I'm one of those village idiots expecting to see new science about
Venus as extensively being that of a geothermally impacted environment,
with the secondary affects being that of the atmospheric conditions
keeping the lid on much of that geothermal energy, plus unavoidably
having the solar energy influx that's as great as 2650 watts/m2 as a
contributing factor to the situation. I'm also expecting to see the
differential of the day/night energy balance as being in favor of
allowing more of the thermal energy to escape than not, thereby
allowing for the gradual cooling process of a planet that's of a newer
planetology study than previously thought possible.

Long before Venus EXPRESS, other's within team KECK had speculated as
to a significant energy imbalance, even having imaged the rather
extensive layer of oxygen that covers a significant portion of the
nighttime season, giving indications as to allowing for the cooling of
Venus, which means that either Venus is a relatively newish planet that
our solar system has acquired, or that it's a recovering planet from
being seriously impacted by some of the heaviest of meteor/asteroid
substances, with a remote third possibility of there being something
thermal nuclear involved.

It is highly probable that Venus is the best ever gold mine of minerals
and rare elements that are being made so easily accessible and
otherwise kept safely available as cloaked by the mostly clean and
obviously toasty dry CO2 layer of a very buoyant and protective
atmosphere. As such Earth sized planets go, the access to/from that
nighttime surface is by far the least technically challenging (meaning
that it's much easier than having to accomplish a similar task upon
Earth), and you certainly don't have to pack along much of any spare
energy for the task of sustaining such operations, processing and the
exporting of whatever substances.

Just by having such locally available resources of energy and that of
an environment that's so well shielded against solar and cosmic
radiation alone is simply the best possible news of what any such
accessible and nearby planet can offer, although with a 0.905 gravity
factor and having 65+kg/m3 of buoyancy to work with is certainly an
extra thick amount of icing on the cake.

Anytime you've got less gravity and a thicker atmosphere to work with,
as such it's technically a win-win situation for getting whatever
to/from that planet.

Anytime you don't have to pack along large amounts of physical
shielding is obviously going to be another positive mission
consideration that's worth a whole lot more than most critics are
willing to admit.

Anytime the local environment can provide megajoules, gigajoules and
even if need be terajoules of spare and renewable energy (that's
squeaky clean none the less), is an absolute multiple win-win on behalf
of just about everything imaginable.

If there's any ongoing question as to what's a seriously big mystery,
is that it's certainly not well understood nor obviously having been
appreciated as to why or how visiting ETs or locals couldn't have made
a go of it, as you'd have to be an absolute heathen of a dumbfounded
moron to not have taken advantage of what's so easily available.

This isn't to say that doing Venus is not a technically demanding
quest, especially if to be insisting upon someday going there in person
is obviously adding loads of insults to whatever injury of what
robotics would require. However, with local energy already being there
to behold, as such there's almost nothing that can not be surmounted on
behalf of accommodating our frail bodies that obviously can not
necessarily take the heat (especially by the season of daytime or
anywhere within volcanic mud/lava flows should be taboo), but otherwise
we can get ourselves adapted to the pressure. With an implanted sinus
shunt for improved intra cranial pressure (ICP) equalizing, it's
possible as to adapt ourselves to the changes in elevation pressure
that's worth as much as 4+ bar/km. Converting CO2--CO/O2 is just a
matter of applying energy for accomplishing that task (at that great
pressure our biological need for O2 might drop to 1% if the remainder
can be composed of H2). Accessing and thus extracting H2O from those
acidic nighttime clouds is simply another matter of applied physics and
utilizing well proven science, although surface mud flows should also
provide a viable resource of H2O, although perhaps bringing along a few
spare tonnes of H2O might not be such a bad idea for the first effort.

Of course, as already taking place (including efforts to terminate my
PC), you'll unavoidably take notice as to the usual topic/author
stalking, bashings and if possible the efforts of banishment upon any
honest topic that's related to the truth about planets and moons
(especially including Earth and of our moon), as being their Usenet
norm or mainstream status quo or bust criteria that's typically focused
upon being as anti-ET and as anti-truth as they can manage. The trick
is to pay little or no attention to their obvious levels of incest
mindset that only goes to prove, of what others and I have had to offer
is worth their attention.

Would the rest of you folks like to discuss the positive and thus
constructive possibilities, rather than join the gauntlet of flak
that's doing all it can in order to suppress whatever rocks thy boat?
-
Brad Guth