:60fd3bdd-ede0-4c06-8e82-
:

> On May 4, 2:31*pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
>> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
>> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
>> reinforced balloon. *Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
>> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
>> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>>
>> For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
>> rather toasty dry and calm environment. *Think of this application as
>> a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small
or
>> as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
>> for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting
or
>> even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
>> 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good
sized
>> airship.
>>
>> Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
>> nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
>> terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
>> fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
>> because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that
geothermal
>> radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime
season,
>> and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise
thick
>> and nasty acidic clouds.
>>
>> Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
>> per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
>> capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
>> operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
>> below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
>> atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see
>> (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>>
>> Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
>> robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. *It’s
>> somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
>> composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
>> terrestrial 5:1.
>>
>> In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
>> that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
>> being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
>> mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement
or
>> that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
>> proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
>> this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>>
>> There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
>> for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
>> exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
>> landing skids (just in case).
>>
>> Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
>> diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully
rotatable
>> thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
>> main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as
forward/
>> reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
>> need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
>> considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
>> striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
>> essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
>> clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>>
>> This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
>> flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
>> cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
>> having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
>> with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
>> considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>>
>> In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
>> there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough
to
>> melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
>> utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
>> systems and main propulsion.
>>
>> Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
>> insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
>> that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of *roughly
>> 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise *to the
>> geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
>> becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>>
>> Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic
is
>> not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
>> prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
>> OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
>> Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
>> doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
>> land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight
configured
>> version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
>> the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
>> periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>>
>> Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
>> expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
>> laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
>> science. *This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every publishe
> d
>> word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
>> demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
>> that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
>> accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>>
>> Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
>> *http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>>
>> Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
>> and Geoffrey A. Landis
>> *http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
>> *This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
>> insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
>> doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
>> behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
>> nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
>> especially since much of their airship application is operated within
>> a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>>
>> This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
>> alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating
viable
>> alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those
having
>> contributed their honest expertise. *In other words, I’m not the bad
>> guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
>> motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
>> bashing for all they can muster.
>> . – Brad Guth
>
> Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk or
www.disclosureproject.org
>

Hey Libby! How's thngs at the Bates motel?


Bertie

[mariposas rand mair fheal]

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> LIBERATOR > wrote in news:60fd3bdd-ede0-4c06-8e82-
> :
>
> > On May 4, 2:31*pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> >> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> >> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> >> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> >> reinforced balloon. *Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> >> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> >> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
> >>
> >> For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> >> rather toasty dry and calm environment. *Think of this application as
> >> a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small
> or
> >> as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> >> for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting
> or
> >> even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> >> 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good
> sized
> >> airship.
> >>
> >> Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> >> nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> >> terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> >> fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> >> because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that
> geothermal
> >> radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime
> season,
> >> and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise
> thick
> >> and nasty acidic clouds.
> >>
> >> Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> >> per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> >> capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> >> operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> >> below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> >> atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see
> >> (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
> >>
> >> Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> >> robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. *It’s
> >> somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> >> composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> >> terrestrial 5:1.
> >>
> >> In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> >> that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> >> being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> >> mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement
> or
> >> that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> >> proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> >> this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
> >>
> >> There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> >> for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> >> exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> >> landing skids (just in case).
> >>
> >> Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> >> diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully
> rotatable
> >> thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> >> main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as
> forward/
> >> reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> >> need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> >> considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> >> striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> >> essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> >> clouds (80~85 km by day) .
> >>
> >> This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> >> flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> >> cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> >> having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> >> with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> >> considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
> >>
> >> In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> >> there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough
> to
> >> melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> >> utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> >> systems and main propulsion.
> >>
> >> Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> >> insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> >> that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of *roughly
> >> 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise *to the
> >> geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> >> becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
> >>
> >> Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic
> is
> >> not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> >> prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> >> OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> >> Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> >> doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> >> land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight
> configured
> >> version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> >> the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> >> periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
> >>
> >> Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> >> expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> >> laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> >> science. *This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every publishe
> > d
> >> word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> >> demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> >> that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> >> accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
> >>
> >> Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> >> *http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
> >>
> >> Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> >> and Geoffrey A. Landis
> >> *http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> >> *This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> >> insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> >> doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> >> behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> >> nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> >> especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> >> a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
> >>
> >> This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> >> alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating
> viable
> >> alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those
> having
> >> contributed their honest expertise. *In other words, I’m not the bad
> >> guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> >> motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> >> bashing for all they can muster.
> >> . – Brad Guth
> >
> > Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk or
> www.disclosureproject.org
> >
>
> Hey Libby! How's thngs at the Bates motel?

does this havce anything to do withg the late great bodes sunspot

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple

[Hagar]

"BradGuth" > wrote in message
...
On May 5, 6:32 pm, "Hagar" > wrote:
> "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On May 5, 7:25 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BradGuth" > wrote in message

> snip floating airbag <

> Why don’t you suggest whatever makes Hagar a happy camper.
.. – Brad Guth

OK, Brad, I would like to see big gigantic ****ing gondolas, like those in
Venice, only 100 times larger. We could hire genuine Wap gondoliers to
operate huge foam rubber paddles to propel us through the acidic vapor. A
1/4 inch cover of old fashioned axle grease should suffice for protection
from the Sun and some old WWII Kraut helmets for protection against any
other debris floating around. Some bagpipes for background music would be
nice. Marshmallows could be toasted by merely hanging them over the edge for
about 5 seconds.

See, I'm with you all the way on this. So, Heavens to Murgatroyd, let's get
cracking on the design of this ever so futuristic venture.

[BradGuth]

On May 6, 2:25 pm, "Hagar" > wrote:
> "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On May 5, 6:32 pm, "Hagar" > wrote:
>
> > "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > On May 5, 7:25 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
>
> > > "BradGuth" > wrote in message
> > snip floating airbag <
> > Why don’t you suggest whatever makes Hagar a happy camper.
>
> . – Brad Guth
>
> OK, Brad, I would like to see big gigantic ****ing gondolas, like those in
> Venice, only 100 times larger. We could hire genuine Wap gondoliers to
> operate huge foam rubber paddles to propel us through the acidic vapor. A
> 1/4 inch cover of old fashioned axle grease should suffice for protection
> from the Sun and some old WWII Kraut helmets for protection against any
> other debris floating around. Some bagpipes for background music would be
> nice. Marshmallows could be toasted by merely hanging them over the edge for
> about 5 seconds.

5 seconds might even be good enough to defrost a frozen pizza, that is
if you'd landed where it's 735 K or better. Otherwise, at 50 km and
within the season of nighttime it's kind of cool outside, and even by
their season of day it's just getting nicely desert like warm and
relatively crystal dry.

>
> See, I'm with you all the way on this. So, Heavens to Murgatroyd, let's get
> cracking on the design of this ever so futuristic venture.

Let us start off with the outer shell or composite hull, though not
hardly so futuristic because, I believe most everything necessary has
already been invented. We just have to carefully select from any
number of viable options.

If really big or even aerodynamically sleek and unified blimp like
isn't an option, then how about using 5 spheres of 10 meters diameter
each for creating this 50 meter long prototype of our robotic
airship. With some careful reductions in its inert mass, a fully
terrestrial capable version (similar to a 60~65 km Venus application)
should be doable, especially since modern electrical and electronic
technology has gotten so much more energy efficient and micro in size,
as well as representing hardly any payload mass.
. - Brad Guth

[LIBERATOR[_3_]]

On May 5, 7:19*am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On May 5, 12:34 am, LIBERATOR > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUkorwww.disclosureproject.org
>
> Thanks to our popular mainstream media that'll publish and/or exclude
> whatever they're told by those in charge, and otherwise by that of our
> "no child left behind" policy, I didn't here a darn thing about it,
> and Usenet/Groups certainly didn't make much if anything of it.
> (wonder why)
>
> Besides the fact that ETs do exist, and that it's quite likely they
> have also existed/coexisted on Venus (because that's technically
> doable), what if anything of this "Disclosure Project" doings had
> anything whatsoever to do with any composite rigid airship, as
> intended for cruising Venus?
>
> In other words, why did you fail to grasp the meaning or intent of
> this topic "Venus Airships"?
> . - Brad Guth

I found that it's semi-truthful, they're lying purposefully leaning
that "yeah UFOs exist, but they're not by man they're by space
monsters". We all know the NAZIs under Hitler invented UFOs, and
because Hitler eliminating debt they don't want the culture to be
discovered, so they have to use extraterrestrials, or rather "space
monsters" to be the originating source of UFOs.

We all know NASA has them and they're way beyond the speed of light.
www.greyfalcon.us

Brad please review this book completely, I bought it before knowing it
was online, you can save yourself $20.00
http://www.missilegate.com/rfz/index2.htm

It's solid fact that the NAZIs invented UFOs.

[BradGuth]

On May 6, 5:52 pm, LIBERATOR > wrote:
> On May 5, 7:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
> > On May 5, 12:34 am, LIBERATOR > wrote:
>
> > > Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUkorwww.disclosureproject.org
>
> > Thanks to our popular mainstream media that'll publish and/or exclude
> > whatever they're told by those in charge, and otherwise by that of our
> > "no child left behind" policy, I didn't here a darn thing about it,
> > and Usenet/Groups certainly didn't make much if anything of it.
> > (wonder why)
>
> > Besides the fact that ETs do exist, and that it's quite likely they
> > have also existed/coexisted on Venus (because that's technically
> > doable), what if anything of this "Disclosure Project" doings had
> > anything whatsoever to do with any composite rigid airship, as
> > intended for cruising Venus?
>
> > In other words, why did you fail to grasp the meaning or intent of
> > this topic "Venus Airships"?
> > . - Brad Guth
>
> I found that it's semi-truthful, they're lying purposefully leaning
> that "yeah UFOs exist, but they're not by man they're by space
> monsters". We all know the NAZIs under Hitler invented UFOs, and
> because Hitler eliminating debt they don't want the culture to be
> discovered, so they have to use extraterrestrials, or rather "space
> monsters" to be the originating source of UFOs.
>
> We all know NASA has them and they're way beyond the speed of light.www.greyfalcon.us
>
> Brad please review this book completely, I bought it before knowing it
> was online, you can save yourself $20.00http://www.missilegate.com/rfz/index2.htm
>
> It's solid fact that the NAZIs invented UFOs.

I have few doubts that Hitler's private cache of Zionist NAZI wizards
of physics and science most likely did accomplish something UFO disk
like as a terrestrial/atmospheric aircraft, perhaps of technology
assisted along by some ET encounter. However, interplanetary or much
less of any light speed craft is not part of the package deal.

I'm also fairly certain that DARPA has obtained access to more than
one for-real ET UFO, though doubtful as flyable/operational.
.. - Brad Guth

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

mariposas rand mair fheal > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> LIBERATOR > wrote in news:60fd3bdd-ede0-4c06-8e82-
>> :
>>
>> > On May 4, 2:31*pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>> >> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is
actually a
>> >> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as
to
>> >> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
>> >> reinforced balloon. *Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
>> >> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
>> >> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>> >>
>> >> For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
>> >> rather toasty dry and calm environment. *Think of this application
as
>> >> a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a
small
>> or
>> >> as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently
aloft
>> >> for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while
drifting
>> or
>> >> even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less
than
>> >> 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good
>> sized
>> >> airship.
>> >>
>> >> Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
>> >> nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
>> >> terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s
actually
>> >> fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
>> >> because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that
>> geothermal
>> >> radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime
>> season,
>> >> and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise
>> thick
>> >> and nasty acidic clouds.
>> >>
>> >> Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t
change
>> >> per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
>> >> capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as
one
>> >> operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day
and
>> >> below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
>> >> atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can
see
>> >> (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>> >>
>> >> Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of
mostly
>> >> robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. *It’s
>> >> somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
>> >> composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
>> >> terrestrial 5:1.
>> >>
>> >> In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
>> >> that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components
area
>> >> being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not
to
>> >> mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas
displacement
>> or
>> >> that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that
acid
>> >> proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
>> >> this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>> >>
>> >> There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins,
used
>> >> for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
>> >> exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
>> >> landing skids (just in case).
>> >>
>> >> Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
>> >> diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully
>> rotatable
>> >> thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
>> >> main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as
>> forward/
>> >> reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100
m/s
>> >> need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or
nothing
>> >> considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
>> >> striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
>> >> essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
>> >> clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>> >>
>> >> This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
>> >> flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for
efficiently
>> >> cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern
when
>> >> having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
>> >> with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
>> >> considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>> >>
>> >> In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely
incorporated,
>> >> there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot
enough
>> to
>> >> melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
>> >> utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the
onboard
>> >> systems and main propulsion.
>> >>
>> >> Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
>> >> insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow
of
>> >> that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of
*roughly
>> >> 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise *to the
>> >> geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally
conductive
>> >> becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>> >>
>> >> Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this
topic
>> is
>> >> not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
>> >> prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our
trusty
>> >> OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging
unit.
>> >> Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that
really
>> >> doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have
to
>> >> land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight
>> configured
>> >> version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to
suit
>> >> the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
>> >> periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>> >>
>> >> Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of
his
>> >> expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
>> >> laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
>> >> science. *This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every
publishe
>> > d
>> >> word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
>> >> demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
>> >> that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively
about
>> >> accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>> >>
>> >> Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
>> >> *http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>> >>
>> >> Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J.
Colozza
>> >> and Geoffrey A. Landis
>> >> *http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
>> >> *This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
>> >> insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
>> >> doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly
on
>> >> behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
>> >> nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
>> >> especially since much of their airship application is operated
within
>> >> a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>> >>
>> >> This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
>> >> alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating
>> viable
>> >> alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those
>> having
>> >> contributed their honest expertise. *In other words, I’m not the
bad
>> >> guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having
ulterior
>> >> motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
>> >> bashing for all they can muster.
>> >> . – Brad Guth
>> >
>> > Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk or
>> www.disclosureproject.org
>> >
>>
>> Hey Libby! How's thngs at the Bates motel?
>
> does this havce anything to do withg the late great bodes sunspot


I don't think so, unless Libby's lunacy actually runs in an 11 year
cycle.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...

>
> I don't think so, unless Libby's lunacy actually runs in an 11 year
> cycle.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Finally a thread where you can actually fit in. Aren't you proud for
bringing this kind of intellect to RAP?

I'm sure I speak for everyone when I express how truly ungrateful we all
are.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:YyjUj.31815$KJ1.18900
@newsfe19.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> I don't think so, unless Libby's lunacy actually runs in an 11 year
>> cycle.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Finally a thread where you can actually fit in. Aren't you proud for
> bringing this kind of intellect to RAP?
>
> I'm sure I speak for everyone when I express how truly ungrateful we
all
> are.
>
>

Careful there, you'l injure yourself.


Bertie

[Phil J]

On May 6, 10:33*pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> I have few doubts that Hitler's private cache of Zionist NAZI wizards
> of physics and science most likely did accomplish something UFO disk
> like as a terrestrial/atmospheric aircraft, perhaps of technology
> assisted along by some ET encounter. *However, interplanetary or much
> less of any light speed craft is not part of the package deal.
>
> I'm also fairly certain that DARPA has obtained access to more than
> one for-real ET UFO, though doubtful as flyable/operational.
> . - Brad Guth

Big-eyed beans from Venus,
Don't let anything come between us.

Captain Beefheart

[BradGuth]

On May 8, 5:34 am, "Jeff Findley" > wrote:
> "ah" > wrote in message
>
> anews.com...
>
> > BradGuth wrote:
> > You are James Follet, AICMF
>
> Stop replying to Brad Guth's posts. At the very least, please learn how to
> trim the quote of his post, especially if your reply is only one line!
>
> Jeff
> --
> A clever person solves a problem.
> A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

Terrific, in that "ah" and others of his/her silly kind are simply
another infowar cop or private minion doing his/her brown-nosed job of
protecting their collective status quo, rather than contributing
constructively as to the topic at hand. Just think if the likes of
Einstein were not Jewish, where would we be, would there have even
been a WWII or much less a mutually perpetrated cold-war?

It seems there's no end to the incest mutated pile or heap of
disinformation and DARPA mindset folks here in Usenet. It's as though
Google/NONA have accommodated their very own army of such clowns,
spooks and moles from their rusemaster dark side.

99.9% of Usenet seems to be sold on having allowed our government and
of its faith-based puppeteers to essentially pillage, plunder and rape
humanity, and to otherwise traumatize our frail environment for all
it's worth.

Apparently 3200% energy inflation in the past 60 years isn't good
enough for their New World Order. So, they'd rather topic/author
stalk, bash and impose as much banishment as they can muster.
Figures, just like in their good old Hitler days, doesn't it.
.. - Brad Guth

[Hagar]

"BradGuth" > wrote in message
...
> On May 7, 7:33 pm, "Hagar" > wrote:
>>
>> Why go through all that design trouble, let's see if we can find a copy
>> of
>> the construction plans and specifications of the Hindenburg.
>>
>> PS: Is there lightning on Venus ??
>
> When you graduate into becoming a 5th grader, we'll talk.
>
> Until then, keep working on becoming that smart 5th grader.
> . - Brad Guth


Then I'd better stop reading your posts, or I'll never make it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

BradGuth > wrote in
:

> On May 8, 5:34 am, "Jeff Findley" > wrote:
>> "ah" > wrote in message
>>
>> anews.com...
>>
>> > BradGuth wrote:
>> > You are James Follet, AICMF
>>
>> Stop replying to Brad Guth's posts. At the very least, please learn
>> how to trim the quote of his post, especially if your reply is only
>> one line!
>>
>> Jeff
>> --
>> A clever person solves a problem.
>> A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
>
> Terrific, in that "ah" and others of his/her silly kind are simply
> another infowar cop or private minion doing his/her brown-nosed job of
> protecting their collective status quo, rather than contributing
> constructively as to the topic at hand. Just think if the likes of
> Einstein were not Jewish, where would we be, would there have even
> been a WWII or much less a mutually perpetrated cold-war?
>
> It seems there's no end to the incest mutated pile or heap of
> disinformation and DARPA mindset folks here in Usenet. It's as though
> Google/NONA have accommodated their very own army of such clowns,
> spooks and moles from their rusemaster dark side.
>
> 99.9% of Usenet seems to be sold on having allowed our government and
> of its faith-based puppeteers to essentially pillage, plunder and rape
> humanity, and to otherwise traumatize our frail environment for all
> it's worth.

Rubbish, i haven't been sold on this, i'm only leasing.


Bertie

[BradGuth]

On May 9, 1:12 am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> I'll say one thing for Brad Guth - he's the perfect "canary in the coal
> mine".
> All you have to do is watch who replies to him and immediately killfile
> them, as obviously nothing worthwhile to read is ever going to come from
> them.
> God bless you, Brad.
> You've saved me literally _days_ of pointless posting reading over the
> past few years.
> A "birdie num-num" for you, sir...and fresh newspapers at the bottom of
> your cage! :-D
>
> Pat

Is that why you so often topic/author stalk and bash at every
opportunity?
.. - Brad Guth

[BradGuth]

On May 8, 10:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> BradGuth > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On May 8, 5:34 am, "Jeff Findley" > wrote:
> >> "ah" > wrote in message
>
> anews.com...
>
> >> > BradGuth wrote:
> >> > You are James Follet, AICMF
>
> >> Stop replying to Brad Guth's posts. At the very least, please learn
> >> how to trim the quote of his post, especially if your reply is only
> >> one line!
>
> >> Jeff
> >> --
> >> A clever person solves a problem.
> >> A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
>
> > Terrific, in that "ah" and others of his/her silly kind are simply
> > another infowar cop or private minion doing his/her brown-nosed job of
> > protecting their collective status quo, rather than contributing
> > constructively as to the topic at hand. Just think if the likes of
> > Einstein were not Jewish, where would we be, would there have even
> > been a WWII or much less a mutually perpetrated cold-war?
>
> > It seems there's no end to the incest mutated pile or heap of
> > disinformation and DARPA mindset folks here in Usenet. It's as though
> > Google/NONA have accommodated their very own army of such clowns,
> > spooks and moles from their rusemaster dark side.
>
> > 99.9% of Usenet seems to be sold on having allowed our government and
> > of its faith-based puppeteers to essentially pillage, plunder and rape
> > humanity, and to otherwise traumatize our frail environment for all
> > it's worth.
>
> Rubbish, i haven't been sold on this, i'm only leasing.
>
> Bertie

Then by all means you had to sign that lethally binding nondisclosure
lease agreement, or else. (the all-inclusive "till death do us part"
was incorporated within the nearly solid block of gray fine print on
the back side of your lease agreement)
.. - Brad Guth

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

BradGuth > wrote in
:

> On May 8, 10:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> BradGuth > wrote
>> innews:577f662a-f5b7-4046-a543-fcf785588a90
@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 8, 5:34 am, "Jeff Findley" >
>> > wrote:
>> >> "ah" > wrote in message
>>
>> anews.com...
>>
>> >> > BradGuth wrote:
>> >> > You are James Follet, AICMF
>>
>> >> Stop replying to Brad Guth's posts. At the very least, please
>> >> learn how to trim the quote of his post, especially if your reply
>> >> is only one line!
>>
>> >> Jeff
>> >> --
>> >> A clever person solves a problem.
>> >> A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
>>
>> > Terrific, in that "ah" and others of his/her silly kind are simply
>> > another infowar cop or private minion doing his/her brown-nosed job
>> > of protecting their collective status quo, rather than contributing
>> > constructively as to the topic at hand. Just think if the likes of
>> > Einstein were not Jewish, where would we be, would there have even
>> > been a WWII or much less a mutually perpetrated cold-war?
>>
>> > It seems there's no end to the incest mutated pile or heap of
>> > disinformation and DARPA mindset folks here in Usenet. It's as
>> > though Google/NONA have accommodated their very own army of such
>> > clowns, spooks and moles from their rusemaster dark side.
>>
>> > 99.9% of Usenet seems to be sold on having allowed our government
>> > and of its faith-based puppeteers to essentially pillage, plunder
>> > and rape humanity, and to otherwise traumatize our frail
>> > environment for all it's worth.
>>
>> Rubbish, i haven't been sold on this, i'm only leasing.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Then by all means you had to sign that lethally binding nondisclosure
> lease agreement, or else. (the all-inclusive "till death do us part"
> was incorporated within the nearly solid block of gray fine print on
> the back side of your lease agreement)
> . - Brad Guth
>

Well, of course i did. There was a free toaster oven going!


Bertie

[BradGuth]

Wow! look at all the brown-noswed minions of the Semitic Third Reich
kind (aka DARPA) that showed up (as per topic/author stalking usual).
. - Brad Guth


On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> airship.
>
> Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see
> (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> terrestrial 5:1.
>
> In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> landing skids (just in case).
>
> Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> systems and main propulsion.
>
> Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
> geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> and Geoffrey A. Landis
> http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> bashing for all they can muster.
> . –BradGuth

[BradGuth]

Oops, too much information. Sorry about that.
. - Brad Guth


On May 6, 5:40 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> In the simplest form, a sphere within a sphere is perfectly capable of
> becoming a rigid airship, of sustaining the most pressure or vacuum
> per any given form. Think of this rigid airship as a series of such
> spheres aligned and interconnected as to forming this otherwise blimp
> like airship.
>
> A 100 meter outer sphere of 5.236e5 m3, having a 0.1 m thick composite
> hull offers an internal volumetric sphere of 99.8 meters, for a gross
> internal volume of 5.2046e5 m3.
>
> If we use 2.5 kg/m3 as the nighttime buoyancy of what’s roughly
> available at 45~50 km
>
> 5.236 * 2.5 = 13.09e5 kg gross buoyancy
>
> If the volume worth of this shell/hull being .0314e5 m3, and if this
> composite hull required 100 kg/m3 = 3.14e5 kg
>
> 13.09e5 – 3.14e5 = 9.95e5 kg as the net buoyancy (- infrastructure)
>
> Obviously 995 tonnes leaves us with a sufficient amount of buoyancy
> per sphere, as capacity for accommodating internal infrastructure and
> matters of displacing this interior with hydrogen, or that of merely
> pulling a vacuum, and otherwise incorporating all of the necessary
> systems for airship management, including those insulated and heat
> exchanged compartments of science instruments.
>
> The external CO2 itself becomes the ballast whenever necessary. In
> other words, without intentionally doing so, there’s no way in hell
> (so to literally speak) of this rigid airship ever falling out of that
> Venusian sky, as the buoyancy increases to 65+ kg/m3 before coming in
> contact with that geothermally heated surface, and greater yet as you
> head down into the low lands or basins of Venus where it’s really hot.
>
> At 1/10th scale, utilizing a 10 meter sphere we’re looking at 9.95
> tonnes, so obviously doable though bigger is defiantly better, and of
> cruising at 25 km instead of the initial 50 km is going to drastically
> increase that buoyancy, as well as keeping this airship entirely
> within the crystal dry S8 and CO2 atmosphere of what’s becoming
> somewhat toasty but otherwise without h2o it’s not the least bit
> acidic unless parked over some nasty geothermal steaming vent.
>
> Fortunately, if the crew in remote operation of this otherwise robotic
> airship were station-keeping within their cool POOF City of Venus L2,
> means the control management loop isn’t but a few seconds, not that
> any such POOF City need be the case, even though it would be rather
> nice. Otherwise via terrestrial command, we’re talking of minutes to
> hours per command loop due to the great amount of difference in range
> from Earth. However, being this is an airship that’s going nowhere
> all that fast, and it isn’t going to bump into or otherwise fall into
> anything unexpected, at least other than encountering VHS(Venus
> Homeland Security) forces, means that whatever command loop delay
> isn’t all that important.
> . –BradGuth
>
> On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> > darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> > an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> > excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> > rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> > a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> > as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> > for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> > even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> > 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> > airship.
>
> > Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> > nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> > terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> > fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> > because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> > radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> > and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> > and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> > Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> > per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> > capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> > operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> > below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> > atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see
> > (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> > Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> > robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> > somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> > composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> > terrestrial 5:1.
>
> > In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> > that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> > being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> > mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> > that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> > proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> > this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> > There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> > for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> > exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> > landing skids (just in case).
>
> > Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> > diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> > thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> > main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> > reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> > need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> > considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> > striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> > essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> > clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> > This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> > flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> > cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> > having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> > with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> > considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> > In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> > there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> > melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> > utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> > systems and main propulsion.
>
> > Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> > insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> > that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> > 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
> > geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> > becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> > Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> > not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> > prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> > OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> > Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> > doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> > land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> > version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> > the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> > periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> > Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> > expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> > laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> > science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> > word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> > demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> > that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> > accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> > Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> > http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> > Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> > and Geoffrey A. Landis
> > http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> > This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> > insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> > doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> > behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> > nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> > especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> > a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> > This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> > alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> > alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> > contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> > guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> > motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> > bashing for all they can muster.
> > . –BradGuth

[BradGuth]

How the heck did this nifty topic get left in the dust?

One of my lose cannon shots must have hit some mainstream status quo
private parts.
. - Brad Guth


On May 16, 2:54 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> Wow! look at all the brown-noswed minions of the Semitic Third Reich
> kind (aka DARPA) that showed up (as per topic/author stalking usual).
> . - Brad Guth
>
> On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> > darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> > an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> > excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> > rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> > a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> > as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> > for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> > even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> > 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> > airship.
>
> > Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> > nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> > terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> > fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> > because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> > radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> > and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> > and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> > Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> > per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> > capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> > operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> > below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> > atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see
> > (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> > Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> > robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> > somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> > composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> > terrestrial 5:1.
>
> > In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> > that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> > being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> > mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> > that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> > proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> > this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> > There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> > for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> > exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> > landing skids (just in case).
>
> > Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> > diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> > thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> > main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> > reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> > need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> > considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> > striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> > essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> > clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> > This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> > flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> > cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> > having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> > with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> > considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> > In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> > there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> > melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> > utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> > systems and main propulsion.
>
> > Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> > insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> > that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> > 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
> > geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> > becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> > Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> > not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> > prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> > OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> > Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> > doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> > land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> > version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> > the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> > periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> > Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> > expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> > laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> > science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> > word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> > demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> > that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> > accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> > Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> > http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> > Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> > and Geoffrey A. Landis
> > http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> > This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> > insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> > doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> > behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> > nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> > especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> > a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> > This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> > alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> > alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> > contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> > guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> > motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> > bashing for all they can muster.
> > . –BradGuth

[BradGuth]

How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
of sci.geo.geology?

A 'search for' _ brad guth _ brings up 99.9% as sci.geo.geology
topics.

Other than Venus and our moon having extremely unusual geology
considerations, I can't quite understand how the Google search engine
w/o DARPA help has somehow AI/robo focused all of it's CPUs and vast
archives upon connecting my name with sci.geo.geology
. - Brad Guth


On May 27, 8:49 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> How the heck did this nifty topic get left in the dust?
>
> One of my lose cannon shots must have hit some mainstream status quo
> private parts.
> . - Brad Guth
>
> On May 16, 2:54 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > Wow! look at all the brown-noswed minions of the Semitic Third Reich
> > kind (aka DARPA) that showed up (as per topic/author stalking usual).
> > . - Brad Guth
>
> > On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> > > darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> > > an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> > > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> > > excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > > For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> > > rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> > > a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> > > as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> > > for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> > > even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> > > 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> > > airship.
>
> > > Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> > > nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> > > terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> > > fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> > > because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> > > radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> > > and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> > > and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> > > Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> > > per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> > > capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> > > operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> > > below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> > > atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see
> > > (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> > > Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> > > robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> > > somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> > > composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> > > terrestrial 5:1.
>
> > > In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> > > that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> > > being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> > > mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> > > that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> > > proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> > > this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> > > There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> > > for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> > > exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> > > landing skids (just in case).
>
> > > Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> > > diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> > > thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> > > main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> > > reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> > > need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> > > considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> > > striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> > > essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> > > clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> > > This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> > > flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> > > cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> > > having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> > > with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> > > considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> > > In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> > > there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> > > melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> > > utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> > > systems and main propulsion.
>
> > > Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> > > insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> > > that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> > > 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
> > > geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> > > becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> > > Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> > > not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> > > prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> > > OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> > > Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> > > doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> > > land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> > > version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> > > the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> > > periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> > > Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> > > expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> > > laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> > > science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> > > word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> > > demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> > > that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> > > accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> > > Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> > > http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> > > Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> > > and Geoffrey A. Landis
> > > http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> > > This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> > > insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> > > doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> > > behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> > > nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> > > especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> > > a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> > > This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> > > alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> > > alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> > > contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> > > guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> > > motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> > > bashing for all they can muster.
> > > . –BradGuth

[Dan[_12_]]

BradGuth wrote:
> How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
> of sci.geo.geology?
>

What good name?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-28, BradGuth > wrote:
> How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
> of sci.geo.geology?

I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
rec.aviation.piloting.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 10 June)

[[email protected]]

?
>
> I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
> rec.aviation.piloting.
> --


Or reality for that matter...

[Steve Hix]

In article >, Dan >
wrote:

> BradGuth wrote:
> > How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
> > of sci.geo.geology?
>
> What good name?

He's got another name he don't use?

[Scott Hedrick[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> BradGuth wrote:
>> How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
>> of sci.geo.geology?
>>
>
> What good name?

If he has a good name, why doesn't he use it instead of "Brad Guth"?


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[BradGuth]

On May 28, 6:31 am, Dan > wrote:
> BradGuth wrote:
> > How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
> > of sci.geo.geology?
>
> What good name?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Just because I haven't lied to myself or others about there being WMD,
nor having killed off my fair share of mostly innocent Muslims. isn't
enough just cause for speaking in a derogatory or mean spirited way
about my good name.

What do you honestly think about a federally mandated price set of $10/
gallon on civilian road and aviation fuel, so that myself and and most
all others (including yourself) I can directly and indirectly help
finance WWIII?

Of course most of everything else would likely inflate by at least
100%, but then it too is for the good cause.

Seemingly, that is what you and those of your Zionist DARPA guys and
gals of the dark side want, isn't it?
.. - Brad Guth

[Dan[_12_]]

BradGuth wrote:
> On May 28, 6:31 am, Dan > wrote:
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>> How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
>>> of sci.geo.geology?
>> What good name?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Just because I haven't lied to myself or others about there being WMD,
> nor having killed off my fair share of mostly innocent Muslims. isn't
> enough just cause for speaking in a derogatory or mean spirited way
> about my good name.
>
> What do you honestly think about a federally mandated price set of $10/
> gallon on civilian road and aviation fuel, so that myself and and most
> all others (including yourself) I can directly and indirectly help
> finance WWIII?
>
> Of course most of everything else would likely inflate by at least
> 100%, but then it too is for the good cause.
>
> Seemingly, that is what you and those of your Zionist DARPA guys and
> gals of the dark side want, isn't it?
> . - Brad Guth


I suppose that makes sense to you. Don't let reality get in the way
of your delusions.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BradGuth]

On May 28, 9:42 pm, Dan > wrote:
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On May 28, 6:31 am, Dan > wrote:
> >> BradGuth wrote:
> >>> How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
> >>> of sci.geo.geology?
> >> What good name?
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > Just because I haven't lied to myself or others about there being WMD,
> > nor having killed off my fair share of mostly innocent Muslims. isn't
> > enough just cause for speaking in a derogatory or mean spirited way
> > about my good name.
>
> > What do you honestly think about a federally mandated price set of $10/
> > gallon on civilian road and aviation fuel, so that myself and and most
> > all others (including yourself) I can directly and indirectly help
> > finance WWIII?
>
> > Of course most of everything else would likely inflate by at least
> > 100%, but then it too is for the good cause.
>
> > Seemingly, that is what you and those of your Zionist DARPA guys and
> > gals of the dark side want, isn't it?
> > . - Brad Guth
>
> I suppose that makes sense to you. Don't let reality get in the way
> of your delusions.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

And that has what to do with the R&D of creating those composite rigid
airships for Venus?

How about the required technical expertise of flying such an airship
(robotic or manned) within that thick soup of the Venusian lower
atmosphere?

Obviously you're in favor of job security via war (hot or cold). In
that case we could go to war against whomever is currently situated on
or in any way utilizing Venus, by simply claiming they have WMD and
every intentions of utilizing such. After all, they could be
outsiders and Muslims to boot.
.. - Brad Guth

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-05-29, BradGuth > wrote:
> How about the required technical expertise of flying such an airship
> (robotic or manned) within that thick soup of the Venusian lower
> atmosphere?

How does this relate to rec.aviation.piloting? Nobody here knows anything
about the subject, largely because *nobody* knows anything about the
subject.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 10 June)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-05-29, BradGuth > wrote:
>> How about the required technical expertise of flying such an airship
>> (robotic or manned) within that thick soup of the Venusian lower
>> atmosphere?
>
> How does this relate to rec.aviation.piloting? Nobody here knows
anything
> about the subject, largely because *nobody* knows anything about the
> subject.

Maybe you can make him a costume for his explorations...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3609OtM138c



Bertie

[Andrew Robert Breen]

In article >,
Jay Maynard > wrote:
>On 2008-05-29, BradGuth > wrote:
>> How about the required technical expertise of flying such an airship
>> (robotic or manned) within that thick soup of the Venusian lower
>> atmosphere?
>
>How does this relate to rec.aviation.piloting? Nobody here knows anything
>about the subject, largely because *nobody* knows anything about the
>subject.

Though it pains me to even reply to a reply to the manifestly
delusional Guthball, balloons - though not airships - /have/
been flown in Venus atmosphere: at least two of the Soviet
missions to Venus in the 80s launched aerostats, and they yielded
some very interesting (and, in some cases, still not fully
explained) measurements of atmospheric composition[1]. They
were flying in the upper cloud layers, mind. The Venera landers
established pretty well why you'd not try to fly balloons
near the surface. Too dam' hot, and boiling H2SO4 rain would
hurt, too.

[1] And dynamics. Because it rotates so slowly and because
of the angle of its rotation axis, Venus has /very/ odd
weather systems..

--
Andy Breen ~ Speaking for myself, not the University of Wales
"your suggestion rates at four monkeys for six weeks"
(Peter D. Rieden)

[Dan[_12_]]

BradGuth wrote:
> On May 28, 9:42 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>> On May 28, 6:31 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>> BradGuth wrote:
>>>>> How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
>>>>> of sci.geo.geology?
>>>> What good name?
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>> Just because I haven't lied to myself or others about there being WMD,
>>> nor having killed off my fair share of mostly innocent Muslims. isn't
>>> enough just cause for speaking in a derogatory or mean spirited way
>>> about my good name.
>>> What do you honestly think about a federally mandated price set of $10/
>>> gallon on civilian road and aviation fuel, so that myself and and most
>>> all others (including yourself) I can directly and indirectly help
>>> finance WWIII?
>>> Of course most of everything else would likely inflate by at least
>>> 100%, but then it too is for the good cause.
>>> Seemingly, that is what you and those of your Zionist DARPA guys and
>>> gals of the dark side want, isn't it?
>>> . - Brad Guth
>> I suppose that makes sense to you. Don't let reality get in the way
>> of your delusions.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> And that has what to do with the R&D of creating those composite rigid
> airships for Venus?
>
> How about the required technical expertise of flying such an airship
> (robotic or manned) within that thick soup of the Venusian lower
> atmosphere?
>
> Obviously you're in favor of job security via war (hot or cold). In
> that case we could go to war against whomever is currently situated on
> or in any way utilizing Venus, by simply claiming they have WMD and
> every intentions of utilizing such. After all, they could be
> outsiders and Muslims to boot.
> . - Brad Guth


Anyway, guth, back to your claim of having a "good name." In every
group you have polluted with your presence your name is equivalent to
the terms racist, paranoid, deluded, crude, dense and a few more. You'd
be hard pressed to find anyone who respects you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BradGuth]

On May 29, 9:37 am, Dan > wrote:
> BradGuth wrote:
> > On May 28, 9:42 pm, Dan > wrote:
> >> BradGuth wrote:
> >>> On May 28, 6:31 am, Dan > wrote:
> >>>> BradGuth wrote:
> >>>>> How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
> >>>>> of sci.geo.geology?
> >>>> What good name?
> >>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>> Just because I haven't lied to myself or others about there being WMD,
> >>> nor having killed off my fair share of mostly innocent Muslims. isn't
> >>> enough just cause for speaking in a derogatory or mean spirited way
> >>> about my good name.
> >>> What do you honestly think about a federally mandated price set of $10/
> >>> gallon on civilian road and aviation fuel, so that myself and and most
> >>> all others (including yourself) I can directly and indirectly help
> >>> finance WWIII?
> >>> Of course most of everything else would likely inflate by at least
> >>> 100%, but then it too is for the good cause.
> >>> Seemingly, that is what you and those of your Zionist DARPA guys and
> >>> gals of the dark side want, isn't it?
> >>> . - Brad Guth
> >> I suppose that makes sense to you. Don't let reality get in the way
> >> of your delusions.
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > And that has what to do with the R&D of creating those composite rigid
> > airships for Venus?
>
> > How about the required technical expertise of flying such an airship
> > (robotic or manned) within that thick soup of the Venusian lower
> > atmosphere?
>
> > Obviously you're in favor of job security via war (hot or cold). In
> > that case we could go to war against whomever is currently situated on
> > or in any way utilizing Venus, by simply claiming they have WMD and
> > every intentions of utilizing such. After all, they could be
> > outsiders and Muslims to boot.
> > . - Brad Guth
>
> Anyway, guth, back to your claim of having a "good name." In every
> group you have polluted with your presence your name is equivalent to
> the terms racist, paranoid, deluded, crude, dense and a few more. You'd
> be hard pressed to find anyone who respects you.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Unlike yourself, I just don't like sleeping with or otherwise brown-
nosing them bad guys.
.. - Brad Guth

[BradGuth]

On May 29, 8:59 am, (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
> In article >,
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>
> >On 2008-05-29, BradGuth > wrote:
> >> How about the required technical expertise of flying such an airship
> >> (robotic or manned) within that thick soup of the Venusian lower
> >> atmosphere?
>
> >How does this relate to rec.aviation.piloting? Nobody here knows anything
> >about the subject, largely because *nobody* knows anything about the
> >subject.
>
> Though it pains me to even reply to a reply to the manifestly
> delusional Guthball, balloons - though not airships - /have/
> been flown in Venus atmosphere: at least two of the Soviet
> missions to Venus in the 80s launched aerostats, and they yielded
> some very interesting (and, in some cases, still not fully
> explained) measurements of atmospheric composition[1]. They
> were flying in the upper cloud layers, mind. The Venera landers
> established pretty well why you'd not try to fly balloons
> near the surface. Too dam' hot, and boiling H2SO4 rain would
> hurt, too.

At 35 km or below by day, or perhaps of 25 km or below by season of
nighttime is crystal dry and harmless, whereas that H2SO4 and even
pure S8 is relatively crystal dry, and thus kinda harmless stuff.

Are you saying there's lots of water within them thick and robust
clouds? (because you'd be correct)

>
> [1] And dynamics. Because it rotates so slowly and because
> of the angle of its rotation axis, Venus has /very/ odd
> weather systems..

That's always good to know about, especially before cruising any
composite form of a rigid airship well below them acidic clouds.
.. - Brad Guth

[BradGuth]

On May 29, 7:47 am, Jay Maynard >
wrote:
> On 2008-05-29, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > How about the required technical expertise of flying such an airship
> > (robotic or manned) within that thick soup of the Venusian lower
> > atmosphere?
>
> How does this relate to rec.aviation.piloting? Nobody here knows anything
> about the subject, largely because *nobody* knows anything about the
> subject.

I'm certainly not looking for absolute perfection, but would you like
to help R&D this rigid airship anyway?
.. - Brad Guth

[Dan[_12_]]

BradGuth wrote:
> On May 29, 9:37 am, Dan > wrote:
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>> On May 28, 9:42 pm, Dan > wrote:
>>>> BradGuth wrote:
>>>>> On May 28, 6:31 am, Dan > wrote:
>>>>>> BradGuth wrote:
>>>>>>> How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
>>>>>>> of sci.geo.geology?
>>>>>> What good name?
>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>> Just because I haven't lied to myself or others about there being WMD,
>>>>> nor having killed off my fair share of mostly innocent Muslims. isn't
>>>>> enough just cause for speaking in a derogatory or mean spirited way
>>>>> about my good name.
>>>>> What do you honestly think about a federally mandated price set of $10/
>>>>> gallon on civilian road and aviation fuel, so that myself and and most
>>>>> all others (including yourself) I can directly and indirectly help
>>>>> finance WWIII?
>>>>> Of course most of everything else would likely inflate by at least
>>>>> 100%, but then it too is for the good cause.
>>>>> Seemingly, that is what you and those of your Zionist DARPA guys and
>>>>> gals of the dark side want, isn't it?
>>>>> . - Brad Guth
>>>> I suppose that makes sense to you. Don't let reality get in the way
>>>> of your delusions.
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>> And that has what to do with the R&D of creating those composite rigid
>>> airships for Venus?
>>> How about the required technical expertise of flying such an airship
>>> (robotic or manned) within that thick soup of the Venusian lower
>>> atmosphere?
>>> Obviously you're in favor of job security via war (hot or cold). In
>>> that case we could go to war against whomever is currently situated on
>>> or in any way utilizing Venus, by simply claiming they have WMD and
>>> every intentions of utilizing such. After all, they could be
>>> outsiders and Muslims to boot.
>>> . - Brad Guth
>> Anyway, guth, back to your claim of having a "good name." In every
>> group you have polluted with your presence your name is equivalent to
>> the terms racist, paranoid, deluded, crude, dense and a few more. You'd
>> be hard pressed to find anyone who respects you.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Unlike yourself, I just don't like sleeping with or otherwise brown-
> nosing them bad guys.
> . - Brad Guth


I'm sure that makes sense to you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Logajan]

BradGuth > wrote:
> I'm certainly not looking for absolute perfection, but would you like
> to help R&D this rigid airship anyway?

I think I can offer some guidance.
(Followups set to the only newsgroup I believe this thread now belongs.)
There are two resources you should begin with:

This paper:
"HIGH TEMPERATURE MATERIALS FOR VENUS BALLOON ENVELOPES"

Which you can find online here:
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/30122/1/95-0417.pdf

And this book, which is the most "modern" text available on the subject
of airship design:

"Airship Technology" Edited by Khoury and Gillett

Available here:
http://www.amazon.com/Airship-Technology-Cambridge-Aerospace-Khoury/dp/0521607531/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212129796&sr=8-1

Other books and web sites worth adding to a research library on airships
include:

"Airship Design" by Burgess

Old but still useful and available here:
http://www.amazon.com/Airship-Design-Charles-P-Burgess/dp/1410211738/ref=pd_sim_b_img_1

"Airship Aerodynamics" By the U.S. War Department

Originally intended for training of Navy airship personnel but a short
yet effective guide to basic concepts. Available here:
http://www.amazon.com/Airship-Aerodynamics-Technical-War-Department/dp/1410206149/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

The website of the Experimental Lighter than Air organization:

http://www.xlta.org/

There are a couple of PDF docs worth downloading in the LIBRARY page and
further links to other sites in the LINKS page (naturally).

Hope some of this helps.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

BradGuth > wrote in
:

> On May 29, 7:47 am, Jay Maynard >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-29, BradGuth > wrote:
>>
>> > How about the required technical expertise of flying such an
>> > airship (robotic or manned) within that thick soup of the Venusian
>> > lower atmosphere?
>>
>> How does this relate to rec.aviation.piloting? Nobody here knows
>> anything about the subject, largely because *nobody* knows anything
>> about the subject.
>
> I'm certainly not looking for absolute perfection, but would you like
> to help R&D this rigid airship anyway?
> . - Brad Guth
>

Hey, hey could probably make one out of old beer mats and some of those
chemical light sticks..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in news:e83d8$483f658f$2870
@news.teranews.com:

>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> BradGuth wrote:
>>> How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
>>> of sci.geo.geology?
>>>
>>
>> What good name?
>
> If he has a good name, why doesn't he use it instead of "Brad Guth"?

Bwawahwhhahwhahw!

Bertie

[BradGuth]

On May 29, 11:56 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> BradGuth > wrote:
> > I'm certainly not looking for absolute perfection, but would you like
> > to help R&D this rigid airship anyway?
>
> I think I can offer some guidance.
> (Followups set to the only newsgroup I believe this thread now belongs.)
> There are two resources you should begin with:
>
> This paper:
> "HIGH TEMPERATURE MATERIALS FOR VENUS BALLOON ENVELOPES"
>
> Which you can find online here:http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/30122/1/95-0417.pdf
>
> And this book, which is the most "modern" text available on the subject
> of airship design:
>
> "Airship Technology" Edited by Khoury and Gillett
>
> Available here:http://www.amazon.com/Airship-Technology-Cambridge-Aerospace-Khoury/d...
>
> Other books and web sites worth adding to a research library on airships
> include:
>
> "Airship Design" by Burgess
>
> Old but still useful and available here:http://www.amazon.com/Airship-Design-Charles-P-Burgess/dp/1410211738/...
>
> "Airship Aerodynamics" By the U.S. War Department
>
> Originally intended for training of Navy airship personnel but a short
> yet effective guide to basic concepts. Available here:http://www.amazon.com/Airship-Aerodynamics-Technical-War-Department/d...
>
> The website of the Experimental Lighter than Air organization:
>
> http://www.xlta.org/
>
> There are a couple of PDF docs worth downloading in the LIBRARY page and
> further links to other sites in the LINKS page (naturally).
>
> Hope some of this helps.

For some odd reasons this reply of mine wasn't getting posted to all
of the intended groups. So, here's one more time for the old Guth
gipper.

Thanks once again for all of that constructive and only somewhat
outdated though informative leads, but also some of that rather silly
balloon sport feedback has its place, much of which I've seen dozens
of times before.

It seems folks expect little old me to accomplish 100+% of
everything. I didn't realize that I was being thought of as far
better than Einstein that had teams of assistants (aka minions and
peers) working as an intellectual cartel on his behalf.

By way of expressing rigid composite should suggest this is not an
inflated balloon application, as proposed by Yavrouian, not that
efficiently ballooning science instruments below them thick clouds
isn't technically doable as relatively cheap, especially on behalf of
the micro electronic packages that involve so little mass and require
such little energy as they outperform their task in most every aspect.

Starting from scratch, this custom rigid composite airship is capable
of good size and substantial payload, and its going to be like nothing
ever before utilized on Earth or any other planet. Perhaps the
closest
analogy of anything terrestrial is going to be a nuclear submarine,
whereas instead having its Venus buoyancy created by either a vacuum
that’s easily managed by way of getting CO2 pumped out, or merely
displaced from the top down with the failsafe gas of hydrogen. I was
thinking along the lines of using rigid/hard composite spheres,
arranged into an airship format (5 in tandem) that’s kind of
aerodynamically suited to the task at hand.

This application requires more than a simple balloon, especially if
active flight and navigation is incorporated.
. – Brad Guth

[BradGuth]

Interesting, as to how the entire DARPA Usenet/newsgroup thing grinds
itself to a bloody halt whenever something really interesting comes
along.

It's as though the Planet Venus is just as DARPA taboo/nondisclosure
rated as is our physically dark moon, so much so that not even the
regular laws of physics nor the best available science can be
discussed without my having to receive more than my fair share of
mainstream status quo flak.

If you'd care to learn more (1-253-8576061), or just to share and
share alike would be kinda nice.
Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


On May 31, 11:06 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On May 29, 11:56 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > BradGuth > wrote:
> > > I'm certainly not looking for absolute perfection, but would you like
> > > to help R&D this rigid airship anyway?
>
> > I think I can offer some guidance.
> > (Followups set to the only newsgroup I believe this thread now belongs.)
> > There are two resources you should begin with:
>
> > This paper:
> > "HIGH TEMPERATURE MATERIALS FOR VENUS BALLOON ENVELOPES"
>
> > Which you can find online here:http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/30122/1/95-0417.pdf
>
> > And this book, which is the most "modern" text available on the subject
> > of airship design:
>
> > "Airship Technology" Edited by Khoury and Gillett
>
> > Available here:http://www.amazon.com/Airship-Technology-Cambridge-Aerospace-Khoury/d...
>
> > Other books and web sites worth adding to a research library on airships
> > include:
>
> > "Airship Design" by Burgess
>
> > Old but still useful and available here:http://www.amazon.com/Airship-Design-Charles-P-Burgess/dp/1410211738/...
>
> > "Airship Aerodynamics" By the U.S. War Department
>
> > Originally intended for training of Navy airship personnel but a short
> > yet effective guide to basic concepts. Available here:http://www.amazon.com/Airship-Aerodynamics-Technical-War-Department/d...
>
> > The website of the Experimental Lighter than Air organization:
>
> >http://www.xlta.org/
>
> > There are a couple of PDF docs worth downloading in the LIBRARY page and
> > further links to other sites in the LINKS page (naturally).
>
> > Hope some of this helps.
>
> For some odd reasons this reply of mine wasn't getting posted to all
> of the intended groups. So, here's one more time for the oldGuth
> gipper.
>
> Thanks once again for all of that constructive and only somewhat
> outdated though informative leads, but also some of that rather silly
> balloon sport feedback has its place, much of which I've seen dozens
> of times before.
>
> It seems folks expect little old me to accomplish 100+% of
> everything. I didn't realize that I was being thought of as far
> better than Einstein that had teams of assistants (aka minions and
> peers) working as an intellectual cartel on his behalf.
>
> By way of expressing rigid composite should suggest this is not an
> inflated balloon application, as proposed by Yavrouian, not that
> efficiently ballooning science instruments below them thick clouds
> isn't technically doable as relatively cheap, especially on behalf of
> the micro electronic packages that involve so little mass and require
> such little energy as they outperform their task in most every aspect.
>
> Starting from scratch, this custom rigid composite airship is capable
> of good size and substantial payload, and its going to be like nothing
> ever before utilized on Earth or any other planet. Perhaps the
> closest
> analogy of anything terrestrial is going to be a nuclear submarine,
> whereas instead having its Venus buoyancy created by either a vacuum
> that’s easily managed by way of getting CO2 pumped out, or merely
> displaced from the top down with the failsafe gas of hydrogen. I was
> thinking along the lines of using rigid/hard composite spheres,
> arranged into an airship format (5 in tandem) that’s kind of
> aerodynamically suited to the task at hand.
>
> This application requires more than a simple balloon, especially if
> active flight and navigation is incorporated.
> . –BradGuth

[LIBERATOR[_3_]]

On May 5, 6:19*am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On May 5, 12:34 am, LIBERATOR > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUkorwww.disclosureproject.org
>
> Thanks to our popular mainstream media that'll publish and/or exclude
> whatever they're told by those in charge, and otherwise by that of our
> "no child left behind" policy, I didn't here a darn thing about it,
> and Usenet/Groups certainly didn't make much if anything of it.
> (wonder why)
>
> Besides the fact that ETs do exist, and that it's quite likely they
> have also existed/coexisted on Venus (because that's technically
> doable), what if anything of this "Disclosure Project" doings had
> anything whatsoever to do with any composite rigid airship, as
> intended for cruising Venus?
>
> In other words, why did you fail to grasp the meaning or intent of
> this topic "Venus Airships"?
> . - Brad Guth

Brad, it's all related. The Venus airships are flying saucers and
nothing else.

The Venus beings are humans, almost exact to us. It's a heavily
populated planet with Earth humanoids so exact we couldn't tell if
they were walking around on Earth - and some probably are.

[BradGuth]

On Jun 7, 7:22 pm, LIBERATOR > wrote:
> On May 5, 6:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 12:34 am, LIBERATOR > wrote:
>
> > > Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUkorwww.disclosureproject.org
>
> > Thanks to our popular mainstream media that'll publish and/or exclude
> > whatever they're told by those in charge, and otherwise by that of our
> > "no child left behind" policy, I didn't here a darn thing about it,
> > and Usenet/Groups certainly didn't make much if anything of it.
> > (wonder why)
>
> > Besides the fact that ETs do exist, and that it's quite likely they
> > have also existed/coexisted on Venus (because that's technically
> > doable), what if anything of this "Disclosure Project" doings had
> > anything whatsoever to do with any composite rigid airship, as
> > intended for cruising Venus?
>
> > In other words, why did you fail to grasp the meaning or intent of
> > this topic "Venus Airships"?
> > . - Brad Guth
>
> Brad, it's all related. The Venus airships are flying saucers and
> nothing else.
>
> The Venus beings are humans, almost exact to us. It's a heavily
> populated planet with Earth humanoids so exact we couldn't tell if
> they were walking around on Earth - and some probably are.

In that thick atmosphere, rigid airships are going to best suit our
probe applications in robotics as well as future manned expeditions.

I doubt Venusians are regular humanoids, at least not without advanced
technology and/or biophysical adaptations applied. I see little
reason to think Venus is "heavily populated", in fact, I doubt those
would be entirely of locally grown and evolved species as we know it,
whereas more than likely we're talking of visiting ETs responsible for
what we can interpret as most likely creating those artificial
structures, at least as deductively extrapolated from those radar
obtained images.

Where do you extract such other intelligence as pertaining to the
planet Venus?
Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

LIBERATOR > wrote in
:

> On May 5, 6:19*am, BradGuth > wrote:
>> On May 5, 12:34 am, LIBERATOR > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure
>> > Project"http://www.youtube.c
> om/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUkorwww.disclosureproject.org
>>
>> Thanks to our popular mainstream media that'll publish and/or exclude
>> whatever they're told by those in charge, and otherwise by that of
>> our "no child left behind" policy, I didn't here a darn thing about
>> it, and Usenet/Groups certainly didn't make much if anything of it.
>> (wonder why)
>>
>> Besides the fact that ETs do exist, and that it's quite likely they
>> have also existed/coexisted on Venus (because that's technically
>> doable), what if anything of this "Disclosure Project" doings had
>> anything whatsoever to do with any composite rigid airship, as
>> intended for cruising Venus?
>>
>> In other words, why did you fail to grasp the meaning or intent of
>> this topic "Venus Airships"?
>> . - Brad Guth
>
> Brad, it's all related. The Venus airships are flying saucers and
> nothing else.
>
> The Venus beings are humans, almost exact to us. It's a heavily
> populated planet with Earth humanoids so exact we couldn't tell if
> they were walking around on Earth - and some probably are.
>
>

Hiya Libby! How's the job coming fruitcake? Busy night?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

BradGuth > wrote in
:

> On Jun 7, 7:22 pm, LIBERATOR > wrote:
>> On May 5, 6:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 5, 12:34 am, LIBERATOR > wrote:
>>
>> > > Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure
>> > > Project"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-
6YdUkorwww.disclosure
>> > > project.org
>>
>> > Thanks to our popular mainstream media that'll publish and/or
>> > exclude whatever they're told by those in charge, and otherwise by
>> > that of our "no child left behind" policy, I didn't here a darn
>> > thing about it, and Usenet/Groups certainly didn't make much if
>> > anything of it. (wonder why)
>>
>> > Besides the fact that ETs do exist, and that it's quite likely they
>> > have also existed/coexisted on Venus (because that's technically
>> > doable), what if anything of this "Disclosure Project" doings had
>> > anything whatsoever to do with any composite rigid airship, as
>> > intended for cruising Venus?
>>
>> > In other words, why did you fail to grasp the meaning or intent of
>> > this topic "Venus Airships"?
>> > . - Brad Guth
>>
>> Brad, it's all related. The Venus airships are flying saucers and
>> nothing else.
>>
>> The Venus beings are humans, almost exact to us. It's a heavily
>> populated planet with Earth humanoids so exact we couldn't tell if
>> they were walking around on Earth - and some probably are.
>
> In that thick atmosphere, rigid airships are going to best suit our
> probe applications in robotics as well as future manned expeditions.
>
> I doubt Venusians are regular humanoids, at least not without advanced
> technology and/or biophysical adaptations applied. I see little
> reason to think Venus is "heavily populated", in fact, I doubt those
> would be entirely of locally grown and evolved species as we know it,
> whereas more than likely we're talking of visiting ETs responsible for
> what we can interpret as most likely creating those artificial
> structures, at least as deductively extrapolated from those radar
> obtained images.
>
> Where do you extract such other intelligence as pertaining to the
> planet Venus?



I'm going to make a stab at it with

"Out of his butt"


Bertie

[BradGuth]

On May 28, 10:22 am, wrote:
> ?
>
> > I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
> > rec.aviation.piloting.
> > --
>
> Or reality for that matter...

Obviously your DARPA brown-nosed expertise is insurmountable, just the
way them Zionist/Nazi always intended.

What is it about the rigid composite airship idea of such applied
technology that's over your DARPA head?

Are you going to suggest to us that our Zionist/Nazi DARPA wasn't in
charge of having made all sorts of nasty **** happen for Hitler?
Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[More_Flaps]

On Jun 9, 4:50*am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On May 28, 10:22 am, wrote:
>
> > ?
>
> > > I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
> > > rec.aviation.piloting.
> > > --
>
> > Or reality for that matter...
>
> Obviously your DARPA brown-nosed expertise is insurmountable, just the
> way them Zionist/Nazi always intended.
>
> What is it about the rigid composite airship idea of such applied
> technology that's over your DARPA head?
>

I'd like you to explain how you make a rigid shell light enought.
Remember increased atmosphere density also implies increased pressure.

Cheers

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

"More_Flaps" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 9, 4:50 am, BradGuth > wrote:
..
>>
>> What is it about the rigid composite airship idea of such applied
>> technology that's over your DARPA head?
>>

>I'd like you to explain how you make a rigid shell light enought.
>Remember increased atmosphere density also implies increased pressure.

Whilst hating to appear to support anything the Guthbot posts
I feel it necessary to point out that this is a red herring. As
long as you equalise pressures inside and outside the envelope
there is no reason for the shell to be any heavier than for a
terrestial airship.

The boiling sulphuric acid rain storms are another matter however.

Keith

[BradGuth]

On Jun 8, 2:16 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 4:50 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 10:22 am, wrote:
>
> > > ?
>
> > > > I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
> > > > rec.aviation.piloting.
> > > > --
>
> > > Or reality for that matter...
>
> > Obviously your DARPA brown-nosed expertise is insurmountable, just the
> > way them Zionist/Nazi always intended.
>
> > What is it about the rigid composite airship idea of such applied
> > technology that's over your DARPA head?
>
> I'd like you to explain how you make a rigid shell light enought.
> Remember increased atmosphere density also implies increased pressure.
>
> Cheers

Correct, even pressure plus full interior vacuum if you like.

Or, one could simply offset or displace the mostly CO2 with good old
reliable and failsafe H2.

How much pressure will a good sphere made of a tough composite take?

Remember that for robotics, conventional viewing ports or pilot/crew
escape hatches are not required, and there could be several of these
tough spheres per rigid airship.

The rigid airship quest and of the R&D give and take of this topic is
intended to argue exactly this kind of related technical issue. I do
not have all the answers that I honestly believe others do have at
their disposal. Go figure as to why such public funded expertise
isn't being touted or much less shared.

It seems to me that a given planet of terrific pressure and good
atmospheric density beats most anything moon like or Mars vacuum like,
especially nifty if that planet were at times only 100X as far away as
our moon.

These robotic composite rigid airships could be rather nicely remote
piloted from a manned station (aka POOF City) as safely and
efficiently kept within Venus L2.

Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[[email protected]]

On Jun 8, 10:50*am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On May 28, 10:22 am, wrote:
>
> > ?
>
> > > I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
> > > rec.aviation.piloting.
> > > --
>
> > Or reality for that matter...
>
> Obviously your DARPA brown-nosed expertise is insurmountable, just the
> way them Zionist/Nazi always intended.
>
> What is it about the rigid composite airship idea of such applied
> technology that's over your DARPA head?
>
> Are you going to suggest to us that our Zionist/Nazi DARPA wasn't in
> charge of having made all sorts of nasty **** happen for Hitler?
> Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Brad,

One word:

Lithium

You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:11c2d663-4a7f-46e1-a5a8-4a655c73fb58
@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com:

> On Jun 8, 10:50*am, BradGuth > wrote:
>> On May 28, 10:22 am, wrote:
>>
>> > ?
>>
>> > > I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
>> > > rec.aviation.piloting.
>> > > --
>>
>> > Or reality for that matter...
>>
>> Obviously your DARPA brown-nosed expertise is insurmountable, just
the
>> way them Zionist/Nazi always intended.
>>
>> What is it about the rigid composite airship idea of such applied
>> technology that's over your DARPA head?
>>
>> Are you going to suggest to us that our Zionist/Nazi DARPA wasn't in
>> charge of having made all sorts of nasty **** happen for Hitler?
>> Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> Brad,
>
> One word:
>
> Lithium
>
> You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.
>
>

Bet he's chewing on his cell phone now


Bertie

[BradGuth]

On Jun 8, 9:22 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 8, 10:50 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 10:22 am, wrote:
>
> > > ?
>
> > > > I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
> > > > rec.aviation.piloting.
> > > > --
>
> > > Or reality for that matter...
>
> > Obviously your DARPA brown-nosed expertise is insurmountable, just the
> > way them Zionist/Nazi always intended.
>
> > What is it about the rigid composite airship idea of such applied
> > technology that's over your DARPA head?
>
> > Are you going to suggest to us that our Zionist/Nazi DARPA wasn't in
> > charge of having made all sorts of nasty **** happen for Hitler?
> > Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> Brad,
>
> One word:
>
> Lithium
>
> You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.

That's not half bad for a DARPA brown-nosed minion. Are you speaking
from personal first hand experience with taking Lithium?

Just for a little extra topic argument sake:
http://www.deepoceanexpeditions.com/ships_3_2.html
“The Deep Rover 1002 submersibles have been pressure tested to 1.25
times their maximum diving depth (1,250 meters or 4,100 feet) with a
designed safety factor of four times and a theoretical crush depth of
over 4,000 metres (13,120 feet).”

Of course purely robotics as housed within robust spheres are most
certainly more than good for going all the way down to the deepest of
ocean floors. Venus should hardly be all that insurmountable,
especially if using tough composite spheres.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageseas/deep-side-journey.html
“Piccard and Walsh touched down onto the floor of the very deepest
part of the ocean -- where the crushing pressure exceeds 16,000 pounds
per square inch (more than a thousand times greater than the pressure
at sea level), and where Piccard reported seeing a fish swimming by.
The divers then released the steel shot, and began their rise to the
surface.”

Our worse case robotic probes as accommodated by way of these
composite rigid airships, as such need only survive 100 bar, thereby
of less than 10% as much pressure as the more than four decade old
Challenger Deep or USN Trieste deep ocean capability, and that’s if
these multiple sphere interiors had to remain at no greater than one
bar. Of course with robust robotics, pressure or vacuum are not
significant issues, as with live crew that get a little testy ear
popping while in elevators.

Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[Dan[_12_]]

wrote:
> On Jun 8, 10:50 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>> On May 28, 10:22 am, wrote:
>>
>>> ?
>>>> I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
>>>> rec.aviation.piloting.
>>>> --
>>> Or reality for that matter...
>> Obviously your DARPA brown-nosed expertise is insurmountable, just the
>> way them Zionist/Nazi always intended.
>>
>> What is it about the rigid composite airship idea of such applied
>> technology that's over your DARPA head?
>>
>> Are you going to suggest to us that our Zionist/Nazi DARPA wasn't in
>> charge of having made all sorts of nasty **** happen for Hitler?
>> Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> Brad,
>
> One word:
>
> Lithium
>
> You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.
>

I'm still waiting for guth to tell us about the "good name" he claims
to have. I can think of a few, but I don't use them in polite company.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[BradGuth]

On Jun 8, 10:03 pm, Dan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 10:50 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> >> On May 28, 10:22 am, wrote:
>
> >>> ?
> >>>> I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
> >>>> rec.aviation.piloting.
> >>>> --
> >>> Or reality for that matter...
> >> Obviously your DARPA brown-nosed expertise is insurmountable, just the
> >> way them Zionist/Nazi always intended.
>
> >> What is it about the rigid composite airship idea of such applied
> >> technology that's over your DARPA head?
>
> >> Are you going to suggest to us that our Zionist/Nazi DARPA wasn't in
> >> charge of having made all sorts of nasty **** happen for Hitler?
> >> Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> > Brad,
>
> > One word:
>
> > Lithium
>
> > You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.
>
> I'm still waiting for guth to tell us about the "good name" he claims
> to have. I can think of a few, but I don't use them in polite company.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Shifting damage-control tactics, are we?

What part of your USAF is 100% honest? (remember that excluding
evidence doesn't count)

Are you going to suggest that our USAF never makes mistakes, never
does inter-agency favors and doesn't pull out all the stops in order
to cover their butt?

Are you going to suggest the cold-war wasn't mutually perpetrated?

Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[Dan[_12_]]

BradGuth wrote:
> On Jun 8, 10:03 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 10:50 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>>>> On May 28, 10:22 am, wrote:
>>>>> ?
>>>>>> I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with
>>>>>> rec.aviation.piloting.
>>>>>> --
>>>>> Or reality for that matter...
>>>> Obviously your DARPA brown-nosed expertise is insurmountable, just the
>>>> way them Zionist/Nazi always intended.
>>>> What is it about the rigid composite airship idea of such applied
>>>> technology that's over your DARPA head?
>>>> Are you going to suggest to us that our Zionist/Nazi DARPA wasn't in
>>>> charge of having made all sorts of nasty **** happen for Hitler?
>>>> Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>>> Brad,
>>> One word:
>>> Lithium
>>> You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.
>> I'm still waiting for guth to tell us about the "good name" he claims
>> to have. I can think of a few, but I don't use them in polite company.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Shifting damage-control tactics, are we?

Not a bit of it.
>
> What part of your USAF is 100% honest? (remember that excluding
> evidence doesn't count)

All of it. What does that have to do with the observation I made?
>
> Are you going to suggest that our USAF never makes mistakes, never
> does inter-agency favors and doesn't pull out all the stops in order
> to cover their butt?

Have I ever suggested otherwise? What does that have to do with the
observation I made?

>
> Are you going to suggest the cold-war wasn't mutually perpetrated?

Have I ever suggested otherwise? What does that have to do with the
observation I made?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Pat Flannery]

Keith Willshaw wrote:
> Whilst hating to appear to support anything the Guthbot posts
> I feel it necessary to point out that this is a red herring. As
> long as you equalise pressures inside and outside the envelope
> there is no reason for the shell to be any heavier than for a
> terrestial airship.
>

Dittos... and the higher the atmospheric pressure, the greater the
difference of the density of the gas inside the envelope and outside of
it on said airship will work to generate increased lift, in much the
same way that fish swim bladders make up only a small part of their
overall volume, yet the huge difference in density between air and
seawater brings them to neutral buoyancy.
Anyway, you are now trying to argue logic with a certifiable paranoid
schizophrenic, which is inevitably a losing game.
This guy, not to put too fine of a point on it, is completely off of his
little Venusian rocker.
He needs a lithium chew-bar around the size of a brick. :-D
If I may paraphrase my father's words of wisdom: "Beauty is only skin
deep, but crazy goes right to the bone."
....and here's the ZMC-2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZMC-2 not that
it's going to tolerate 800 F. or sulphuric acid rain at all well.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

wrote:
> Brad,
>
> One word:
>
> Lithium
>
> You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.
>

Or sodium... that might work if he were to jam a grape-sized chunk of
sodium into his mouth, then wash it down with a glass of water.
"Liar, liar, pants on fire" (LLPOF)?
Hell..."Brad, Brad, innards on fire"? :-D
Oh, that would be something to see on YouTube.
You'd have to score it to the "1812 Overture".
"Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
(H-i-s-s-s)
"Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
(H-I-S-S-S-S-S)
"Da-da-da-da-da-duda-h-h-h-h-h...da-da duh....da-da-duh, da duh-duh,
duh-da...duh-dut...DUH!
"KA-BLAM!" :-D


Pat

[BradGuth]

On Jun 9, 1:57 am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Brad,
>
> > One word:
>
> > Lithium
>
> > You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.
>
> Or sodium... that might work if he were to jam a grape-sized chunk of
> sodium into his mouth, then wash it down with a glass of water.
> "Liar, liar, pants on fire" (LLPOF)?
> Hell..."Brad, Brad, innards on fire"? :-D
> Oh, that would be something to see on YouTube.
> You'd have to score it to the "1812 Overture".
> "Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
> (H-i-s-s-s)
> "Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
> (H-I-S-S-S-S-S)
> "Da-da-da-da-da-duda-h-h-h-h-h...da-da duh....da-da-duh, da duh-duh,
> duh-da...duh-dut...DUH!
> "KA-BLAM!" :-D
>
> Pat

Your Zionist/Nazi boot camp is certainly paying off, just like it did
when you had to get rid of all those other good folks that had nothing
to offer your boss, Hitler.

Interesting how the pretend-atheists of Usenet/newsgroups are so
willing to prove they still have "the right stuff".
Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

Just for a little extra topic argument sake, on behalf of rigid
composite airships:
http://www.deepoceanexpeditions.com/ships_3_2.html
“The Deep Rover 1002 submersibles have been pressure tested to 1.25
times their maximum diving depth (1,250 meters or 4,100 feet) with a
designed safety factor of four times and a theoretical crush depth of
over 4,000 metres (13,120 feet).”

Of course purely robotics as housed within robust spheres are most
certainly more than good for going all the way down to the deepest of
ocean floors. Venus should hardly be all that insurmountable,
especially if using tough composite spheres.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageseas/deep-side-journey.html
“Piccard and Walsh touched down onto the floor of the very deepest
part of the ocean -- where the crushing pressure exceeds 16,000 pounds
per square inch (more than a thousand times greater than the pressure
at sea level), and where Piccard reported seeing a fish swimming by.
The divers then released the steel shot, and began their rise to the
surface.”

Our worse case robotic probes, as easily accommodated by way of these
composite rigid airships, as such need only survive 100 bar, thereby
of less than 10% as much pressure as the more than four decade old
Challenger Deep or USN Trieste deep ocean capability, and that’s if
these multiple sphere interiors had to remain at no greater than one
bar. Of course with robust robotics, such pressure or vacuum are not
hardly significant issues, as per otherwise with live crew that’ll get
a little testy ear popping while in elevators.

Diving into the robust atmosphere of Venus is not all that different
than going for the deepest of terrestrial ocean floors, except that a
Venus rigid airship need not be nearly as stout or nearly as
artificially ballasted in order to submerge itself.


On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> airship.
>
> Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> fairly calm, as kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better
> buoyancy as one operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km
> by season of day, and below 25 km by season of nighttime is where
> that robust S8/CO2 atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as
> far as you can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all
> directions).
>
> Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> AI robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> terrestrial 5:1.
>
> In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> for obvious flight stability, but also fully utilized for their heat-
> exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> landing skids (just in case).
>
> Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> with is certainly going to help us avoid all sorts of inert mass
> considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> systems and main propulsion.
>
> Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
> geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> and Geoffrey A. Landis
> http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> bashing for all they can muster.
> . – Brad Guth

[Keith Willshaw[_3_]]

"BradGuth" > wrote in message
...
> Just for a little extra topic argument sake, on behalf of rigid
> composite airships:
> http://www.deepoceanexpeditions.com/ships_3_2.html
> “The Deep Rover 1002 submersibles have been pressure tested to 1.25
> times their maximum diving depth (1,250 meters or 4,100 feet) with a
> designed safety factor of four times and a theoretical crush depth of
> over 4,000 metres (13,120 feet).”


A trivial design problem compared with Venusian conditions.
The pressure vessel on those submersibles would MELT
on the Venusian surface while the sulphuric acid droplets
suspended higher in the atmosphere make that a very unpleasant
environment for acryllic plastics.

At any altitude within a meaningful fraction of the Venusian
atmosphere the temperatures are high enough to fry electronics
without a powerful cooling system.. IRC the record for duration
of any package landed on the surface is around 2 hours

Keith

[[email protected]]

<incoherent babble snipped>

Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!

[BradGuth]

On Jun 9, 11:54 am, "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> ...> Just for a little extra topic argument sake, on behalf of rigid
> > composite airships:
>
> >http://www.deepoceanexpeditions.com/ships_3_2.html
> > “The Deep Rover 1002 submersibles have been pressure tested to 1.25
>
> > times their maximum diving depth (1,250 meters or 4,100 feet) with a
> > designed safety factor of four times and a theoretical crush depth of
> > over 4,000 metres (13,120 feet).”
>
> A trivial design problem compared with Venusian conditions.
> The pressure vessel on those submersibles would MELT
> on the Venusian surface while the sulphuric acid droplets
> suspended higher in the atmosphere make that a very unpleasant
> environment for acryllic plastics.
>
> At any altitude within a meaningful fraction of the Venusian
> atmosphere the temperatures are high enough to fry electronics
> without a powerful cooling system.. IRC the record for duration
> of any package landed on the surface is around 2 hours
>
> Keith

What a total wuss, and obviously dumbfounded to boot. You say melt?

You've got to be kidding. Is Venus suddenly into geothermally
roasting itself well above 811 K?

If not 811+ K, where's the big ass insurmountable problem?

Say again, what the nighttime seasonal temperature is at 25+km?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

David Grinspoon quotes: http://thinkexist.com/quotes/david_grinspoon/
“We're ignorant of life in the universe. We only have one planet that
serves as an example and in science it's not good to derive
information from a sample size of one.”

[BradGuth]

On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
> <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!

Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?

What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
topic?

Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

Just for a little extra topic argument sake, on behalf of my rigid
composite airships:
http://www.deepoceanexpeditions.com/ships_3_2.html
“The Deep Rover 1002 submersibles have been pressure tested to 1.25
times their maximum diving depth (1,250 meters or 4,100 feet) with a
designed safety factor of four times and a theoretical crush depth of
over 4,000 metres (13,120 feet).”

Of course, purely robotics as housed within robust spheres are most
certainly more than good for going all the way down to the deepest of
ocean floors. Venus should hardly be all that insurmountable,
especially if using tough composite spheres that wouldn’t crush at
100+ bar nor otherwise melt at 900 K.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageseas/deep-side-journey.html
“Piccard and Walsh touched down onto the floor of the very deepest
part of the ocean -- where the crushing pressure exceeds 16,000 pounds
per square inch (more than a thousand times greater than the pressure
at sea level), and where Piccard reported seeing a fish swimming by.
The divers then released the steel shot, and began their rise to the
surface.”

Our worse case robotic probes, as easily accommodated by way of these
robust composite rigid airships, as such need only survive 100 bar,
thereby of having to fend off less than 10% as much pressure as the
more than four decade old Challenger Deep or USN Trieste deep ocean
capability, and that’s even if these multiple sphere interiors had to
remain at no greater than one bar. Of course with robust robotics,
such pressure or vacuum are not hardly significant issues, as per
otherwise with accommodating live crew that tend to get a little testy
ear popping while in terrestrial elevators.

Diving into the robust atmosphere of Venus is not all that different
than going for the deepest of terrestrial ocean floors, except that a
Venus rigid airship need not be nearly as stout or nearly as
artificially ballasted in order to submerge itself.

btw, France has a high pressure research chamber, whereas an
atmosphere of 99% H2 and 1% O2 is humanly survivable at 1000 psi, and
you can darn well bet your bottom dollar that our DARPA has the same
or better R&D capability at their biological habitat research
disposal.

Apparently, most of our Usenet/newsgroup wizards of such devout
pretend-atheists either don’t know of nor would they ever admit
knowing what the word “composite” means, because all they and their
fellow brown-nosed clowns can ever think about is how anything we’d
send to Venus would simply melt. I believe it’s another one of those
“no child left behind” kinda things, if not simply mainstream faith-
based nayism at its best. Another pesky matter that's never taken
seriously, is that our robotic airships never have to land, not that
such landings wouldn’t be doable and survivable by these composite
rigid airships.
Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> airship.
>
> Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see
> (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> terrestrial 5:1.
>
> In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> landing skids (just in case).
>
> Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> systems and main propulsion.
>
> Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
> geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> and Geoffrey A. Landis
> http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> bashing for all they can muster.
> . –BradGuth

[[email protected]]

On Jun 9, 11:30*pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> topic?
>
> Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

What is the topic? Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
Venus while tripping on acid?

[BradGuth]

On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > topic?
>
> > Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> What is the topic? Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> Venus while tripping on acid?

Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.

We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. Since it's worth less than
used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 7:23*am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > topic?
>
> > > Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> > What is the topic? *Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. *Since it's worth less than
> used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wow, I am working for DARPA? Hmmm, where is my paycheck. I'll have
to give them a call!

[BradGuth]

On Jun 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 11, 7:23 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > > topic?
>
> > > > Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> > > What is the topic? Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> > Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> > topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> > We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. Since it's worth less than
> > used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Wow, I am working for DARPA? Hmmm, where is my paycheck. I'll have
> to give them a call!

You really should do just that, because without your brown-nosed
expertise they'd be seriously screwed. If DARPA didn't already have a
"dean" minion, they'd sure as hell need to invent one.

Of course, yourself and others of your kind find nothing the least be
wrong or even skewed with any part of the ongoing administration, or
with those of their insider war-for-profit partners in crimes against
humanity, so what's the difference?

I bet you wouldn't even care if motor fuel went for $10/gallon. (it's
already more than half that much if you need to burn diesel)

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 4:44*pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 7:23 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > > > topic?
>
> > > > > Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> > > > What is the topic? *Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > > > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> > > Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> > > topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> > > We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. *Since it's worth less than
> > > used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> > > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Wow, I am working for DARPA? *Hmmm, where is my paycheck. *I'll have
> > to give them a call!
>
> You really should do just that, because without your brown-nosed
> expertise they'd be seriously screwed. *If DARPA didn't already have a
> "dean" minion, they'd sure as hell need to invent one.
>
> Of course, yourself and others of your kind find nothing the least be
> wrong or even skewed with any part of the ongoing administration, or
> with those of their insider war-for-profit partners in crimes against
> humanity, so what's the difference?
>
> I bet you wouldn't even care if motor fuel went for $10/gallon. (it's
> already more than half that much if you need to burn diesel)
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, I do care that it is that high. I am making a killing selling oil
from the well I drilled in my back yard...

[BradGuth]

On Jun 11, 3:48 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 11, 4:44 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 11, 7:23 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > > > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > > > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > > > > topic?
>
> > > > > > Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> > > > > What is the topic? Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > > > > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> > > > Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> > > > topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> > > > We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. Since it's worth less than
> > > > used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> > > > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Wow, I am working for DARPA? Hmmm, where is my paycheck. I'll have
> > > to give them a call!
>
> > You really should do just that, because without your brown-nosed
> > expertise they'd be seriously screwed. If DARPA didn't already have a
> > "dean" minion, they'd sure as hell need to invent one.
>
> > Of course, yourself and others of your kind find nothing the least be
> > wrong or even skewed with any part of the ongoing administration, or
> > with those of their insider war-for-profit partners in crimes against
> > humanity, so what's the difference?
>
> > I bet you wouldn't even care if motor fuel went for $10/gallon. (it's
> > already more than half that much if you need to burn diesel)
>
> > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> No, I do care that it is that high. I am making a killing selling oil
> from the well I drilled in my back yard...

Very good, as then you'll not mind WWIII. In fact, if you play your
crude oil cards just right, WWIII will only make you a whole lot
richer and otherwise Zionist faith-based powerful. At the same time
you'd also be putting a big-ass smile on Hitlers face (neat trick
considering he's dead).

BTW, not that you'd care, but did you hear that most recent NPR
report of the forthcoming "severe inflation"?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

If robotics simply isn’t offering sufficient exploration risk or
otherwise DARPA/NASA spendy enough, there’s always a fully manned
mission of the very least 100 fold more spendy, plus their having to
navigate well above the hot geothermal surface of Venus for roughly 18
months before eventually upward exiting and returning to Earth. The
AI/robotic consideration would not only cost at least 100 fold less
than any manned mission, but it also doesn’t have to ever return to
Earth, and thereby could stay on its mission throughout several 19
month cycles, as well as multiple surface landings becomes technically
doable without risk of harming a single strand of human DNA. So
therefore, a robotic rigid-airship is actually a good thousand fold
cheaper than any kind of manned mission (perhaps even if POOF City
were set up at Venus L2 would likely still be 100 fold less spendy).

The Venus environment at one of the likely rigid-airship cruising
altitudes of 25 km is only a bit 500K (440F) toasty warm by season of
day, and otherwise somewhat considerably cooler by season of night,
perhaps drawn down to as low as 400K (260F).

The closer you get to that geothermally hot surface the less day/night
thermal differential you’ve got to work with. Increasing the
operational altitude to 35 km by season of nighttime is almost humanly
tolerable, although you’re also getting into that lower acidic cloud
haze. Much above 35 km by season of nighttime you may need to
consider navigating by radar, as well as remain submarine like fully
enclosed within the rigid composite airship. By season of day should
allow cruising as high as 45 km, although there too is that pesky
acidic cloud haze to deal with.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth



On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> For this topic I have this unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> airship.
>
> Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and otherwise clear for as far as you
> can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> terrestrial 5:1.
>
> In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> landing skids (just in case).
>
> Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> systems and main propulsion.
>
> Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
> geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> and Geoffrey A. Landis
> http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> bashing for all the grief they can muster.
> . – Brad Guth

[[email protected]]

On Jun 11, 5:01*pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Jun 11, 3:48 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 4:44 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 11, 7:23 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > > > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > > > > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > > > > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > > > > > topic?
>
> > > > > > > Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> > > > > > What is the topic? *Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > > > > > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> > > > > Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> > > > > topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> > > > > We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. *Since it's worth less than
> > > > > used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> > > > > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Wow, I am working for DARPA? *Hmmm, where is my paycheck. *I'll have
> > > > to give them a call!
>
> > > You really should do just that, because without your brown-nosed
> > > expertise they'd be seriously screwed. *If DARPA didn't already have a
> > > "dean" minion, they'd sure as hell need to invent one.
>
> > > Of course, yourself and others of your kind find nothing the least be
> > > wrong or even skewed with any part of the ongoing administration, or
> > > with those of their insider war-for-profit partners in crimes against
> > > humanity, so what's the difference?
>
> > > I bet you wouldn't even care if motor fuel went for $10/gallon. (it's
> > > already more than half that much if you need to burn diesel)
>
> > > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > No, I do care that it is that high. *I am making a killing selling oil
> > from the well I drilled in my back yard...
>
> Very good, as then you'll not mind WWIII. *In fact, if you play your
> crude oil cards just right, WWIII will only make you a whole lot
> richer and otherwise Zionist faith-based powerful. *At the same time
> you'd also be putting a big-ass smile on Hitlers face (neat trick
> considering he's dead).
>
> BTW, *not that you'd care, but did you hear that most recent NPR
> report of the forthcoming "severe inflation"?
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

A personal oil well is the world's best hedge against inflation...

[[email protected]]

On Jun 9, 7:36 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 1:57 am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > > Brad,
>
> > > One word:
>
> > > Lithium
>
> > > You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.
>
> > Or sodium... that might work if he were to jam a grape-sized chunk of
> > sodium into his mouth, then wash it down with a glass of water.
> > "Liar, liar, pants on fire" (LLPOF)?
> > Hell..."Brad, Brad, innards on fire"? :-D
> > Oh, that would be something to see on YouTube.
> > You'd have to score it to the "1812 Overture".
> > "Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
> > (H-i-s-s-s)
> > "Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
> > (H-I-S-S-S-S-S)
> > "Da-da-da-da-da-duda-h-h-h-h-h...da-da duh....da-da-duh, da duh-duh,
> > duh-da...duh-dut...DUH!
> > "KA-BLAM!" :-D
>
> > Pat
>
> Your Zionist/Nazi boot camp is certainly paying off, just like it did
> when you had to get rid of all those other good folks that had nothing
> to offer your boss, Hitler.
>
> Interesting how the pretend-atheists of Usenet/newsgroups are so
> willing to prove they still have "the right stuff".
> Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Re-reading your posts with the labels removed reduces the semantic
content to zero.

All you have is labels...and hot air.

[Dan[_12_]]

wrote:
> On Jun 9, 7:36 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 1:57 am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Brad,
>>>> One word:
>>>> Lithium
>>>> You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.
>>> Or sodium... that might work if he were to jam a grape-sized chunk of
>>> sodium into his mouth, then wash it down with a glass of water.
>>> "Liar, liar, pants on fire" (LLPOF)?
>>> Hell..."Brad, Brad, innards on fire"? :-D
>>> Oh, that would be something to see on YouTube.
>>> You'd have to score it to the "1812 Overture".
>>> "Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
>>> (H-i-s-s-s)
>>> "Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
>>> (H-I-S-S-S-S-S)
>>> "Da-da-da-da-da-duda-h-h-h-h-h...da-da duh....da-da-duh, da duh-duh,
>>> duh-da...duh-dut...DUH!
>>> "KA-BLAM!" :-D
>>> Pat
>> Your Zionist/Nazi boot camp is certainly paying off, just like it did
>> when you had to get rid of all those other good folks that had nothing
>> to offer your boss, Hitler.
>>
>> Interesting how the pretend-atheists of Usenet/newsgroups are so
>> willing to prove they still have "the right stuff".
>> Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> Re-reading your posts with the labels removed reduces the semantic
> content to zero.
>
> All you have is labels...and hot air.

When guth finally goes to the great loony bin in the sky disposing of
his body would be easy: beat the crap out of it and bury the rest in a
thimble.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

On Jun 12, 1:40*pm, Dan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 7:36 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> >> On Jun 9, 1:57 am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Brad,
> >>>> One word:
> >>>> Lithium
> >>>> You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.
> >>> Or sodium... that might work if he were to jam a grape-sized chunk of
> >>> sodium into his mouth, then wash it down with a glass of water.
> >>> "Liar, liar, pants on fire" (LLPOF)?
> >>> Hell..."Brad, Brad, innards on fire"? :-D
> >>> Oh, that would be something to see on YouTube.
> >>> You'd have to score it to the "1812 Overture".
> >>> "Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
> >>> (H-i-s-s-s)
> >>> "Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
> >>> (H-I-S-S-S-S-S)
> >>> "Da-da-da-da-da-duda-h-h-h-h-h...da-da duh....da-da-duh, da duh-duh,
> >>> duh-da...duh-dut...DUH!
> >>> "KA-BLAM!" :-D
> >>> Pat
> >> Your Zionist/Nazi boot camp is certainly paying off, just like it did
> >> when you had to get rid of all those other good folks that had nothing
> >> to offer your boss, Hitler.
>
> >> Interesting how the pretend-atheists of Usenet/newsgroups are so
> >> willing to prove they still have "the right stuff".
> >> Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> > Re-reading your posts with the labels removed reduces the semantic
> > content to zero.
>
> > All you have is labels...and hot air.
>
> * *When guth finally goes to the great loony bin in the sky disposing of
> his body would be easy: beat the crap out of it and bury the rest in a
> thimble.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL!!! Gotta remember that one...

[Pat Flannery]

wrote:
>> Your Zionist/Nazi boot camp is certainly paying off, just like it did
>> when you had to get rid of all those other good folks that had nothing
>> to offer your boss, Hitler.
> Re-reading your posts with the labels removed reduces the semantic
> content to zero.
>

Dear Gott... Brad's on to me!
No more uncoded shortwave communications with the secret Antarctic base
at Neu Schwabenland!: http://antarctica.greyfalcon.us/


> All you have is labels...and hot air.
>

You may laugh now, untermensch... but just wait till those Lebensborn
Aryan penguins start shuffling towards you, right wings raised stiffly,
the steel-toed boots on their feet cutting a proud tread into the clean
white ice...on the road to the future!
MEIN FUHRER!
I CAN _WOBBLE_! :-D

Pat

[BradGuth]

On Jun 12, 10:47 am, wrote:
> On Jun 9, 7:36 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 1:57 am, Pat Flannery > wrote:
>
> > > wrote:
> > > >Brad,
>
> > > > One word:
>
> > > > Lithium
>
> > > > You need to ingest massive doses of Lithium.
>
> > > Or sodium... that might work if he were to jam a grape-sized chunk of
> > > sodium into his mouth, then wash it down with a glass of water.
> > > "Liar, liar, pants on fire" (LLPOF)?
> > > Hell..."Brad,Brad, innards on fire"? :-D
> > > Oh, that would be something to see on YouTube.
> > > You'd have to score it to the "1812 Overture".
> > > "Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
> > > (H-i-s-s-s)
> > > "Dah-da-da-dut-da dah-da-dut-dut-duh"
> > > (H-I-S-S-S-S-S)
> > > "Da-da-da-da-da-duda-h-h-h-h-h...da-da duh....da-da-duh, da duh-duh,
> > > duh-da...duh-dut...DUH!
> > > "KA-BLAM!" :-D
>
> > > Pat
>
> > Your Zionist/Nazi boot camp is certainly paying off, just like it did
> > when you had to get rid of all those other good folks that had nothing
> > to offer your boss, Hitler.
>
> > Interesting how the pretend-atheists of Usenet/newsgroups are so
> > willing to prove they still have "the right stuff".
> >BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth
>
> Re-reading your posts with the labels removed reduces the semantic
> content to zero.
>
> All you have is labels...and hot air.

When my topics are continually stalked and bashed for no good
reason(s), I merely do the best that I can in order to return the warm
and fuzzy favor.

Do you have anything the least be topic constructive, such as
pertaining to the R&D of rigid composite airships?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

On Jun 12, 8:24 am, wrote:
> On Jun 11, 5:01 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 3:48 pm, wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 11, 4:44 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 11, 7:23 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > > > > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > > > > > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > > > > > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > > > > > > topic?
>
> > > > > > > >BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > > > > > > What is the topic? Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > > > > > > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> > > > > > Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> > > > > > topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> > > > > > We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. Since it's worth less than
> > > > > > used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> > > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Wow, I am working for DARPA? Hmmm, where is my paycheck. I'll have
> > > > > to give them a call!
>
> > > > You really should do just that, because without your brown-nosed
> > > > expertise they'd be seriously screwed. If DARPA didn't already have a
> > > > "dean" minion, they'd sure as hell need to invent one.
>
> > > > Of course, yourself and others of your kind find nothing the least be
> > > > wrong or even skewed with any part of the ongoing administration, or
> > > > with those of their insider war-for-profit partners in crimes against
> > > > humanity, so what's the difference?
>
> > > > I bet you wouldn't even care if motor fuel went for $10/gallon. (it's
> > > > already more than half that much if you need to burn diesel)
>
> > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > No, I do care that it is that high. I am making a killing selling oil
> > > from the well I drilled in my back yard...
>
> > Very good, as then you'll not mind WWIII. In fact, if you play your
> > crude oil cards just right, WWIII will only make you a whole lot
> > richer and otherwise Zionist faith-based powerful. At the same time
> > you'd also be putting a big-ass smile on Hitlers face (neat trick
> > considering he's dead).
>
> > BTW, not that you'd care, but did you hear that most recent NPR
> > report of the forthcoming "severe inflation"?
>
> > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A personal oil well is the world's best hedge against inflation...

Why not simply call yourself ENRON, or ExxonMobil ??

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

On Jun 14, 8:07 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Jun 12, 8:24 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 11, 5:01 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 11, 3:48 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 11, 4:44 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 7:23 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > > > > > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > > > > > > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > > > > > > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > > > > > > > topic?
>
> > > > > > > > >BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > > > > > > > What is the topic? Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > > > > > > > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> > > > > > > Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> > > > > > > topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> > > > > > > We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. Since it's worth less than
> > > > > > > used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> > > > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Wow, I am working for DARPA? Hmmm, where is my paycheck. I'll have
> > > > > > to give them a call!
>
> > > > > You really should do just that, because without your brown-nosed
> > > > > expertise they'd be seriously screwed. If DARPA didn't already have a
> > > > > "dean" minion, they'd sure as hell need to invent one.
>
> > > > > Of course, yourself and others of your kind find nothing the least be
> > > > > wrong or even skewed with any part of the ongoing administration, or
> > > > > with those of their insider war-for-profit partners in crimes against
> > > > > humanity, so what's the difference?
>
> > > > > I bet you wouldn't even care if motor fuel went for $10/gallon. (it's
> > > > > already more than half that much if you need to burn diesel)
>
> > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > No, I do care that it is that high. I am making a killing selling oil
> > > > from the well I drilled in my back yard...
>
> > > Very good, as then you'll not mind WWIII. In fact, if you play your
> > > crude oil cards just right, WWIII will only make you a whole lot
> > > richer and otherwise Zionist faith-based powerful. At the same time
> > > you'd also be putting a big-ass smile on Hitlers face (neat trick
> > > considering he's dead).
>
> > > BTW, not that you'd care, but did you hear that most recent NPR
> > > report of the forthcoming "severe inflation"?
>
> > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > A personal oil well is the world's best hedge against inflation...
>
> Why not simply call yourself ENRON, or ExxonMobil ??

BTW, why is DARPA and their army of brown-nosed minions so upset about
this topic?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[[email protected]]

On Jun 17, 10:13*pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 8:07 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 8:24 am, wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 11, 5:01 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 11, 3:48 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 11, 4:44 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 11, 7:23 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > > > > > > > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > > > > > > > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > > > > > > > > topic?
>
> > > > > > > > > >BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > > > > > > > > What is the topic? *Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > > > > > > > > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> > > > > > > > Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> > > > > > > > topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> > > > > > > > We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. *Since it's worth less than
> > > > > > > > used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> > > > > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Wow, I am working for DARPA? *Hmmm, where is my paycheck. *I'll have
> > > > > > > to give them a call!
>
> > > > > > You really should do just that, because without your brown-nosed
> > > > > > expertise they'd be seriously screwed. *If DARPA didn't already have a
> > > > > > "dean" minion, they'd sure as hell need to invent one.
>
> > > > > > Of course, yourself and others of your kind find nothing the least be
> > > > > > wrong or even skewed with any part of the ongoing administration, or
> > > > > > with those of their insider war-for-profit partners in crimes against
> > > > > > humanity, so what's the difference?
>
> > > > > > I bet you wouldn't even care if motor fuel went for $10/gallon. (it's
> > > > > > already more than half that much if you need to burn diesel)
>
> > > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > No, I do care that it is that high. *I am making a killing selling oil
> > > > > from the well I drilled in my back yard...
>
> > > > Very good, as then you'll not mind WWIII. *In fact, if you play your
> > > > crude oil cards just right, WWIII will only make you a whole lot
> > > > richer and otherwise Zionist faith-based powerful. *At the same time
> > > > you'd also be putting a big-ass smile on Hitlers face (neat trick
> > > > considering he's dead).
>
> > > > BTW, *not that you'd care, but did you hear that most recent NPR
> > > > report of the forthcoming "severe inflation"?
>
> > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > A personal oil well is the world's best hedge against inflation...
>
> > Why not simply call yourself ENRON, or ExxonMobil ??
>
> BTW, why is DARPA and their army of brown-nosed minions so upset about
> this topic?
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What makes you think that DARPA gives a crap about this topic? I
doubt that they care... sounds like delusions of grandeur on your
part.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:

> What makes you think that DARPA gives a crap about this topic? I
> doubt that they care... sounds like delusions of grandeur on your
> part.

Nope, just plain old Guth delusions.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[BradGuth]

On Jun 18, 3:45 pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:
> > What makes you think that DARPA gives a crap about this topic? I
> > doubt that they care... sounds like delusions of grandeur on your
> > part.
>
> Nope, just plain old Guth delusions.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Guth delusions of plain old physics-101.

Guth delusions of best available science-101.

Whats your bipolar excuse?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

On Jun 18, 3:32 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:13 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 8:07 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 8:24 am, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 11, 5:01 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 11, 3:48 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 4:44 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 7:23 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > > > > > > > > > topic?
>
> > > > > > > > > > >BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > > > > > > > > > What is the topic? Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > > > > > > > > > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> > > > > > > > > Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> > > > > > > > > topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> > > > > > > > > We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. Since it's worth less than
> > > > > > > > > used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> > > > > > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > Wow, I am working for DARPA? Hmmm, where is my paycheck. I'll have
> > > > > > > > to give them a call!
>
> > > > > > > You really should do just that, because without your brown-nosed
> > > > > > > expertise they'd be seriously screwed. If DARPA didn't already have a
> > > > > > > "dean" minion, they'd sure as hell need to invent one.
>
> > > > > > > Of course, yourself and others of your kind find nothing the least be
> > > > > > > wrong or even skewed with any part of the ongoing administration, or
> > > > > > > with those of their insider war-for-profit partners in crimes against
> > > > > > > humanity, so what's the difference?
>
> > > > > > > I bet you wouldn't even care if motor fuel went for $10/gallon. (it's
> > > > > > > already more than half that much if you need to burn diesel)
>
> > > > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > No, I do care that it is that high. I am making a killing selling oil
> > > > > > from the well I drilled in my back yard...
>
> > > > > Very good, as then you'll not mind WWIII. In fact, if you play your
> > > > > crude oil cards just right, WWIII will only make you a whole lot
> > > > > richer and otherwise Zionist faith-based powerful. At the same time
> > > > > you'd also be putting a big-ass smile on Hitlers face (neat trick
> > > > > considering he's dead).
>
> > > > > BTW, not that you'd care, but did you hear that most recent NPR
> > > > > report of the forthcoming "severe inflation"?
>
> > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > A personal oil well is the world's best hedge against inflation...
>
> > > Why not simply call yourself ENRON, or ExxonMobil ??
>
> > BTW, why is DARPA and their army of brown-nosed minions so upset about
> > this topic?
>
> > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What makes you think that DARPA gives a crap about this topic? I
> doubt that they care... sounds like delusions of grandeur on your
> part.

Then prove otherwise by simply turning on those "gold stars".

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[Damien Valentine]

On Jun 14, 8:05*am, BradGuth > wrote:

> Do you have anything the least be topic constructive, such as
> pertaining to the R&D of rigid composite airships?

Do you?

See, here's the thing that bugs me. This thread didn't start out
bad. You have actual numbers (though I have no idea how accurate they
are); you mention the Landis aerostat concept. But then Liberator and
Hagar jump on the topic immediately, hold out the bait...and you go
straight for it, turning what could have been an actual engineering
discussion into a rant about "Zionist NAZI wizards".

To your credit, you have occassionally tried to steer the thread back
into relevant areas, but then you turn right around and push your
DARPA conspiracy theory again. The title of this thread is "Venus
Airships", right? Then talk about Venus airships! Leave your ideas
about government persecution to another thread. (Preferably in
another newsgroup.)

[BradGuth]

On Jun 19, 6:39 am, Damien Valentine > wrote:
> On Jun 14, 8:05 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > Do you have anything the least be topic constructive, such as
> > pertaining to the R&D of rigid composite airships?
>
> Do you?

Yes I have lots to offers, but unlike your all-knowing self, I do not
have 100% of all the exact right answers.

>
> See, here's the thing that bugs me. This thread didn't start out
> bad. You have actual numbers (though I have no idea how accurate they
> are); you mention the Landis aerostat concept. But then Liberator and
> Hagar jump on the topic immediately, hold out the bait...and you go
> straight for it, turning what could have been an actual engineering
> discussion into a rant about "Zionist NAZI wizards".

You already know that I'm only returning the favor, with all the love
and affection that I can muster. So, what's your point?

>
> To your credit, you have occassionally tried to steer the thread back
> into relevant areas, but then you turn right around and push your
> DARPA conspiracy theory again. The title of this thread is "Venus
> Airships", right? Then talk about Venus airships! Leave your ideas
> about government persecution to another thread. (Preferably in
> another newsgroup.)

Where are your supposed good numbers, ideas, R&D or of whatever's
DARPA need-to-know about the complex applications of a composite rigid
airship as intended for accomplishing Venus?

Or would your rather pretend the past of dastardly deeds never
happened?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

Notice how our Zionist/Nazi DARPA and of their army of brown-nosed
clowns just loves to play games, though mostly at the collateral
damage and demise of others.

Notice how the past or recent energy inflation doesn't bother these
DARPA clowns in the least bit.

Notice how perpetrated war(s) (including WWIII) doesn't seem to bother
any of these DARPA clowns.

Notice how every effort is made to topic/author stalk, bash, banish,
divert and/or pollute our public Usenet/newsgroups, by way of those in
charge of our private parts and most of our hard earned loot.

Notice how they've turned off those Google/NOVA newsgroup "gold
stars".

Notice how they've posted their smut and porn topics with key search
words.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth



On Jun 12, 5:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> If robotics simply isn’t offering sufficient exploration risk or
> otherwise DARPA/NASA spendy enough, there’s always a fully manned
> mission of the very least 100 fold more spendy, plus their having to
> navigate well above the hot geothermal surface ofVenusfor roughly 18
> months before eventually upward exiting and returning to Earth. The
> AI/robotic consideration would not only cost at least 100 fold less
> than any manned mission, but it also doesn’t have to ever return to
> Earth, and thereby could stay on its mission throughout several 19
> month cycles, as well as multiple surface landings becomes technically
> doable without risk of harming a single strand of human DNA. So
> therefore, a robotic rigid-airship is actually a good thousand fold
> cheaper than any kind of manned mission (perhaps even if POOF City
> were set up atVenusL2 would likely still be 100 fold less spendy).
>
> TheVenusenvironment at one of the likely rigid-airship cruising
> altitudes of 25 km is only a bit 500K (440F) toasty warm by season of
> day, and otherwise somewhat considerably cooler by season of night,
> perhaps drawn down to as low as 400K (260F).
>
> The closer you get to that geothermally hot surface the less day/night
> thermal differential you’ve got to work with. Increasing the
> operational altitude to 35 km by season of nighttime is almost humanly
> tolerable, although you’re also getting into that lower acidic cloud
> haze. Much above 35 km by season of nighttime you may need to
> consider navigating by radar, as well as remain submarine like fully
> enclosed within the rigid composite airship. By season of day should
> allow cruising as high as 45 km, although there too is that pesky
> acidic cloud haze to deal with.
>
> - BradGuthBrad_Guth Brad.GuthBradGuth
>
> On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> > darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> > an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> > excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > For this topic I have this unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> > rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> > a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> > as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> > for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> > even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> > 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> > airship.
>
> > Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> > nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> > terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> > fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> > because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> > radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> > and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> > and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> > Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> > per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> > capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> > operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> > below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> > atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and otherwise clear for as far as you
> > can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> > Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> > robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> > somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> > composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> > terrestrial 5:1.
>
> > In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> > that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> > being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> > mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> > that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> > proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> > this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> > There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> > for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> > exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> > landing skids (just in case).
>
> > Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> > diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> > thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> > main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> > reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> > need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> > considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> > striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> > essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> > clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> > This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> > flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> > cruising aboutVenuswhere size and mass are of little concern when
> > having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> > with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> > considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> > In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> > there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> > melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> > utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> > systems and main propulsion.
>
> > Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> > insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> > that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> > 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
> > geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> > becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> > Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> > not about our having to terraformVenus, or that of our having to
> > prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> > OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> > Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> > doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> > land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> > version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> > the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> > periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> > Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> > expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> > laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> > science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> > word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> > demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> > that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> > accomplishing thoseVenusexpeditions.
>
> >Venusexploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> > http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> > Evaluation of Long Duration Flight onVenus/ by Anthony J. Colozza
> > and Geoffrey A. Landis
> > http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> > This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> > insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> > doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> > behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> > nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> > especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> > a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> > This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> > alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> > alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> > contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> > guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> > motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> > bashing for all the grief they can muster.
> > . – BradGuth

[BradGuth]

On Jun 18, 3:32 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:13 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 8:07 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 8:24 am, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 11, 5:01 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 11, 3:48 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 4:44 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 7:23 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > > > > > > > > > topic?
>
> > > > > > > > > > >BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > > > > > > > > > What is the topic? Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > > > > > > > > > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> > > > > > > > > Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> > > > > > > > > topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> > > > > > > > > We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. Since it's worth less than
> > > > > > > > > used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> > > > > > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > Wow, I am working for DARPA? Hmmm, where is my paycheck. I'll have
> > > > > > > > to give them a call!
>
> > > > > > > You really should do just that, because without your brown-nosed
> > > > > > > expertise they'd be seriously screwed. If DARPA didn't already have a
> > > > > > > "dean" minion, they'd sure as hell need to invent one.
>
> > > > > > > Of course, yourself and others of your kind find nothing the least be
> > > > > > > wrong or even skewed with any part of the ongoing administration, or
> > > > > > > with those of their insider war-for-profit partners in crimes against
> > > > > > > humanity, so what's the difference?
>
> > > > > > > I bet you wouldn't even care if motor fuel went for $10/gallon. (it's
> > > > > > > already more than half that much if you need to burn diesel)
>
> > > > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > No, I do care that it is that high. I am making a killing selling oil
> > > > > > from the well I drilled in my back yard...
>
> > > > > Very good, as then you'll not mind WWIII. In fact, if you play your
> > > > > crude oil cards just right, WWIII will only make you a whole lot
> > > > > richer and otherwise Zionist faith-based powerful. At the same time
> > > > > you'd also be putting a big-ass smile on Hitlers face (neat trick
> > > > > considering he's dead).
>
> > > > > BTW, not that you'd care, but did you hear that most recent NPR
> > > > > report of the forthcoming "severe inflation"?
>
> > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > A personal oil well is the world's best hedge against inflation...
>
> > > Why not simply call yourself ENRON, or ExxonMobil ??
>
> > BTW, why is DARPA and their army of brown-nosed minions so upset about
> > this topic?
>
> > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What makes you think that DARPA gives a crap about this topic? I
> doubt that they care... sounds like delusions of grandeur on your
> part.

It's their internet/usenet that became our public newsgroups, as
hosted by Google/NOVA and a few other servers.

If I were in charge of our DARPA (aka CIA/MI5/NSA/FBI plus a good
dozen other spook and mole capable agencies along with their faith-
based puppeteers), I too would be doing serious damage-control right
about now.

Why are the newsgroup "gold stars" terminated?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

On Jun 18, 3:32 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:13 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 8:07 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 8:24 am, wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 11, 5:01 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 11, 3:48 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 11, 4:44 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 11, 2:06 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 7:23 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 10, 3:14 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 11:30 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:28 pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > <incoherent babble snipped>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wow, fruitcake and it isn't even Christmas yet!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Was that one scripted within your DARPA Old Testament?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > What exactly have you constructively contributed to this or any other
> > > > > > > > > > > topic?
>
> > > > > > > > > > >BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > > > > > > > > > What is the topic? Bizarre discussions about imaginary balloons on
> > > > > > > > > > Venus while tripping on acid?
>
> > > > > > > > > Your insurmountable nayism is noted, as are your ulterior motives of
> > > > > > > > > topic/author stalking on behalf of DARPA damage-control.
>
> > > > > > > > > We're going to put you in charge of FEMA. Since it's worth less than
> > > > > > > > > used toilet paper as is, what possible harm could you do?
>
> > > > > > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > Wow, I am working for DARPA? Hmmm, where is my paycheck. I'll have
> > > > > > > > to give them a call!
>
> > > > > > > You really should do just that, because without your brown-nosed
> > > > > > > expertise they'd be seriously screwed. If DARPA didn't already have a
> > > > > > > "dean" minion, they'd sure as hell need to invent one.
>
> > > > > > > Of course, yourself and others of your kind find nothing the least be
> > > > > > > wrong or even skewed with any part of the ongoing administration, or
> > > > > > > with those of their insider war-for-profit partners in crimes against
> > > > > > > humanity, so what's the difference?
>
> > > > > > > I bet you wouldn't even care if motor fuel went for $10/gallon. (it's
> > > > > > > already more than half that much if you need to burn diesel)
>
> > > > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > No, I do care that it is that high. I am making a killing selling oil
> > > > > > from the well I drilled in my back yard...
>
> > > > > Very good, as then you'll not mind WWIII. In fact, if you play your
> > > > > crude oil cards just right, WWIII will only make you a whole lot
> > > > > richer and otherwise Zionist faith-based powerful. At the same time
> > > > > you'd also be putting a big-ass smile on Hitlers face (neat trick
> > > > > considering he's dead).
>
> > > > > BTW, not that you'd care, but did you hear that most recent NPR
> > > > > report of the forthcoming "severe inflation"?
>
> > > > > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > A personal oil well is the world's best hedge against inflation...
>
> > > Why not simply call yourself ENRON, or ExxonMobil ??
>
> > BTW, why is DARPA and their army of brown-nosed minions so upset about
> > this topic?
>
> > -BradGuthBrad_GuthBrad.GuthBradGuth- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What makes you think that DARPA gives a crap about this topic? I
> doubt that they care... sounds like delusions of grandeur on your
> part.

Sorry I'd missed this reply of yours.

All that I'm saying is that a sufficient composite rigid airship can
be created for at least robotics to stay aloft for months and even
years while cruising efficiently below them acidic clouds of Venus.

Our DARPA has had the necessary supercomputers and software for
accommodating all of the R&D as well as virtual simulations down to
every conceivable detail.

If our DARPA wasn't what I perceive them to be, this would be such a
problem to resolve in grand 3D animated eye-candy style.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[Hagar]

"BradGuth" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 18, 3:32 pm, wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 10:13 pm, BradGuth > wrote:

> snip drivel <

> Sorry I'd missed this reply of yours.
>
> All that I'm saying is that a sufficient composite rigid airship can
> be created for at least robotics to stay aloft for months and even
> years while cruising efficiently below them acidic clouds of Venus.

Yearning for those good old Horse and Buggy days, Bradwurst ??

[Sjouke Burry]

Hagar wrote:
> "BradGuth" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Jun 18, 3:32 pm, wrote:
>>> On Jun 17, 10:13 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>> snip drivel <
>
>> Sorry I'd missed this reply of yours.
>>
>> All that I'm saying is that a sufficient composite rigid airship can
>> be created for at least robotics to stay aloft for months and even
>> years while cruising efficiently below them acidic clouds of Venus.
>
> Yearning for those good old Horse and Buggy days, Bradwurst ??
>
>
Will you stop insulting bradwursts!!!!!
They are not on the same level as BRATHGUST.(no smiley)

[BradGuth]

On Jun 30, 6:58 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
> "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Jun 18, 3:32 pm, wrote:
> >> On Jun 17, 10:13 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> > snip drivel <
> > Sorry I'd missed this reply of yours.
>
> > All that I'm saying is that a sufficient composite rigid airship can
> > be created for at least robotics to stay aloft for months and even
> > years while cruising efficiently below them acidic clouds of Venus.
>
> Yearning for those good old Horse and Buggy days, Bradwurst ??

As long as those are not Zionist/Nazi horse and buggy days, why the
hell not.

Just wondering, what's horse and buggy about a composite rigid airship
as intended for the planet Venus?

Isn't this just another topic diversion tactic of yours? But then,
isn't this exactly what being a brown-nosed minion/clown for the
Zionist Third Reich is all about?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

On Jun 30, 7:19 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 6:58 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
>
> > "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Jun 18, 3:32 pm, wrote:
> > >> On Jun 17, 10:13 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> > > snip drivel <
> > > Sorry I'd missed this reply of yours.
>
> > > All that I'm saying is that a sufficient composite rigid airship can
> > > be created for at least robotics to stay aloft for months and even
> > > years while cruising efficiently below them acidic clouds of Venus.
>
> > Yearning for those good old Horse and Buggy days, Bradwurst ??
>
> As long as those are not Zionist/Nazi horse and buggy days, why the
> hell not.
>
> Just wondering, what's horse and buggy about a composite rigid airship
> as intended for the planet Venus?
>
> Isn't this just another topic diversion tactic of yours? But then,
> isn't this exactly what being a brown-nosed minion/clown for the
> Zionist Third Reich is all about?
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

For such a downright nifty R&D topic, seems a touch odd that our all-
knowing public servants of DARPA haven't been into helping out. What
the hell is it about Venus that's so unusually dark and scary?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

On Jul 3, 8:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:19 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 6:58 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
>
> > > "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > On Jun 18, 3:32 pm, wrote:
> > > >> On Jun 17, 10:13 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> > > > snip drivel <
> > > > Sorry I'd missed this reply of yours.
>
> > > > All that I'm saying is that a sufficient composite rigid airship can
> > > > be created for at least robotics to stay aloft for months and even
> > > > years while cruising efficiently below them acidic clouds of Venus.
>
> > > Yearning for those good old Horse and Buggy days, Bradwurst ??
>
> > As long as those are not Zionist/Nazi horse and buggy days, why the
> > hell not.
>
> > Just wondering, what's horse and buggy about a composite rigid airship
> > as intended for the planet Venus?
>
> > Isn't this just another topic diversion tactic of yours? But then,
> > isn't this exactly what being a brown-nosed minion/clown for the
> > Zionist Third Reich is all about?
>
> > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> For such a downright nifty R&D topic, seems a touch odd that our all-
> knowing public servants of DARPA haven't been into helping out. What
> the hell is it about Venus that's so unusually dark and scary?
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Notice how the DARPA resident rabbi is into topic/author stalking and
trying to continually trash this topic.
- BG

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

BradGuth > wrote in
:

> On Jul 3, 8:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 7:19 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 30, 6:58 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
>>
>> > > "BradGuth" > wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:ddea380a-c7d7-46c8-bc78-
.
>> > >com...
>>
>> > > > On Jun 18, 3:32 pm, wrote:
>> > > >> On Jun 17, 10:13 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>> > > > snip drivel <
>> > > > Sorry I'd missed this reply of yours.
>>
>> > > > All that I'm saying is that a sufficient composite rigid
>> > > > airship can be created for at least robotics to stay aloft for
>> > > > months and even years while cruising efficiently below them
>> > > > acidic clouds of Venus.
>>
>> > > Yearning for those good old Horse and Buggy days, Bradwurst ??
>>
>> > As long as those are not Zionist/Nazi horse and buggy days, why the
>> > hell not.
>>
>> > Just wondering, what's horse and buggy about a composite rigid
>> > airship as intended for the planet Venus?
>>
>> > Isn't this just another topic diversion tactic of yours? But then,
>> > isn't this exactly what being a brown-nosed minion/clown for the
>> > Zionist Third Reich is all about?
>>
>> > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>>
>> For such a downright nifty R&D topic, seems a touch odd that our all-
>> knowing public servants of DARPA haven't been into helping out.
>> What the hell is it about Venus that's so unusually dark and scary?
>>
>> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> Notice how the DARPA resident rabbi is into topic/author stalking and
> trying to continually trash this topic.
> - BG
>

The *******!¬


Bertie

[BradGuth]

Unlike doing Mars or most any other planet or moon, at least my
composite rigid airships of Venus are perfectly doable, and even
humanly survivable as floating cities.

The POOF City outpost or Oasis/gateway at Venus L2 is also technically
doable.

The surface of Venus itself is also withinn our technological
expertise, and there's certainly no shortage of local energy or
mineral resources. Our frail DNA would also be fully protected from
solar and cosmic radiation while cruising about under those thick and
robust clouds.

Getting safely to/from Venus is relatively easy and thus affordable,
as compared to most other off-world alternatives (including easier
than our pesky Selene/moon).

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


On Jun 12, 5:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> If robotics simply isn’t offering sufficient exploration risk or
> otherwise DARPA/NASA spendy enough, there’s always a fully manned
> mission of the very least 100 fold more spendy, plus their having to
> navigate well above the hot geothermal surface of Venus for roughly 18
> months before eventually upward exiting and returning to Earth. The
> AI/robotic consideration would not only cost at least 100 fold less
> than any manned mission, but it also doesn’t have to ever return to
> Earth, and thereby could stay on its mission throughout several 19
> month cycles, as well as multiple surface landings becomes technically
> doable without risk of harming a single strand of human DNA. So
> therefore, a robotic rigid-airship is actually a good thousand fold
> cheaper than any kind of manned mission (perhaps even if POOF City
> were set up at Venus L2 would likely still be 100 fold less spendy).
>
> The Venus environment at one of the likely rigid-airship cruising
> altitudes of 25 km is only a bit 500K (440F) toasty warm by season of
> day, and otherwise somewhat considerably cooler by season of night,
> perhaps drawn down to as low as 400K (260F).
>
> The closer you get to that geothermally hot surface the less day/night
> thermal differential you’ve got to work with. Increasing the
> operational altitude to 35 km by season of nighttime is almost humanly
> tolerable, although you’re also getting into that lower acidic cloud
> haze. Much above 35 km by season of nighttime you may need to
> consider navigating by radar, as well as remain submarine like fully
> enclosed within the rigid composite airship. By season of day should
> allow cruising as high as 45 km, although there too is that pesky
> acidic cloud haze to deal with.
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> > darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> > an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber
> > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> > excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > For this topic I have this unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> > rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> > a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> > as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> > for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> > even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> > 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> > airship.
>
> > Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> > nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> > terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> > fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> > because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> > radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> > and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> > and nasty acidic clouds.
>
> > Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> > per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is
> > capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> > operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> > below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> > atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and otherwise clear for as far as you
> > can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> > Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> > robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> > somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> > composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> > terrestrial 5:1.
>
> > In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull
> > that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> > being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> > mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> > that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> > proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> > this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> > There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> > for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> > exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> > landing skids (just in case).
>
> > Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> > diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> > thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> > main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> > reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> > need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> > considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> > striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> > essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> > clouds (80~85 km by day) .
>
> > This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> > flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> > cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> > having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> > with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass
> > considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> > In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> > there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> > melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of
> > utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> > systems and main propulsion.
>
> > Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> > insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> > that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> > 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the
> > geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> > becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> > Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> > not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> > prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> > OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> > Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> > doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> > land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> > version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> > the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> > periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> > Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> > expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> > laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> > science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> > word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> > demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> > that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> > accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> > Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> > http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> > Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza
> > and Geoffrey A. Landis
> > http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> > This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> > insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> > doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> > behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> > nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> > especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> > a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> > This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> > alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> > alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> > contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> > guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> > motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> > bashing for all the grief they can muster.
> > . – Brad Guth

Notice how the DARPA mainstream status quo doesn't like this topic.
Sending in their brown-nosed goons and clowns in order to topic/author
stalk and trash is their typical faith-based form of a damage-control
tactic. Intellectual cartel bigotry and racism via their pretend-
Atheism is their second hidden card they like to play. If their
Hitler were alive, he'd be grinning from ear to ear.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

That's extremely odd, when the all-knowing gods and wise old wizards
of these DARPA saturated Usenet/newsgroups have become so unusually
dead quiet on any topic the least bit related to Venus. Of course
that's only because of what I'd uncovered that even a 5th grader
should have figured out as of 8+ years ago, if not a whole lot before
then.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

>
>
On Jun 12, 5:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> If rigged airship robotics isn’t offering sufficient exploration risk or
> otherwise DARPA/NASA spendy enough, there’s always a fully manned
> mission of the very least 100 fold more spendy, plus their having to
> navigate well above the hot geothermal surface of Venus for roughly 18
> months before eventually upward exiting and returning to Earth. The
> AI/robotic consideration would not only cost at least 100 fold less
> than any manned mission, but it also doesn’t have to ever return to
> Earth, and thereby could stay on its mission throughout several 19
> month cycles, as well as multiple surface landings becomes technically
> doable without risk of harming a single strand of human DNA. So
> therefore, a robotic rigid-airship is actually a good thousand fold
> cheaper than any kind of manned mission (perhaps even if POOF City
> were set up atVenusL2 would likely still be 100 fold less spendy).
>
> The Venus environment at one of the likely rigid-airship cruising
> altitudes of 25 km is only a bit 500K (440F) toasty warm by season of
> day, and otherwise somewhat considerably cooler by season of night,
> perhaps in places of negative draft getting drawn down to as low as
> 400K (260F).
>
> The closer you get to that geothermally hot surface the less day/night
> thermal differential you’ve got to work with. Increasing upon the
> operational altitude to 35 km by season of nighttime is almost humanly
> tolerable, although you’re also getting into that lower acidic cloud
> haze. Much above 35 km by season of nighttime you may need to
> consider navigating by radar, as well as remain submarine like fully
> enclosed within the rigid composite airship. By season of day should
> allow cruising as high as 45 km, although there too is that pesky
> acidic/S8 cloud haze to deal with.
>
> - BradGuthBrad_Guth Brad.GuthBradGuth
>
>
> On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> > darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> > an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyether etherketone and fiber
> > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> > excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > For this topic I have this unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> > rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> > a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> > as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> > for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> > even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> > 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few KW for managing a good sized
> > robotic managed rigid airship.
>
> > Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> > nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> > terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> > fairly calm, kind of dry inert and nice enough and even relatively cool
> > because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> > radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> > and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> > and perfectly nasty acidic clouds.
>
> > Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> > per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or usable payload is
> > capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> > operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> > below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> > atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and otherwise clear for as far as you
> > can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> > Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> > robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> > somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> > composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> > terrestrial 5:1.
>
> > In my way of thinking, this has a rather thick outer composite hull
> > that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> > being insulated by R-128 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> > mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> > that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> > proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> > this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> > There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> > for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> > exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> > landing skids (just in case).
>
> > Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> > diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> > thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> > main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> > reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> > need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> > considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> > striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> > essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> > clouds (solar elevated to 80~85 km by day) .
>
> > This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> > flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> > cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> > having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> > with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of various inert mass related
> > considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> > In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> > there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> > melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic added process of
> > utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> > systems and main propulsion.
>
> > Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> > insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> > that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> > 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise above that
> > geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> > becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> > Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> > not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> > prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> > OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> > Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> > doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> > land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> > version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> > the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> > periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> > Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> > expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> > laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> > science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> > word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> > demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> > that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> > accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> >Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> > http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> > Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus/ by Anthony J. Colozza
> > and Geoffrey A. Landis
> > http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> > This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> > insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> > doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> > behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> > nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> > especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> > a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> > This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> > alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> > alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> > contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> > guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> > motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> > bashing for all the grief they can muster.

If other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus is too much for
your pathetic, snookered and dumbfounded brain to fathom, then don’t
bother with most other reality issues because, you’ll only get those
annoying headaches once realizing how your government and of its faith-
basted Zionist/Nazi puppet masters have been screwing you and most
everyone else over for decades.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[BradGuth]

Still not one soul of rigid airship expertise to behold, or that of
any applied technology on behalf of robotics or us frail humans
accomplishing any such extended Venus mission of 19.5 months (plus
their return commute should push this one well past 24 months, but not
likely more than 36 months).

Is this DARPA Usenet/newsgroup snookered and dumbfounded itself past
the point of no return, or what? (most likely afraid of their own
shadow, plus whatever those pesky MIB might have to offer)

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


On Jul 20, 4:06 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> That's extremely odd, when the all-knowing gods and wise old wizards
> of these DARPA saturated Usenet/newsgroups have become so unusually
> dead quiet on any topic the least bit related toVenus. Of course
> that's only because of what I'd uncovered that even a 5th grader
> should have figured out as of 8+ years ago, if not a whole lot before
> then.
>
> - BradGuthBrad_Guth Brad.GuthBradGuth
>
>
>
> On Jun 12, 5:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > If rigged airship robotics isn’t offering sufficient exploration risk or
> > otherwise DARPA/NASA spendy enough, there’s always a fully manned
> > mission of the very least 100 fold more spendy, plus their having to
> > navigate well above the hot geothermal surface ofVenusfor roughly 18
> > months before eventually upward exiting and returning to Earth. The
> > AI/robotic consideration would not only cost at least 100 fold less
> > than any manned mission, but it also doesn’t have to ever return to
> > Earth, and thereby could stay on its mission throughout several 19
> > month cycles, as well as multiple surface landings becomes technically
> > doable without risk of harming a single strand of human DNA. So
> > therefore, a robotic rigid-airship is actually a good thousand fold
> > cheaper than any kind of manned mission (perhaps even if POOF City
> > were set up atVenusL2 would likely still be 100 fold less spendy).
>
> > TheVenusenvironment at one of the likely rigid-airship cruising
> > altitudes of 25 km is only a bit 500K (440F) toasty warm by season of
> > day, and otherwise somewhat considerably cooler by season of night,
> > perhaps in places of negative draft getting drawn down to as low as
> > 400K (260F).
>
> > The closer you get to that geothermally hot surface the less day/night
> > thermal differential you’ve got to work with. Increasing upon the
> > operational altitude to 35 km by season of nighttime is almost humanly
> > tolerable, although you’re also getting into that lower acidic cloud
> > haze. Much above 35 km by season of nighttime you may need to
> > consider navigating by radar, as well as remain submarine like fully
> > enclosed within the rigid composite airship. By season of day should
> > allow cruising as high as 45 km, although there too is that pesky
> > acidic/S8 cloud haze to deal with.
>
> > - BradGuthBrad_Guth Brad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> > > darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> > > an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyether etherketone and fiber
> > > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> > > excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > > For this topic I have this unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> > > rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> > > a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> > > as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> > > for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> > > even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> > > 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few KW for managing a good sized
> > > robotic managed rigid airship.
>
> > > Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> > > nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> > > terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> > > fairly calm, kind of dry inert and nice enough and even relatively cool
> > > because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> > > radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> > > and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> > > and perfectly nasty acidic clouds.
>
> > > Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> > > per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or usable payload is
> > > capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> > > operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> > > below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> > > atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and otherwise clear for as far as you
> > > can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> > > Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> > > robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> > > somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> > > composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> > > terrestrial 5:1.
>
> > > In my way of thinking, this has a rather thick outer composite hull
> > > that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> > > being insulated by R-128 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> > > mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> > > that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> > > proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> > > this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> > > There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> > > for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> > > exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> > > landing skids (just in case).
>
> > > Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> > > diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> > > thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> > > main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> > > reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> > > need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> > > considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> > > striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> > > essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> > > clouds (solar elevated to 80~85 km by day) .
>
> > > This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> > > flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> > > cruising aboutVenuswhere size and mass are of little concern when
> > > having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> > > with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of various inert mass related
> > > considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> > > In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> > > there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> > > melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic added process of
> > > utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> > > systems and main propulsion.
>
> > > Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> > > insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> > > that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> > > 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise above that
> > > geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> > > becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> > > Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> > > not about our having to terraformVenus, or that of our having to
> > > prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> > > OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> > > Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> > > doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> > > land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> > > version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> > > the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> > > periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> > > Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> > > expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> > > laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> > > science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> > > word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> > > demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> > > that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> > > accomplishing thoseVenusexpeditions.
>
> > >Venusexploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> > > http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> > > Evaluation of Long Duration Flight onVenus/ by Anthony J. Colozza
> > > and Geoffrey A. Landis
> > > http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> > > This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> > > insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> > > doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> > > behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> > > nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> > > especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> > > a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> > > This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> > > alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> > > alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> > > contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> > > guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> > > motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> > > bashing for all the grief they can muster.
>
> If other intelligent life existing/coexisting onVenusis too much for
> your pathetic, snookered and dumbfounded brain to fathom, then don’t ....
>
> read more »

[BradGuth]

Out of all that's Google/NOVA and DARPA Usenet/newsgroups, apparently
there's not one soul that's airship technology qualified. Gee whiz,
why am I not the least bit surprised.

* Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


On Jul 30, 10:57 am, BradGuth > wrote:
> Still not one soul of rigid airship expertise to behold, or that of
> any applied technology on behalf of robotics or us frail humans
> accomplishing any such extended Venus mission of 19.5 months (plus
> their return commute should push this one well past 24 months, but not
> likely more than 36 months).
>
> Is this DARPA Usenet/newsgroup snookered and dumbfounded itself past
> the point of no return, or what? (most likely afraid of their own
> shadow, plus whatever those pesky MIB might have to offer)
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> On Jul 20, 4:06 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > That's extremely odd, when the all-knowing gods and wise old wizards
> > of these DARPA saturated Usenet/newsgroups have become so unusually
> > dead quiet on any topic the least bit related toVenus. Of course
> > that's only because of what I'd uncovered that even a 5th grader
> > should have figured out as of 8+ years ago, if not a whole lot before
> > then.
>
> > - BradGuthBrad_Guth Brad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > On Jun 12, 5:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > If rigged airship robotics isn’t offering sufficient exploration risk or
> > > otherwise DARPA/NASA spendy enough, there’s always a fully manned
> > > mission of the very least 100 fold more spendy, plus their having to
> > > navigate well above the hot geothermal surface ofVenusfor roughly 18
> > > months before eventually upward exiting and returning to Earth. The
> > > AI/robotic consideration would not only cost at least 100 fold less
> > > than any manned mission, but it also doesn’t have to ever return to
> > > Earth, and thereby could stay on its mission throughout several 19
> > > month cycles, as well as multiple surface landings becomes technically
> > > doable without risk of harming a single strand of human DNA. So
> > > therefore, a robotic rigid-airship is actually a good thousand fold
> > > cheaper than any kind of manned mission (perhaps even if POOF City
> > > were set up atVenusL2 would likely still be 100 fold less spendy).
>
> > > TheVenusenvironment at one of the likely rigid-airship cruising
> > > altitudes of 25 km is only a bit 500K (440F) toasty warm by season of
> > > day, and otherwise somewhat considerably cooler by season of night,
> > > perhaps in places of negative draft getting drawn down to as low as
> > > 400K (260F).
>
> > > The closer you get to that geothermally hot surface the less day/night
> > > thermal differential you’ve got to work with. Increasing upon the
> > > operational altitude to 35 km by season of nighttime is almost humanly
> > > tolerable, although you’re also getting into that lower acidic cloud
> > > haze. Much above 35 km by season of nighttime you may need to
> > > consider navigating by radar, as well as remain submarine like fully
> > > enclosed within the rigid composite airship. By season of day should
> > > allow cruising as high as 45 km, although there too is that pesky
> > > acidic/S8 cloud haze to deal with.
>
> > > - BradGuthBrad_Guth Brad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > > On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > > Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> > > > darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> > > > an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyether etherketone and fiber
> > > > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > > > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> > > > excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > > > For this topic I have this unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> > > > rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> > > > a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> > > > as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> > > > for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> > > > even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> > > > 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few KW for managing a good sized
> > > > robotic managed rigid airship.
>
> > > > Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> > > > nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> > > > terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> > > > fairly calm, kind of dry inert and nice enough and even relatively cool
> > > > because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> > > > radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> > > > and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> > > > and perfectly nasty acidic clouds.
>
> > > > Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> > > > per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or usable payload is
> > > > capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> > > > operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> > > > below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> > > > atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and otherwise clear for as far as you
> > > > can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> > > > Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> > > > robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> > > > somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> > > > composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> > > > terrestrial 5:1.
>
> > > > In my way of thinking, this has a rather thick outer composite hull
> > > > that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> > > > being insulated by R-128 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> > > > mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> > > > that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> > > > proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> > > > this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> > > > There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> > > > for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> > > > exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> > > > landing skids (just in case).
>
> > > > Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> > > > diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> > > > thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> > > > main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> > > > reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> > > > need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> > > > considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> > > > striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> > > > essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> > > > clouds (solar elevated to 80~85 km by day) .
>
> > > > This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> > > > flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> > > > cruising aboutVenuswhere size and mass are of little concern when
> > > > having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> > > > with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of various inert mass related
> > > > considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> > > > In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> > > > there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> > > > melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic added process of
> > > > utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> > > > systems and main propulsion.
>
> > > > Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> > > > insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> > > > that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> > > > 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise above that
> > > > geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> > > > becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> > > > Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> > > > not about our having to terraformVenus, or that of our having to
> > > > prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> > > > OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.

[BradGuth]

Apparently the regular laws of physics and best available science
isn't good enough these days.

Out of all the supposed expertise and first hand talent that's claimed
by most every soul within Usenet/newsgroups, yet not a positive/
constructive peep out of anyone as to accomplishing these composite
rigid airships.

Is this further proof positive that our mainstream faith-based status
quo has us firmly by our private parts, or what?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth


On Jul 20, 4:06 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
> That's extremely odd, when the all-knowing gods and wise old wizards
> of these DARPA saturated Usenet/newsgroups have become so unusually
> dead quiet on any topic the least bit related to Venus. Of course
> that's only because of what I'd uncovered that even a 5th grader
> should have figured out as of 8+ years ago, if not a whole lot before
> then.
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
>
>
> On Jun 12, 5:19 am, BradGuth > wrote:
>
>
>
> > If rigged airship robotics isn’t offering sufficient exploration risk or
> > otherwise DARPA/NASA spendy enough, there’s always a fully manned
> > mission of the very least 100 fold more spendy, plus their having to
> > navigate well above the hot geothermal surface of Venus for roughly 18
> > months before eventually upward exiting and returning to Earth. The
> > AI/robotic consideration would not only cost at least 100 fold less
> > than any manned mission, but it also doesn’t have to ever return to
> > Earth, and thereby could stay on its mission throughout several 19
> > month cycles, as well as multiple surface landings becomes technically
> > doable without risk of harming a single strand of human DNA. So
> > therefore, a robotic rigid-airship is actually a good thousand fold
> > cheaper than any kind of manned mission (perhaps even if POOF City
> > were set up atVenusL2 would likely still be 100 fold less spendy).
>
> > The Venus environment at one of the likely rigid-airship cruising
> > altitudes of 25 km is only a bit 500K (440F) toasty warm by season of
> > day, and otherwise somewhat considerably cooler by season of night,
> > perhaps in places of negative draft getting drawn down to as low as
> > 400K (260F).
>
> > The closer you get to that geothermally hot surface the less day/night
> > thermal differential you’ve got to work with. Increasing upon the
> > operational altitude to 35 km by season of nighttime is almost humanly
> > tolerable, although you’re also getting into that lower acidic cloud
> > haze. Much above 35 km by season of nighttime you may need to
> > consider navigating by radar, as well as remain submarine like fully
> > enclosed within the rigid composite airship. By season of day should
> > allow cruising as high as 45 km, although there too is that pesky
> > acidic/S8 cloud haze to deal with.
>
> > - BradGuthBrad_Guth Brad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth > wrote:
>
> > > Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> > > darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to
> > > an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyether etherketone and fiber
> > > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be
> > > excluded for this rigid airship configuration.
>
> > > For this topic I have this unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a
> > > rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as
> > > a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or
> > > as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft
> > > for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or
> > > even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than
> > > 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few KW for managing a good sized
> > > robotic managed rigid airship.
>
> > > Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of
> > > nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any
> > > terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually
> > > fairly calm, kind of dry inert and nice enough and even relatively cool
> > > because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal
> > > radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season,
> > > and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick
> > > and perfectly nasty acidic clouds.
>
> > > Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change
> > > per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or usable payload is
> > > capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one
> > > operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and
> > > below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2
> > > atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and otherwise clear for as far as you
> > > can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions).
>
> > > Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly
> > > robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s
> > > somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid
> > > composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common
> > > terrestrial 5:1.
>
> > > In my way of thinking, this has a rather thick outer composite hull
> > > that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area
> > > being insulated by R-128 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to
> > > mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or
> > > that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid
> > > proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of
> > > this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F).
>
> > > There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used
> > > for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat-
> > > exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly
> > > landing skids (just in case).
>
> > > Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large
> > > diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable
> > > thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> > > main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/
> > > reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s
> > > need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing
> > > considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless
> > > striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise
> > > essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving
> > > clouds (solar elevated to 80~85 km by day) .
>
> > > This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> > > flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently
> > > cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when
> > > having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work
> > > with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of various inert mass related
> > > considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg.
>
> > > In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated,
> > > there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to
> > > melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic added process of
> > > utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard
> > > systems and main propulsion.
>
> > > Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that
> > > insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of
> > > that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly
> > > 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise above that
> > > geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive
> > > becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere.
>
> > > Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is
> > > not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to
> > > prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty
> > > OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> > > Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> > > doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to
> > > land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured
> > > version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit
> > > the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended
> > > periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km.
>
> > > Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his
> > > expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular
> > > laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> > > science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published
> > > word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> > > demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual
> > > that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> > > accomplishing those Venus expeditions.
>
> > >Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> > > http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> > > Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus/ by Anthony J. Colozza
> > > and Geoffrey A. Landis
> > > http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> > > This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> > > insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically
> > > doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> > > behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s
> > > nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report,
> > > especially since much of their airship application is operated within
> > > a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude.
>
> > > This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die
> > > alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable
> > > alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> > > contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad
> > > guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior
> > > motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and
> > > bashing for all the grief they can muster.
>
> If other intelligent life existing/coexisting on Venus is too much for
> your pathetic, snookered and dumbfounded brain to fathom, then don’t ....
>
> read more »