Venus Airships / by Brad Guth

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

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/d...e-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/20...006-214452.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

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?

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

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!

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

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...

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

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/20...006-214452.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

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...