Venus for dummies (1.0) / Brad Guth (GuthVenus)

A floating or buoyant shuttle craft for Venus, as capable of surface
landings and otherwise capable of efficiently cruising above them
thick clouds, is not going to be an easy accomplishment, nor is this
one nearly as insurmountable as we’ve been lead to believe.

Local space travels and the eventual exploitation of an extremely
nearby, hot and nasty planet like Venus is likely forever going to
remain banished and otherwise forbidden, as though it’s simply too
Goldilocks testy even though it has been measurably cooling off.
Though perhaps for some of us with imagination and consideration for
what good technology applications can manage to deal with, it is not
going to be quite as bad off as accomplishing the exploitation of our
naked and physically dark moon that’s also going to demand a great
deal from applied technology yet to be developed or even as having
been prototype proven.

Of course we’ll still have to put up with the usual mainstream
gauntlet of naysayers that will continually point out the hellish
exterior environment of Venus that’s always going to nullify anything
we could ever attempt to accomplish, but then these very same
naysayers have never actually accomplished anything of terrestrial
value anyway, so it’s hard to imagine any level of off-world
exploitations that will ever comply to their traditional naysay and
FUD(fear, uncertainty and doubt) usefulness or that of any other
science value regardless of whatever we independent outsiders attempt
to propose.

On the surface, one m3 of that hot, compressed and otherwise heavy
density of acidic atmosphere is worth something like a specific
gravity offset of 65 kg (give or take a kg). Actually, any tonne
worth of an Earthly alloy or most any solid geometric substance would
only weigh 905 kg in terms of Venus mass (in addition to whatever
solid volume displacement of -65 kg/m3), and otherwise quite unlike
the always naysay of our local wizards as well as most others here in
Usenet/newsgroups that are forever stuck in their own failsafe
mainstream naysay mode, of always poopooing or discrediting virtually
everything that isn’t already mainstream status quo certified or of
their own idea to begin with, whereas I’ll gladly take and run with
that nearly 10% advantage of less gravity and put the 65 kg/m3 of
buoyancy to good use, especially when there’s so many other complex
issues to contend with, such as any composite rigid airship
constructed out of these mostly composite panels of a thin metal alloy
sheathed form that’s filled with a mix of essentially fused or bonded
milliballoons, of perhaps not larger than 12.7 mm diameter or 1 cm3
hollow spheres and of a few other sizes not any smaller volume than .1
cm3, as providing the uncompressible structural rated insulation of
solid forms that’s capable of displacing 65 kg/m3, would mean that a
robust 100 kg outer shell panel of this composite rigid airship might
only apply 35 kg of constructed mass per m3 or even per 4 m2 if this
outer shell/hull of geometric interlocking panels creating this
airship were only 250 mm thick.

If given some refinements as to creating these composite interlocking
outer hull panels, whereas perhaps their net all-inclusive mass per
cubic meter as measured on Venus will drop to 25 kg/m3, with silica
Aerogels or possibly a carbon nanofoam used to bind these spheres
wherever a low density sold structural form is necessary in order to
fully displace and as otherwise intended to easily seal off the
external atmosphere of mostly CO2, and thereby contain the H2 lifting
gas as well as accommodating the He+O2 portions of all the other
atmosphere as easily contained within this enormous craft.

Of purely insulation fluff utilized as a void filler for nonstructural
thermal insulation that’s made of milliballoons (no larger than 12.7
mm diameter) filled with hydrogen, could easily achieve R-1024/m or
the thermal coefficient of .0009765 w/m2/k, and of its composite
density per any given volume should easily become less than 64 kg/m3.
In other words, even using terrific volumes of this mostly basalt
balloon fluff is not going to contribute any significant amount of
constructed mass, nor is this minimal thermal coefficient ever going
to require any great deal of heat exchanging in order to maintain an
efficiently cooled airship cabin interior. And by the way, the raw
CO2 itself makes for a terrific refrigerant, which doesn’t even have
to be recirculate because it’s found just about everywhere.

Ceramic foams are relatively common place, offering their extremely
light or low density volumetrics and their terrific geometric
compression toughness (for instance the space shuttles were each
covered with ceramic tiles that easily insulated their frail aluminum
shell against the nearly 2000 K reentry heat, as similar to what
hollow basalt spheres that can also withstand such heat and remain as
terrific compression toughness even if their interior void was
evacuated to .01 atmosphere. On Venus these basalt or even carbonado
spheres could be initially made to contain one full surface atmosphere
worth of hydrogen, even though a soft vacuum of containing just .1 H2
atmosphere really shouldn’t be all that tough to create and mass
produce.

Try to always remember that Venus has no apparent shortages of
hydrogen nor that of renewable energy to burn (so to speak), in that
processing almost anything (including ceramics, basalt, carbonado and
tough metals like titanium and thorium) should really not be any
problem, and to always consider that every 19 months it conveniently
gets to within 100 LD of us (in other words, the only thing out there
that’s any closer to us and also worth exploiting, is our moon).

However, it seems the typical response such as from Wayne Throop’s
lack of hand-waving, plus his purely negative and/or naysay closed
mindset about absolutely anything that isn’t already mainstream or
wasn’t of his idea to begin with, is noted, as would be expected of
most others of his serial mainstream kind of closed mindsets. Perhaps
the very next time there is something of any great importance and
value to humanity that we don’t need to accomplish, we’ll certainly
have to put Wayne right at the very top of our short list of being
selected for our chief naysayer in charge, because it’s a job that
only the most qualified FUD-masters are suited for.

-

The GuthVenus Airship:
An airship offering its internal lifting gas displacement volume of
1e6 m3 (roughly 5 times that volume of the Hindenburg LZ 129) which
had to deal with 118 tonnes worth of its own dry inert mass, whereas
our Venus airship should lift at maximum 65e6 kg minus the inert mass
of the composite rigid airship itself. If this floating craft were
given half or 32.5e6 kg(32,500 tonnes including its H2 lifting gas) as
representing the all-inclusive inert dry or empty mass, only leaves us
with a live payload (including its crew and provisions of food, water,
outfitting plus other supplies and fuel) worth 32,500 tonnes.
However, if the Hindenburg was an inert mass of 118 tonnes, it seems
highly unlikely that our much larger and more complex Venus rated
airship is ever going to exceed a hundred times that amount, or 11,800
Earth tonnes, which makes this one worth only 10,679 tonnes as having
been constructed and parked on Venus. Thus 65,000 tonnes minus 10,679
tonnes equates to a potential live working payload of 54,321 tonnes
worth of its all-inclusive added payload mass, and it’ll still float,
not to mention whatever added lift obtained from all of the He+O2 of
cabin atmosphere and that of whatever its multiple(6) maneuvering
thrusters can muster.

Airship lifting capability as created via atmospheric displacement
using Venus hydrogen at 90.5% gravity is always going to remain a big
variable, because at the maximum surface pressure is where the mass
per m3 at 96 bar compressed but otherwise when heated to 735 K and, by
using the H2 (J/kg K) SGC of 4124 is what gets that Venus heated H2
density substantially revised. In other words if Venus H2 were given
3.167 * .905 = 2.866 kg/m3, and for the most part there’d be no good
reason to cool any of this H2 that’s easily contained at a slight
vacuum, and those much larger molecules of CO2 are certainly not going
to leak inward unless someone intentionally leaves a hatch wide open.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/in...ant-d_588.html
http://www.ajdesigner.com/idealgas/i...aw_density.php

A million cubic meters worth of hot H2 at 2.87 kg/m3 = 2,870 tonnes,
or roughly 4.4% of the estimated 65,000 tonnes worth of its zero
elevation inert mass along with its maximum usable payload and the
always variable of control ballast which has to be continually managed
on the fly, as always depending upon the lifting gas temperature and
its pressure, as well as for adding or subtracting CO2 as a dynamic
ballast compensation in order to suit the lifting capacity on demand,
as continually managing this buoyancy trim on the fly in order to suit
whatever change in altitudes and temperature. This would actually be
quite simple for a computer managed issue.

Obviously this airship is going to be a highly complex and otherwise
represent an extreme engineering task for only the most expertise of
advanced airship and perhaps using a little submarine applied
technology, and as such it is not going to be nearly as simple to pull
off as the Hindenburg which had only a few variable to contend with.
Accomplishing this craft while on Venus might also suggest that it’s
not a viable idea unless a preexisting facility or one as having been
constructed is accomplished first. What would a properly motivated
Venusian do?

Even a modern hybrid airship as revised for Earth transoceanic
transportation and cargo offers great potential, whereas a modern
terrestrial constructed Hindenburg would likely have a dry inert mass
of 100 tonnes, thereby transferring those 18 inert tonnes back into
usable live payload and accommodating the twice heavier helium gas
that’ll weigh 34 tonnes instead of the 17+ tonnes of hydrogen, is
putting the working live payload of this new and improved “Hindenburg
2.0” as nearly right back where it started, except a couple tonnes
lighter, more fuel efficient, a whole lot easier to maintain and
operate plus 25% faster and otherwise safer with a need of nearly half
the crew and thereby capable of hauling at least 40+ additional
passengers for a total commercial manifest of accommodating 76+
passengers in grand style (perhaps half again as many if passengers
had mostly carry-on luggage), shouldn’t be all that unlikely to
accommodate 100+ passengers, and obviously thousand pound humans need
not apply unless classified as cargo or if they can be used as
expendable ballast. Of course there’s really nothing unsafe about
using a lifting gas of hydrogen instead of helium, so that’s worth
another 17 tonnes of live payload.

The silly notion that our planet is always going to be good to go as
is, regardless of its overpopulation, industrial pollution and
depleted resources, as such seems perfectly fine and dandy to the
oligarchs and their brown-nosed minions. Of course, the usual
mainstream gauntlet of systemic FUD kinds of non-thinkers, like our
most always naysay Wayne Throop would likely have to keep insisting
that any such off-world airship technology application on behalf of
exploiting such an extremely nearby planet as Venus is simply not
worth the risky effort or the scientific achievements that would
perhaps only directly benefit the rest of us in multiple ways, and so
why bother.

Perhaps in spite of the pretentious denial and naysay expertise that’s
otherwise keeping oligarchs as happy campers, just maybe on behalf of
this one exception we should bother to move forward, because the
mainstream terrestrial oligarchs in charge regardless of whomever we
elect or appoint are clearly not ever going to allow any perceived
threat of future competition to ever build against any of their
terrestrial hoarded and insider market speculated to death resources
of easy profits, unless it’s entirely forced upon them. Plus
otherwise, we’ll need to exercise our rights in order to explore and
exploit other new worlds and their moons, so that advancements in
science and technology continue to flow and move us forward instead of
stagnate at the alternative of costly inflation and proxy wars due to
the limited natural resources at hand.

Problem is, it seems even the most forward thinking William Mook was
always quite opposed as to creating surpluses of most anything,
perhaps because that’s what oligarchs have always managed to avoid
creating a surplus, and otherwise doing their best in order to
maximize return on investment. For this analogy, consider if any one
oligarch were to suddenly flood the global market with a new form of
cheaper energy, or as having mass produced less spendy products via
such cheaper energy, and thereby offered whatever surplus of resources
to an open free market, whereas most of the other oligarchs of Earth
could become badly screwed, and apparently we simply can’t allow any
of that to ever happen. On the other hand, independent off-world
exploitations can’t be entirely stopped by other than proxy wars and
social/political dysfunctions, as we know from experience that their
revenge karma can bring most anything to a screeching halt.

Btw; be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement
software to this one small area of Venus, using your independent
expertise as to enlarge or magnify this mountainous area of Venus that
I’ve focused upon. Most of modern PhotoZoom and other photographic
software variations accomplish this resampling automatically, although
some extra filtering and dynamic range compensations can further
improve on the end result (no direct pixel modifications necessary).

“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth#

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus

This is a very wide scope and complex topic, so don't even bother if
you merely need some snippet of information in order to impress your
friends that you happen to know a little something they don't.


On Jan 28, 9:05*am, Brad Guth wrote:
A floating or buoyant shuttle craft for Venus, as capable of surface
landings and otherwise capable of efficiently cruising above them
thick clouds, is not going to be an easy accomplishment, nor is this
one nearly as insurmountable as we’ve been lead to believe.

Local space travels and the eventual exploitation of an extremely
nearby, hot and nasty planet like Venus is likely forever going to
remain banished and otherwise forbidden, as though it’s simply too
Goldilocks testy even though it has been measurably cooling off.
Though perhaps for some of us with imagination and consideration for
what good technology applications can manage to deal with, it is not
going to be quite as bad off as accomplishing the exploitation of our
naked and physically dark moon that’s also going to demand a great
deal from applied technology yet to be developed or even as having
been prototype proven.

Of course we’ll still have to put up with the usual mainstream
gauntlet of naysayers that will continually point out the hellish
exterior environment of Venus that’s always going to nullify anything
we could ever attempt to accomplish, but then these very same
naysayers have never actually accomplished anything of terrestrial
value anyway, so it’s hard to imagine any level of off-world
exploitations that will ever comply to their traditional naysay and
FUD(fear, uncertainty and doubt) usefulness or that of any other
science value regardless of whatever we independent outsiders attempt
to propose.

On the surface, one m3 of that hot, compressed and otherwise heavy
density of acidic atmosphere is worth something like a specific
gravity offset of 65 kg (give or take a kg). *Actually, any tonne
worth of an Earthly alloy or most any solid geometric substance would
only weigh 905 kg in terms of Venus mass (in addition to whatever
solid volume displacement of -65 kg/m3), and otherwise quite unlike
the always naysay of our local wizards as well as most others here in
Usenet/newsgroups that are forever stuck in their own failsafe
mainstream naysay mode, of always poopooing or discrediting virtually
everything that isn’t already mainstream status quo certified or of
their own idea to begin with, whereas I’ll gladly take and run with
that nearly 10% advantage of less gravity and put the 65 kg/m3 of
buoyancy to good use, especially when there’s so many other complex
issues to contend with, such as any composite rigid airship
constructed out of these mostly composite panels of a thin metal alloy
sheathed form that’s filled with a mix of essentially fused or bonded
milliballoons, of perhaps not larger than 12.7 mm diameter or 1 cm3
hollow spheres and of a few other sizes not any smaller volume than .1
cm3, as providing the uncompressible structural rated insulation of
solid forms that’s capable of displacing 65 kg/m3, would mean that a
robust 100 kg outer shell panel of this composite rigid airship might
only apply 35 kg of constructed mass per m3 or even per 4 m2 if this
outer shell/hull of geometric interlocking panels creating this
airship were only 250 mm thick.

If given some refinements as to creating these composite interlocking
outer hull panels, whereas perhaps their net all-inclusive mass per
cubic meter as measured on Venus will drop to 25 kg/m3, with silica
Aerogels or possibly a carbon nanofoam used to bind these spheres
wherever a low density sold structural form is necessary in order to
fully displace and as otherwise intended to easily seal off the
external atmosphere of mostly CO2, and thereby contain the H2 lifting
gas as well as accommodating the He+O2 portions of all the other
atmosphere as easily contained within this enormous craft.

Of purely insulation fluff utilized as a void filler for nonstructural
thermal insulation that’s made of milliballoons (no larger than 12.7
mm diameter) filled with hydrogen, could easily achieve R-1024/m or
the thermal coefficient of .0009765 w/m2/k, and of its composite
density per any given volume should easily become less than 64 kg/m3.
In other words, even using terrific volumes of this mostly basalt
balloon fluff is not going to contribute any significant amount of
constructed mass, nor is this minimal thermal coefficient ever going
to require any great deal of heat exchanging in order to maintain an
efficiently cooled airship cabin interior. *And by the way, the raw
CO2 itself makes for a terrific refrigerant, which doesn’t even have
to be recirculate because it’s found just about everywhere.

Ceramic foams are relatively common place, offering their extremely
light or low density volumetrics and their terrific geometric
compression toughness (for instance the space shuttles were each
covered with ceramic tiles that easily insulated their frail aluminum
shell against the nearly 2000 K reentry heat, as similar to what
hollow basalt spheres that can also withstand such heat and remain as
terrific compression toughness even if their interior void was
evacuated to .01 atmosphere. *On Venus these basalt or even carbonado
spheres could be initially made to contain one full surface atmosphere
worth of hydrogen, even though a soft vacuum of containing just .1 H2
atmosphere really shouldn’t be all that tough to create and mass
produce.

Try to always remember that Venus has no apparent shortages of
hydrogen nor that of renewable energy to burn (so to speak), in that
processing almost anything (including ceramics, basalt, carbonado and
tough metals like titanium and thorium) should really not be any
problem, and to always consider that every 19 months it conveniently
gets to within 100 LD of us (in other words, the only thing out there
that’s any closer to us and also worth exploiting, is our moon).

However, it seems the typical response such as from Wayne Throop’s
lack of hand-waving, plus his purely negative and/or naysay closed
mindset about absolutely anything that isn’t already mainstream or
wasn’t of his idea to begin with, is noted, as would be expected of
most others of his serial mainstream kind of closed mindsets. *Perhaps
the very next time there is something of any great importance and
value to humanity that we don’t need to accomplish, we’ll certainly
have to put Wayne right at the very top of our short list of being
selected for our chief naysayer in charge, because it’s a job that
only the most qualified FUD-masters are suited for.

*-

The GuthVenus Airship:
An airship offering its internal lifting gas displacement volume of
1e6 m3 (roughly 5 times that volume of the Hindenburg LZ 129) which
had to deal with 118 tonnes worth of its own dry inert mass, whereas
our Venus airship should lift at maximum 65e6 kg minus the inert mass
of the composite rigid airship itself. *If this floating craft were
given half or 32.5e6 kg(32,500 tonnes including its H2 lifting gas) as
representing the all-inclusive inert dry or empty mass, only leaves us
with a live payload (including its crew and provisions of food, water,
outfitting plus other supplies and fuel) worth 32,500 tonnes.
However, if the Hindenburg was an inert mass of 118 tonnes, it seems
highly unlikely that our much larger and more complex Venus rated
airship is ever going to exceed a hundred times that amount, or 11,800
Earth tonnes, which makes this one worth only 10,679 tonnes as having
been constructed and parked on Venus. *Thus 65,000 tonnes minus 10,679
tonnes equates to a potential live working payload of 54,321 tonnes
worth of its all-inclusive added payload mass, and it’ll still float,
not to mention whatever added lift obtained from all of the He+O2 of
cabin atmosphere and that of whatever its multiple(6) maneuvering
thrusters can muster.

Airship lifting capability as created via atmospheric displacement
using Venus hydrogen at 90.5% gravity is always going to remain a big
variable, because at the maximum surface pressure is where the mass
per m3 at 96 bar compressed but otherwise when heated to 735 K and, by
using the H2 (J/kg K) SGC of *4124 is what gets that Venus heated H2
density substantially revised. *In other words if Venus H2 were given
3.167 * .905 = 2.866 kg/m3, and for the most part there’d be no good
reason to cool any of this H2 that’s easily contained at a slight
vacuum, and those much larger molecules of CO2 are certainly not going
to leak inward unless someone intentionally leaves a hatch wide open.
*http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/in...gas-constant-d....
*http://www.ajdesigner.com/idealgas/i...aw_density.php

*A million cubic meters worth of hot H2 at 2.87 kg/m3 = 2,870 tonnes,
or roughly 4.4% of the estimated 65,000 tonnes worth of its zero
elevation inert mass along with its maximum usable payload and the
always variable of control ballast which has to be continually managed
on the fly, as always depending upon the lifting gas temperature and
its pressure, as well as for adding or subtracting CO2 as a dynamic
ballast compensation in order to suit the lifting capacity on demand,
as continually managing this buoyancy trim on the fly in order to suit
whatever change in altitudes and temperature. *This would actually be
quite simple for a computer managed issue.

Obviously this airship is going to be a highly complex and otherwise
represent an extreme engineering task for only the most expertise of
advanced airship and perhaps using a little submarine applied
technology, and as such it is not going to be nearly as simple to pull
off as the Hindenburg which had only a few variable to contend with.
Accomplishing this craft while on Venus might also suggest that it’s
not a viable idea unless a preexisting facility or one as having been
constructed is accomplished first. *What would a properly motivated
Venusian do?

Even a modern hybrid airship as revised for Earth transoceanic
transportation and cargo offers great potential, whereas a modern
terrestrial constructed Hindenburg would likely have a dry inert mass
of 100 tonnes, thereby transferring those 18 inert tonnes back into
usable live payload and accommodating the twice heavier helium gas
that’ll weigh 34 tonnes instead of the 17+ tonnes of hydrogen, is
putting the working live payload of this new and improved “Hindenburg
2.0” as nearly right back where it started, except a couple tonnes
lighter, more fuel efficient, a whole lot easier to maintain and
operate plus 25% faster and otherwise safer with a need of nearly half
the crew and thereby capable of hauling at least 40+ additional
passengers for a total commercial manifest of accommodating *76+
passengers in grand style (perhaps half again as many if passengers
had mostly carry-on luggage), shouldn’t be all that unlikely to
accommodate 100+ passengers, and obviously thousand pound humans need
not apply unless classified as cargo or if they can be used as
expendable ballast. *Of course there’s really nothing unsafe about
using a lifting gas of hydrogen instead of helium, so that’s worth
another 17 tonnes of live payload.

The silly notion that our planet is always going to be good to go as
is, regardless of its overpopulation, industrial pollution and
depleted resources, as such seems perfectly fine and dandy to the
oligarchs and their brown-nosed minions. *Of course, the usual
mainstream gauntlet of systemic FUD kinds of non-thinkers, like our
most always naysay Wayne Throop would likely have to keep insisting
that any such off-world airship technology application on behalf of
exploiting such an extremely nearby planet as Venus is simply not
worth the risky effort or the scientific achievements that would
perhaps only directly benefit the rest of us in multiple ways, and so
why bother.

Perhaps in spite of the pretentious denial and naysay expertise that’s
otherwise keeping oligarchs as happy campers, just maybe on behalf of
this one exception we should bother to move forward, because the
mainstream terrestrial oligarchs in charge regardless of whomever we
elect or appoint are clearly not ever going to allow any perceived
threat of future competition to ever build against any of their
terrestrial hoarded and insider market speculated to death resources
of easy profits, unless it’s entirely forced upon them. *Plus
otherwise, we’ll need to exercise our rights in order to explore and
exploit other new worlds and their moons, so that advancements in
science and technology continue to flow and move us forward instead of
stagnate at the alternative of costly inflation and proxy wars due to
the limited natural resources at hand.

Problem is, it seems even the most forward thinking William Mook was
always quite opposed as to creating surpluses of most anything,
perhaps because that’s what oligarchs have always managed to avoid
creating a surplus, and otherwise doing their best in order to
maximize return on investment. *For this analogy, consider if any one
oligarch were to suddenly flood the global market with a new form of
cheaper energy, or as having mass produced less spendy products via
such cheaper energy, and thereby offered whatever surplus of resources
to an open free market, whereas most of the other oligarchs of Earth
could become badly screwed, and apparently we simply can’t allow any
of that to ever happen. *On the other hand, independent off-world
exploitations can’t be entirely stopped by other than proxy wars and
social/political dysfunctions, as we know from experience that their
revenge karma can bring most anything to a screeching halt.

Btw; *be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement
software to this one small area of Venus, using your independent
expertise as to enlarge or magnify this mountainous area of Venus that
I’ve focused upon. *Most of modern PhotoZoom and other photographic
software variations accomplish this resampling automatically, although
some extra filtering and dynamic range compensations can further
improve on the end result (no direct pixel modifications necessary).

“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow....
*http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth#

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus

Don't seriously look at Venus if you do not want to learn how
dysfunctional and/or deceptive our NASA has been.

Is there any terrain on any other planet or moon that’s as unusual or
as geometric utility looking, as what this one small area of Venus has
to offer?

Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement software,
as to viewing this one small but rather interesting area of Venus,
using your independent expertise as to enlarge or magnify this
mountainous area of Venus that I’ve focused upon shouldn’t be asking
too much. Most of modern PhotoZoom and other photographic software
variations tend to accomplish this automatically, although some extra
filtering and dynamic range compensations can further improve on the
end result (no direct pixel modifications necessary).

“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth#

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus


On Jan 29, 1:26*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
This is a very wide scope and complex topic, so don't even bother if
you merely need some snippet of information in order to impress your
friends that you happen to know a little something they don't.

On Jan 28, 9:05*am, Brad Guth wrote: A floating or buoyant shuttle craft for Venus, as capable of surface
landings and otherwise capable of efficiently cruising above them
thick clouds, is not going to be an easy accomplishment, nor is this
one nearly as insurmountable as we’ve been lead to believe.

Local space travels and the eventual exploitation of an extremely
nearby, hot and nasty planet like Venus is likely forever going to
remain banished and otherwise forbidden, as though it’s simply too
Goldilocks testy even though it has been measurably cooling off.
Though perhaps for some of us with imagination and consideration for
what good technology applications can manage to deal with, it is not
going to be quite as bad off as accomplishing the exploitation of our
naked and physically dark moon that’s also going to demand a great
deal from applied technology yet to be developed or even as having
been prototype proven.

Of course we’ll still have to put up with the usual mainstream
gauntlet of naysayers that will continually point out the hellish
exterior environment of Venus that’s always going to nullify anything
we could ever attempt to accomplish, but then these very same
naysayers have never actually accomplished anything of terrestrial
value anyway, so it’s hard to imagine any level of off-world
exploitations that will ever comply to their traditional naysay and
FUD(fear, uncertainty and doubt) usefulness or that of any other
science value regardless of whatever we independent outsiders attempt
to propose.

On the surface, one m3 of that hot, compressed and otherwise heavy
density of acidic atmosphere is worth something like a specific
gravity offset of 65 kg (give or take a kg). *Actually, any tonne
worth of an Earthly alloy or most any solid geometric substance would
only weigh 905 kg in terms of Venus mass (in addition to whatever
solid volume displacement of -65 kg/m3), and otherwise quite unlike
the always naysay of our local wizards as well as most others here in
Usenet/newsgroups that are forever stuck in their own failsafe
mainstream naysay mode, of always poopooing or discrediting virtually
everything that isn’t already mainstream status quo certified or of
their own idea to begin with, whereas I’ll gladly take and run with
that nearly 10% advantage of less gravity and put the 65 kg/m3 of
buoyancy to good use, especially when there’s so many other complex
issues to contend with, such as any composite rigid airship
constructed out of these mostly composite panels of a thin metal alloy
sheathed form that’s filled with a mix of essentially fused or bonded
milliballoons, of perhaps not larger than 12.7 mm diameter or 1 cm3
hollow spheres and of a few other sizes not any smaller volume than .1
cm3, as providing the uncompressible structural rated insulation of
solid forms that’s capable of displacing 65 kg/m3, would mean that a
robust 100 kg outer shell panel of this composite rigid airship might
only apply 35 kg of constructed mass per m3 or even per 4 m2 if this
outer shell/hull of geometric interlocking panels creating this
airship were only 250 mm thick.

If given some refinements as to creating these composite interlocking
outer hull panels, whereas perhaps their net all-inclusive mass per
cubic meter as measured on Venus will drop to 25 kg/m3, with silica
Aerogels or possibly a carbon nanofoam used to bind these spheres
wherever a low density sold structural form is necessary in order to
fully displace and as otherwise intended to easily seal off the
external atmosphere of mostly CO2, and thereby contain the H2 lifting
gas as well as accommodating the He+O2 portions of all the other
atmosphere as easily contained within this enormous craft.

Of purely insulation fluff utilized as a void filler for nonstructural
thermal insulation that’s made of milliballoons (no larger than 12.7
mm diameter) filled with hydrogen, could easily achieve R-1024/m or
the thermal coefficient of .0009765 w/m2/k, and of its composite
density per any given volume should easily become less than 64 kg/m3.
In other words, even using terrific volumes of this mostly basalt
balloon fluff is not going to contribute any significant amount of
constructed mass, nor is this minimal thermal coefficient ever going
to require any great deal of heat exchanging in order to maintain an
efficiently cooled airship cabin interior. *And by the way, the raw
CO2 itself makes for a terrific refrigerant, which doesn’t even have
to be recirculate because it’s found just about everywhere.

Ceramic foams are relatively common place, offering their extremely
light or low density volumetrics and their terrific geometric
compression toughness (for instance the space shuttles were each
covered with ceramic tiles that easily insulated their frail aluminum
shell against the nearly 2000 K reentry heat, as similar to what
hollow basalt spheres that can also withstand such heat and remain as
terrific compression toughness even if their interior void was
evacuated to .01 atmosphere. *On Venus these basalt or even carbonado
spheres could be initially made to contain one full surface atmosphere
worth of hydrogen, even though a soft vacuum of containing just .1 H2
atmosphere really shouldn’t be all that tough to create and mass
produce.

Try to always remember that Venus has no apparent shortages of
hydrogen nor that of renewable energy to burn (so to speak), in that
processing almost anything (including ceramics, basalt, carbonado and
tough metals like titanium and thorium) should really not be any
problem, and to always consider that every 19 months it conveniently
gets to within 100 LD of us (in other words, the only thing out there
that’s any closer to us and also worth exploiting, is our moon).

However, it seems the typical response such as from Wayne Throop’s
lack of hand-waving, plus his purely negative and/or naysay closed
mindset about absolutely anything that isn’t already mainstream or
wasn’t of his idea to begin with, is noted, as would be expected of
most others of his serial mainstream kind of closed mindsets. *Perhaps
the very next time there is something of any great importance and
value to humanity that we don’t need to accomplish, we’ll certainly
have to put Wayne right at the very top of our short list of being
selected for our chief naysayer in charge, because it’s a job that
only the most qualified FUD-masters are suited for.

*-

The GuthVenus Airship:
An airship offering its internal lifting gas displacement volume of
1e6 m3 (roughly 5 times that volume of the Hindenburg LZ 129) which
had to deal with 118 tonnes worth of its own dry inert mass, whereas
our Venus airship should lift at maximum 65e6 kg minus the inert mass
of the composite rigid airship itself. *If this floating craft were
given half or 32.5e6 kg(32,500 tonnes including its H2 lifting gas) as
representing the all-inclusive inert dry or empty mass, only leaves us
with a live payload (including its crew and provisions of food, water,
outfitting plus other supplies and fuel) worth 32,500 tonnes.
However, if the Hindenburg was an inert mass of 118 tonnes, it seems
highly unlikely that our much larger and more complex Venus rated
airship is ever going to exceed a hundred times that amount, or 11,800
Earth tonnes, which makes this one worth only 10,679 tonnes as having
been constructed and parked on Venus. *Thus 65,000 tonnes minus 10,679
tonnes equates to a potential live working payload of 54,321 tonnes
worth of its all-inclusive added payload mass, and it’ll still float,
not to mention whatever added lift obtained from all of the He+O2 of
cabin atmosphere and that of whatever its multiple(6) maneuvering
thrusters can muster.

Airship lifting capability as created via atmospheric displacement
using Venus hydrogen at 90.5% gravity is always going to remain a big
variable, because at the maximum surface pressure is where the mass
per m3 at 96 bar compressed but otherwise when heated to 735 K and, by
using the H2 (J/kg K) SGC of *4124 is what gets that Venus heated H2
density substantially revised. *In other words if Venus H2 were given
3.167 * .905 = 2.866 kg/m3, and for the most part there’d be no good
reason to cool any of this H2 that’s easily contained at a slight
vacuum, and those much larger molecules of CO2 are certainly not going
to leak inward unless someone intentionally leaves a hatch wide open.
*http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/in...gas-constant-d...
*http://www.ajdesigner.com/idealgas/i...aw_density.php

*A million cubic meters worth of hot H2 at 2.87 kg/m3 = 2,870 tonnes,
or roughly 4.4% of the estimated 65,000 tonnes worth of its zero
elevation inert mass along with its maximum usable payload and the
always variable of control ballast which has to be continually managed
on the fly, as always depending upon the lifting gas temperature and
its pressure, as well as for adding or subtracting CO2 as a dynamic
ballast compensation in order to suit the lifting capacity on demand,
as continually managing this buoyancy trim on the fly in order to suit
whatever change in altitudes and temperature. *This would actually be
quite simple for a computer managed issue.

Obviously this airship is going to be a highly complex and otherwise
represent an extreme engineering task for only the most expertise of
advanced airship and perhaps using a little submarine applied
technology, and as such it is not going to be nearly as simple to pull
off as the Hindenburg which had only a few variable to contend with.
Accomplishing this craft while on Venus might also suggest that it’s
not a viable idea unless a preexisting facility or one as having been
constructed is accomplished first. *What would a properly motivated
Venusian do?

Even a modern hybrid airship as revised for Earth transoceanic
transportation and cargo offers great potential, whereas a modern
terrestrial constructed Hindenburg would likely have a dry inert mass
of 100 tonnes, thereby transferring those 18 inert tonnes back into
usable live payload and accommodating the twice heavier helium gas
that’ll weigh 34 tonnes instead of the 17+ tonnes of hydrogen, is
putting the working live payload of this new and improved “Hindenburg
2.0” as nearly right back where it started, except a couple tonnes
lighter, more fuel efficient, a whole lot easier to maintain and
operate plus 25% faster and otherwise safer with a need of nearly half
the crew and thereby capable of hauling at least 40+ additional
passengers for a total commercial manifest of accommodating *76+
passengers in grand style (perhaps half again as many if passengers
had mostly carry-on luggage), shouldn’t be all that unlikely to
accommodate 100+ passengers, and obviously thousand pound humans need
not apply unless classified as cargo or if they can be used as
expendable ballast. *Of course there’s really nothing unsafe about
using a lifting gas of hydrogen instead of helium, so that’s worth
another 17 tonnes of live payload.

The silly notion that our planet is always going to be good to go as
is, regardless of its overpopulation, industrial pollution and
depleted resources, as such seems perfectly fine and dandy to the
oligarchs and their brown-nosed minions. *Of course, the usual
mainstream gauntlet of systemic FUD kinds of non-thinkers, like our
most always naysay Wayne Throop would likely have to keep insisting
that any such off-world airship technology application on behalf of
exploiting such an extremely nearby planet as Venus is simply not
worth the risky effort or the scientific achievements that would
perhaps only directly benefit the rest of us in multiple ways, and so
why bother.

Perhaps in spite of the pretentious denial and naysay expertise that’s
otherwise keeping oligarchs as happy campers, just maybe on behalf of
this one exception we should bother to move forward, because the
mainstream terrestrial oligarchs in charge regardless of whomever we
elect or appoint are clearly not ever going to allow any perceived
threat of future competition to ever build against any of their
terrestrial hoarded and insider market speculated to death resources
of easy profits, unless it’s entirely forced upon them. *Plus
otherwise, we’ll need to exercise our rights in order to explore and
exploit other new worlds and their moons, so that advancements in
science and technology continue to flow and move us forward instead of
stagnate at the alternative of costly inflation and proxy wars due to
the limited natural resources at hand.

Problem is, it seems even the most forward thinking William Mook was
always quite opposed as to creating surpluses of most anything,
perhaps because that’s what oligarchs have always managed to avoid
creating a surplus, and otherwise doing their best in order to
maximize return on investment. *For this analogy, consider if any one
oligarch were to suddenly flood the global market with a new form of
cheaper energy, or as having mass produced less spendy products via
such cheaper energy, and thereby offered whatever surplus of resources
to an open free market, whereas most of the other oligarchs of Earth
could become badly screwed, and apparently we simply can’t allow any
of that to ever happen. *On the other hand, independent off-world
exploitations can’t be entirely stopped by other than proxy wars and
social/political dysfunctions, as we know from experience that their
revenge karma can bring most anything to a screeching halt.

Btw; *be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement
software to this one small area of Venus, using your independent
expertise as to enlarge or magnify this mountainous area of Venus that
I’ve focused upon. *Most of modern PhotoZoom and other photographic
software variations accomplish this resampling automatically, although
some extra filtering and dynamic range compensations can further
improve on the end result (no direct pixel modifications necessary).

“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...Guth#slideshow...
*http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
*https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth#

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus