Venus Airships / by Brad Guth

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

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

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

ctanews.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

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

ctanews.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

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/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

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/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

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/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

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/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

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

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)