GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om

Venus is actually a very cool ans extra special planet, especially
considering there's so gosh darn much spare and fully renewable energy
to burn (sort of speak). As such, why the hell bother to terraform a
damn thing when it's more than good enough to go as is?

Venus has only been too hot for the likes of those "Bad Astronomy"
types, and otherwise for having rubbed our NASA the wrong way because,
they're all clearly one in the same collective, meaning they is the
truly bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and dagger MI6/NSA spooks and
moles as representing the borg like Skull and Bones collective that's
clearly without an actual soul nor so much as a stitch of remorse. They
used to get away with burning us witches and our books at the stake,
though for kid's sake is why prime-time media has to somewhat frown on
that level of action (similar to avoiding being associated with those
having exterminated Cathars or pushing nuns off a bridge which doesn't
exactly promote good PR), so instead they topic/author stalk, bash and
as much as possible take to excluding evidence and/or simply banishing
whatever rocks their good but seriously rotting ship of their's, the USS
LOLLIPOP that's flying that home port flag of "up your's" USA.

I'll say it again Sam; Why bother with sustaining the ongoing ruse, or
otherwise with the daunting and nearly insurmountable task of having to
terraform Venus, when it's simply more than good enough as is?

What's really important to realize, is that we have a serious Venusian
composite rgid airship gap: so what's the big insurmountable deal with
that?

Why the hell not invest the necessary R&D into creating a viable
composite rigid airship (hybrid Skylon or fat waverider spaceplane), on
behalf of our doing Venus in grand style?

It's not even all that hocus-pocus or having to involve the pesky likes
of all those NASA/Apollo smoke and mirrors, instead it's simply doable
within the regular laws of physics as is. The actual rigid airship as a
Venusian atmospheric cruising probe that'll function rather nicely below
their nighttime season of clouds needn't be manned, and therefore
needn't be all that large.

Unlike most other planets, or even moons that we know of, Venus is just
getting itself started at kicking it's own DNA butt, and otherwise Mars
DNA has long been kicked, nicely cosmic zapped and then rather nicely
freeze dried to death.

The composite rigid airship as efficiently operating within the highly
buoyant Venusian environment (say cruising along at 25 km by season of
nighttime and 35 km by season of daytime) can at least accommodate
intelligent other life in more viable ways than it's being given credit
for. There has even been good enough pictures of what's been
accomplished by others. Yet lo and behold, Venus remains as by far the
most nearby and absolute most accessible taboo/nondisclosure other orb
in our solar system, that's none the less easier and much safer than
doing our moon.

Unlike our nearly frozen solid to the very core of that silly old Mars,
that's also representing an environment that's worthy of getting
yourself cosmic TBI and otherwise rather easily pulverised to death
while on that nearly naked surface, whereas on the relatively newish and
evolving planetology of Venus there's hardly any cosmic or nasty forms
of solar energy that's DNA lethal getting through all of that thick soup
of atmosphere, nor is there hardly any need of your having to dig in in
order to find more than your fair share of geothermal or terrific gas
vent issues that can be put directly to the task of extracting renewable
energy on the spot.

The vertical atmospheric thick soup of such nifty pressure and thermal
differential factors alone are clearly by themselves more than
sufficient means to sustain most any mere halfwit intelligent form of
life. That is unless you are one of these warm and fuzzy naysay Usenet
village idiots, in which case absolutely nothing is possible in the
past, present or future, so why bother.

The ongoing devoid or rather ongoing topic/author banishment of such
viable energy related ideas or even honest swags of viable
considerations from this anti-think-tank of our status quo or bust
naysay Usenet land, that's having been really good at their typically
sucking and blowing worth of infomercial crapolla spewing on behalf of
all things government and big-energy, is simply further proof-positive
that such renewable energy while on Venusian deck has been doable.

Venus is in fact a hot place, though actually it's not all that nasty of
an environment. But so what if it's hot, as long as you've got such
access to and having the sufficient smarts on behalf of utilizing the
vast amounts of renewable energy that's already there to behold?

Just because a given planet or moon is a little too hot, too cold or
even too wet for our naked bodies or physiological grasp, doesn't in of
itself mean that it's 100+% taboo. Escaping the lethal forms of cosmic
and solar radiation seems by far more of a life essential important
issue, and secondly avoiding whatever's physically incoming seems like
yet another win-win for the old gipper, especially if it's having to do
with avoiding getting seriously smacked in the butt by way of something
that has your name on it.

Venus simply couldn't possibly be any more newish, alive and kicking on
the various doors of accommodating other life, especially on behalf of
rather easily accommodating intelligent other life that's merely
visiting, possibly even of a few locally evolved species isn't outside
of this toasty Venusian box. Although, I suppose if there's lots of
cosmic radiated and otherwise meteorite pulverised dry-ice, plus
whatever remains of that sub-frozen regular old Mars ice that's perhaps
near solid to the very icy dead (older than Earth) core of Mars is still
somehow life worthy, then so be it.

These pro-Mars folks should simply impress us, as in knocking our socks
off, if they can. I'm absolutely certain that as of millions of years
ago Mars could have had a touch of life to spare, and back a good
billion some odd years even better odds yet for having sustained sizable
(larger than rad-hard microbe) forms of such other local life
(intelligent being yet to be proven unless merely visiting).

On the other very real and honest hands of utilizing those regular laws
of physics, as such there is absolutely nothing that's so terribly
insurmountable about Venus. Thinking otherwise is only the
proof-positive as to how completely snookered and dumbfounded past the
mindset point of no return you have become.

BTW; if the absolutely bleak realm of whatever the Mars of today has to
offer of any remainders of Martian ife to behold, then upon our own
pesky moon that's still more than a touch salty is what has to be
absolutely loaded to the gills, with all of it's local and cosmic DNA
morgue worth of nifty spores, and you name it.

BTW No.2; ESA's already doing Venus, Russia is going back there next:
where's ours?
-

"habshi" hi@anony wrote in message

How would you transport the energy from Venus to Earth .

First of all, screw Earth. I say; Whatever happens in Venus stays in
Venus.

However, utilizing a fairly massive rigid airship as our floating tarmac
or rather elevated launching pad on behalf of accommodating our
interplanetary Skylon or whatever spaceplane, that's of an airship
w/piggyback spaceplane that's capable of cruising at good enough
velocity above the 100 km altitude mark, is what seems rather doable.
As such, I suppose extracting a few hundred tonnes of 80+% uranium
yellowcake as valuable radioactive elements of mostly U238 could offer
an impressive payback.

What's 100 tonnes of the highest purity yellowcake worth these days?

I heard $100/yellowcake pound the other day. That's merely
$224,000/tonne

However, I suppose we could just transport the fully processeed
U238/U239, or as ready to go reactor fuels of 96% U238, and 4% U235 at
roughly $1,500/kg.

In fact, the interplanetary "tomcat" fat waverider or fancy Skylon like
spaceplane itself could become fully nuclear powered via radioactive
elements of U238/U235, as exclusively obtained from Venus.

Old pricing data: http://www.uic.com.au/nfc.htm
"Total cost is thus about US$ 1393 for 1 kg enriched fuel, plus about
$240 for actual fuel fabrication. This will yield about 3900 GJ thermal
energy at modern burn-up rates, or about 360,000 kWh of electricity (at
33% thermal efficiency), and does the same job as about 160 tonnes of
steaming coal for a total cost of 0.45 cents/kWh (US$) - a bit more at
lower burn-up."

There's certainly no insurmountable complications in getting the payload
tonnage of whatever's extracted away from Venus. Every 19 months Venus
gets to within nearly 100 fold the distance of our moon (that's close
enough to spit at one another), so the travel time isn't even a big
factor.

All the necessary rocket fuel(s) of CO/O2 plus whatever else can be
locally processed into even better reactive energy is also not the least
bit of a big deal since all the necessary energy for processing whatever
into damn near anything is already there to behold.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Patrick Ashley Meuser\"-Bianca\" wrote in message


That's rather highly conservative thinking, but at least it's topic
related and otherwise having been nicely constructive.

Even though you're a little off my path, I like where you're going with
this. Would you like to play along with a few more games of physics and
science that relate to Venus?

I have a few pesky questions that only nice folks like us can honestly
share and/or argue about. Interested?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message


Unfortunately the subsurface rock these bunkers would be built in would
be as hot as the surface.

Underground should actually be measurably hotter than, because the vast
bulk of that extremely toasty environment of such heat comes from
within. Although, there could be a few elevated areas where the older
rock has become a little less hot than the surface atmosphere by day,
and perhaps merely equal by the season of nighttime.

Much better to go with the above surface constructions utilizing locally
produced structural composites that'll provide the R-1024/m insulative
rating, of what might have a density of 128 kg/m3, and thus offering a
net mass of merely 64 kg/m3 once the buoyancy of 64 kg/m3 is subtracted.

The actual basalt insulative worth of just those milli/micro spheres are
likely worth less than 64 kg/m3, quite possibly even as little as 32
kg/m3 shouldn't be any problem to create, which imposes a slight pesky
little problem in that such raw insulative material would obviously
float away if not having been properly contained within structural
items.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG