The rigid airship (fat waverider/shuttle) to/from hell:

Unfortunately, our Venus EXPRESS team of supposed all-knowing wizards
have such straight and tight intellectual butt-cracks that they can't
even manage to break wind without blowing such as intellectual snot out
their brown nose. There's has been such little science derived from
their supposedly broken mission that's having to function w/o PFS, in
that there's hardly any point in reviewing those rather interesting but
technically pathetic images, with one being the exception of the
following group of thermal images which seems to include a rather large
item that could be a rigid airship as existing within sequence after
sequence (therefore it is not an imaging fault).
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/..._500_red_c.jpg

Since our big old nasty moon that's been so nicely thawing us out and
subsequently warming us to death, as of ever since having arrived as of
the last ice age, is unfortunately remaining so Usenet topic
taboo/nondisclosure, whereas such I might as well take to sharing a
little of whatever else comes to mind.

Here's a little more of my ongoing rant, of having to stoke my very own
warm and fuzzy tit for tat, of my sharing as to what's currently too
Usenet hot and otherwise remains fully taboo/nondisclosure (topic/author
banishment worthy) on behalf of Venus. Too bad ESA's Venus EXPRESS team
of such supposed wizards are currently sequestered until each and every
one of those NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows manage to come home, and
certainly otherwise having to remain as nondisclosure minions unitl our
hocus-pocus fat lady of our multi-trillion dollar perpetrated cold-war
gets to sing.

Nighttime Exploring of Venus with a Composite Rigid Airship.
Perhaps if we're good at cloaking our rigid airship as being flat-black
and pray that we're damn lucky, they'll never see us coming to pillage,
plunder and otherwise infect their planet with our born-again superior
bigotry, arrogance and greed.

Where necessary having a meter thick insulative skin that's made
extensively of the 4.84 GPa basalt fibers (Elastic modulus GPa of 89)
and otherwise of basalt micro-balloons, plus a fair percentage of having
those not so micro balloons that might as well contain H2 or simply
incorporate a good vacuum, is what should obtain the structurally
insulative R-1024/m that'll also benefit from the local 65 kg/m3 worth
of buoyancy, which should cut the net tonnage or cubic density of that
outer hull plus offsetting much of the airship's internal framing and
various infrastructure aspects of decks and structured compartments by
as great as 50%, though perhaps at first a 25% offset of the total
structural consideration that's due to the cubic volumetric buoyancy
factor is more than likely going to be the case. Of course, since
there's so much buoyancy is why one could construct a Venusian rigid
airship out of iron, and it would fly.

The primary volume of buoyancy that's afforded by it's volumetric
airframe shell or outer hull needn't be nearly as insulative, just made
robust and otherwise tough enough in order to take the submarine like
pressure of perhaps 2000 psi (138 bar), or perhaps not even 10% of that
much if using a displacement gas such as H2 that can be created while on
the fly.

Tossing in the 90.5% gravity as offering yet another attractive factor
is what should rather nicely facilitate this form of Venusian
exploration as a technological done deal, that which airframe size or
total volume of this rigid airship (AKA fat waverider/shuttle) is nearly
a none issue except for having to fend off all of the usual mainstream
flak that's to be expected from those naysay mindsets that wouldn't so
much as accept the truth even if it meant salvaging their own status quo
butts.

I believe the necessary R&D on behalf of accomplishing this Venusian
rigid airship/(fat waverider/shuttle or whatever robotic airship
configured probe) isn't even all that insurmountable, as for being
terrestrial constructed and fully proof-tested right here on Earth,
especially if at first we're talking about a purely robotic application
which wouldn't demand 1% of the mass if pertaining to merely sustaining
each of the various scientific instrumentation demands.

As far as accomplishing this task robotically, we're not talking about
all that large nor even aerodynamically configured worth of any such
craft (could be just a rigid sphere of an airship), nor would the
onboard energy demands be all that daunting. The nicely retrograde
weather that's relatively calm below them nifty acidic clouds is
actually a rather terrific efficiency consideration that'll nearly
always work on behalf of enhancing much of the expedition's navigating
considerations, thereby very little propulsion energy is going to be
required.

Of CCD's and other ICs on diamond, SiC or simply employing miniature
vacuum tube applications are going to more than function as being
entirely within their thermal spec, meaning that little if any auxiliary
cooling need be applied.

So, one should be thinking on behalf of robotically flown rigid airships
being anything from a few cubic meters to as large as you'd dare to
achieve, and of those humanly operated rigid airships of anything from
as little as 1,000 m3 to 1,000,000 m3 should be seriously considered.

Unlike having to accomplish our moon, there's nothing about this rigid
airship technology that's technically outside the expertise and scope of
existing science and proven technology that'll efficiently and safely
operate within the Venusian atmosphere, as well as everything based
entirely within the regular laws of physics.

Perhaps extreme high temperature ICs on diamond insteasd of merely
silicon carbide (SiC) for high temperature semiconductor applications
should be reviewed, whereas SiC works perfectly fine even when it's
glowing hot, and if the process of doping diamond isn't too pesky is
where this element of diamond(C) should take over whenever the SiC
application isn't quite sufficient. A less densely populated high
temperature rated IC would obviously demand perhaps as great a 10 fold
increase in surface area, therefore a CCD on SiC or C of 50 micron
pixels (possibly as tightly populated at 25 micron/pixels) should be
doable within existing technology.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT2000/5000/5510okojie.html
Obviously the dynamic range(DR) of a given CCD that's having to operate
at such temperature isn't going to be all that impressive, but it should
be more than sufficient. If need be, auxiliary cooling for a specific
imaging element shouldn't be all that insurmountable.

Conventional IC gate densities that might otherwise achieve 100000
gates/mm2 should become merely 10000 gates/mm2, although I believe 15000
gates/mm2 is entirely doable and at that being way overkill for the
Venusian applications that's nearly always operating within something
less than the absolute worse case of 811 K.

Within a conventional 0.35 micron process, a gate density of 18000 gates
per square millimeter can be achieved, whereas dividing that gate
population by a factor of 10 is obviously worthy of laying down 1800
gates/mm2 that'll more than survive the thermal trauma with a few
roasting degrees to spare.

What this means is that folks that would much rather drop dead than to
utilize the good old vacuum tube format of circuitry that's more than
suited to surviving 900 K, that by rights should be right at home on the
toasty Venusian range of cruising within the nighttime season and for
getting damn near to that geothermally roasting Venusian deck, whereas
instead using their SiC or C alternatives in thermally tolerant ICs that
are simply less populated devices than the norm is what's currently
doable. However, since internal probe/airship volume and of whatever
mass isn't hardly a factor, so what's the difference.

In spite of what all that we've been informed of over and over, Venus is
more than technically doable as is. Though having been geothermally
toasty and very much alive and kicking it's own rather newish
planetology butt, whereas it's simply not too hot nor too nasty to go
visit, at least from the relative safety of a good composite rigid
airship.
-
Brad Guth


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

That's rather odd, in that within this rather smartly Jewish dominated
anti-think-tank mindset of a Usenet from hell, that otherwise sucks and
blows from all of their usual naysayism and/or as to their denial of
being in denial, whereas there's not so much as a friendly word on
behalf of accomplishing those Venusian rigid airships.

Perhaps if I got our resident fat-waverider wizard "tomcat" to design
and build us a working prototype of one of these composite
fly-by-buoyancy suckers, whereas then all the supposed experts in the
world will emerge out of their infomercial saturated cesspools in order
to tell us about everything he did wrong, and perhaps as to insisting as
to why it isn't ever going to work, all without their ever once sharing
actual squat as to whatever and of how such matters need to get fixed.

I wonder what their all-knowing problem is with airship physics-101 this
time around?
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:
That's rather odd, in that within this rather smartly Jewish dominated
anti-think-tank mindset of a Usenet from hell, that otherwise sucks and
blows from all of their usual naysayism and/or as to their denial of
being in denial, whereas there's not so much as a friendly word on
behalf of accomplishing those Venusian rigid airships.

Brad, your fantasy airship will NEVER approach the beauty and elegance
of Josh Geller's. Powered by Volkswagen engines pumping helium through
garden hoses, crewed by semi-naked women and heated by the burning of
bales of marijuana, Geller's airship is the finest that talk.bizarre
has to offer.

Brad, you claim to support flights to Venus, but here in talk.bizarre,
we worship the Goddess Venus. Or Danu, or Gypsy, or whoever happens to
be available on short notice.

Your attempts at being bizarre fall far short of the mainstream status
quo here in talk.bizarre. Please stop crossposting.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:


Brad, your fantasy airship will NEVER approach the beauty and elegance
of Josh Geller's. Powered by Volkswagen engines pumping helium through
garden hoses, crewed by semi-naked women and heated by the burning of
bales of marijuana, Geller's airship is the finest that talk.bizarre
has to offer.


This is fairly neat: http://www.fuellessflight.com/

Pat

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message


Brad, your fantasy airship will NEVER approach the beauty and elegance
of Josh Geller's. Powered by Volkswagen engines pumping helium through
garden hoses, crewed by semi-naked women and heated by the burning of
bales of marijuana, Geller's airship is the finest that talk.bizarre
has to offer.

Brad, you claim to support flights to Venus, but here in talk.bizarre,
we worship the Goddess Venus. Or Danu, or Gypsy, or whoever happens to
be available on short notice.

Your attempts at being bizarre fall far short of the mainstream status
quo here in talk.bizarre. Please stop crossposting.
--scott

In other words, you know of nothing about waverider spaceplanes or rigid
airship technology, nor much less that of any related physics.

Gee whiz, why the heck didn't you just say that you are totally airship
dumbfounded, and simply admit that you otherwise don't believe in the
regular laws of physics. Wouldn't that have been so much easier?

Is "talk.bizarre" the same Usenet group as as "talk.dumbfounded",
"talk.dumb.dumber" or perhaps "talk.bigot"?
-
Brad Guth


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

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message


Scott Dorsey wrote:

Brad, your fantasy airship will NEVER approach the beauty and elegance
of Josh Geller's. Powered by Volkswagen engines pumping helium through
garden hoses, crewed by semi-naked women and heated by the burning of
bales of marijuana, Geller's airship is the finest that talk.bizarre
has to offer.

This is fairly neat: http://www.fuellessflight.com/

Thank you so very much, as I totally agree with the nearly "Fuel-less
Gravity Powered Flight", especially if we're given a buoyancy factor of
65+ kg/m3 and a gravity of merely 90.5% in order to work within a fairly
calm retrograde atmospheric environment that's still rather toasty by
season of nighttime but otherwise well protected from whatever that sun
contributed by day, and otherwise keeping sufficiently away from that
geothermally active deck while cruising efficiently below the thick and
acidic clouds of Venus.
-
Brad Guth


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

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:54:52 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote:



Scott Dorsey wrote:

This is fairly neat: http://www.fuellessflight.com/

It is, indeed.

Here's an amusing point: This general sort of airship was anticipated by
Jules Verne in "Five Weeks in a Balloon". The "balloon" in "5 weeks"
used a sealed envelope and fixed gas supply, with a heater to control the
lift; very much like the gravity plane. But Verne didn't think of making
the whole thing into a giant glider, so the best they could do to "steer"
was try different altitudes until they found a breeze going in the right
direction.

But coming back in the present, I couldn't see anything on the website
about how _high_ the "gravity plane" would fly, which seems important.

As I recall, zeppelins -- to which this seems closely related -- were
limited to something like a 4000 foot ceiling. Coupled with their low air
speed, large size, and relative fragility, this puts them seriously at
risk from bad weather: They can't fly over it, can't outfly it, and can't
safely ride it out. I seem to recall the last experiment with commercial
use of zeppelins foundered on this problem: One of the last two to fly
broke up in a storm, which, as I said, it couldn't fly over or away from.

I also note that the G-P is called a "glider", not a "sail plane".
Presumably this means it can't soar: it can pump up its gas bags and rise,
and then chill the gas and glide down, but can't just rise on a thermal.

Pretty nifty if it's really possible to power the cycle with the
temperature change in the air -- what's that, 3 or 4 degrees F per
thousand feet? Sounds like a pretty slim variation but nothing a Sterling
engine couldn't use.



Pat

--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org

"sal" wrote in message
news
As I recall, zeppelins -- to which this seems closely related -- were
limited to something like a 4000 foot ceiling. Coupled with their low air
speed, large size, and relative fragility, this puts them seriously at
risk from bad weather: They can't fly over it, can't outfly it, and can't
safely ride it out. I seem to recall the last experiment with commercial
use of zeppelins foundered on this problem: One of the last two to fly
broke up in a storm, which, as I said, it couldn't fly over or away from.

There is no "bad weather" on Venus, the atmospheric buoyancy starts off
at 65+ kg/m3 and there's all sorts of easily obtained local energy,
minerals and various airship related elements as is.

I also note that the G-P is called a "glider", not a "sail plane".
Presumably this means it can't soar: it can pump up its gas bags and rise,
and then chill the gas and glide down, but can't just rise on a thermal.

I wouldn't utilize that very same G-P as a "glider" on Venus, would you?

At first I'd incorporate conventional fuel such as a good supply of h2o2
plus whatever, and/or having a small nuclear energy source by which to
create a few spare electrons, although the toasty local environment
might be good enough as is.

Pretty nifty if it's really possible to power the cycle with the
temperature change in the air -- what's that, 3 or 4 degrees F per
thousand feet? Sounds like a pretty slim variation but nothing a Sterling
engine couldn't use.

On Venus you've got 4 bar/km of pressure and thermally perhaps 10 K/km
of such nifty nighttime thermal and pressure differentials to work with,
while at 90.5% gravity and having a rather nifty retrograge flow
(depending on altitude) to work with.

There's also loads of geothermal driven gas vents that can be taken
advantage of, especially if they're pumping out the likes of S8 as
interpreted by John Ackerman.
-
Brad Guth


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

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 16:06:14 +0000, Brad Guth wrote:

There is no "bad weather" on Venus

Give it a rest, and stop cross-posting. I had set the followups to the
groups where that message you replied to was actually sort of on-topic.

There's nothing but bad weather on Venus.

(Followups again set to a group where your reply, if any, will be on-topic.)

**plonk**


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

In message
sal wrote:

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:54:52 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

This is fairly neat: http://www.fuellessflight.com/

It is, indeed.

But coming back in the present, I couldn't see anything on the website
about how _high_ the "gravity plane" would fly, which seems important.

I also note that the G-P is called a "glider", not a "sail plane".
Presumably this means it can't soar: it can pump up its gas bags and rise,
and then chill the gas and glide down, but can't just rise on a thermal.

"Exploring Titan with Autonomous, Bouyancy Driven Gliders" M. T. Morrow
et al, JBIS Vol 59 No 1. Doesn't give height limits at a quick glance,
though one diagram shows it bouncing up and down by about 300m, but does
mention that soaring is a possibility. Underwater versions have
completed journeys in the tens of thousands of kilometre range.

Anthony