Venus Airships / by Brad Guth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/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
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/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.
. – Brad Guth

"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

incoherent babble snipped

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

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.”