How cool is VL2

"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in message
news
In article .com,
wrote:

These brown-nosed Jeswish clowns are funny, arnt they.

If only Hitler could see how nicely his cloning paid off.

Please, for the love of god, stop posting.

Go play in traffic, Gay Duckie-Boi.

HJ

Second post because the one before reported as having been taken into
the message loop or stack, yet still isn't showing up.

On Apr 11, 7:16 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

On Apr 10, 9:36 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics,
wrote:
At nearly 100 bar, the human need of O2 isn't going to be 1%, with the
remainder as H2 and we're good to go (actually as little as 0.5% O2
and 99.5% H2 should be doable). Venus has no actual shortage of O2 or
H2, or actually there's no shortage of easily extracting teratonnes
worth h2o from those relatively cool acidic clouds above the S8 layer,
therefore h2o2 seems perfectly doable.

Retrieved fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus:

Pressu 9.3 MPa
Composition: ~96.5% Carbon dioxide (8.97 MPa)
~3.5% Nitrogen (325.5 kPa)
.015% Sulfur dioxide (1395 Pa)
.007% Argon (651 Pa)
.002% Water vapor (186 Pa)
.0017% Carbon monoxide (158 Pa)

The human need for O2 is approximately 21 kPa,
or 0.226%.

0.226% O2 is perhaps ideally sufficient, but for good measure I'd
stick with 1% O2 and 99% H2 at first, then working our way towards the
0.5% O2 before trying to survive at 0.226% and 99.774% H2.

BTW; you excluded the Venusian atmospheric element of S8, as being a
fairly considerable component that could be a whole lot more robust
than we're being told by those that don't exactly tell us truth,
especially if it's capable of rocking their boat. John Ackerman has
nailed the more likely correct interpretation as to the local S8
element of that Venusian atmosphere, though obviously we'd never
breath because of our wussy physiology simply isn't going to like
dealing with S8 or CO2 for that matter.


You folks wouldn't happen to have a spare rocket sitting around?

Mi/Mf = 120
v = Escape velocity = 11.2 km/s
v_e = exhaust velocity = v/log(Mi/Mf) = 11200 / log(120) = 2339

Doable (Saturn V had a v_e of about 2500 m/s) but difficult.

I agree that our trusty old Saturn V had more than enough capability
of getting 10+ tonnes deployed into the moon's L1, but that's a
seriously dead and otherwise spendy hourse, that which only those
smart Third Reich and of their Jewish wizards knew enough as to R&D
and of exactly how to fly it.

I was thinking of something 'Ariane 5 ECB' that might be worth getting
to that capability of tossing 10,000+ kg, as being capably sent
towards our moon's L1, taking a full lunar month if need be for that
package to basically coast into position along with a small kicker
brake of a thruster for slowing everything to a final stop at just the
right position. An array of onboard ion thrusters or perhaps merely
the h2o2/c12h26 alternative should manage the extended interactive
station-keeping requirements, with whatever subsequent robotic
resupply of fuel accomplished by those smart Russians that simply know
more first hand expertise about fly-by-rocket robotics.

How are they at taking my IOUs?

If given one launch per month would offer a combined 120 tonnes per
year worth of our best technology getting situated into the moon's
L1. Eventually that would include a bulk water delivery that might
actually accomplish enough shield capability for accommodating a small
volume worth of a manned habitat (though I see little need of anything
manned, especially since the energy required for getting rid of the
surplus heat might be nearly insurmountable at full-moon that's so IR/
FIR intensive).

Of course, modern robotics and of extremely efficient micro science
instruments, whereas perhaps as little as a 1000 kg probe that's
station-keeping within our moon's L1 would become a rather nifty
improvement over what we've got, which is still nothing after better
than 4 decades and counting.

Do you folks have the fully interactive fly-by-rocket expertise, of
having a sufficient computer simulator at your disposal, as based upon
the real world of such rocket inventory that's off the shelf (sort of
speak)?
-
Brad Guth

In sci.physics,

wrote
on 12 Apr 2007 06:21:09 -0700
. com:
Second post because the one before reported as having been taken into
the message loop or stack, yet still isn't showing up.

On Apr 11, 7:16 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

On Apr 10, 9:36 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics,
wrote:
At nearly 100 bar, the human need of O2 isn't going to be 1%, with the
remainder as H2 and we're good to go (actually as little as 0.5% O2
and 99.5% H2 should be doable). Venus has no actual shortage of O2 or
H2, or actually there's no shortage of easily extracting teratonnes
worth h2o from those relatively cool acidic clouds above the S8 layer,
therefore h2o2 seems perfectly doable.

Retrieved fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus:

Pressu 9.3 MPa
Composition: ~96.5% Carbon dioxide (8.97 MPa)
~3.5% Nitrogen (325.5 kPa)
.015% Sulfur dioxide (1395 Pa)
.007% Argon (651 Pa)
.002% Water vapor (186 Pa)
.0017% Carbon monoxide (158 Pa)

The human need for O2 is approximately 21 kPa,
or 0.226%.

0.226% O2 is perhaps ideally sufficient, but for good measure I'd
stick with 1% O2 and 99% H2 at first,

See any H2 up there? I don't. Lots of CO2 and nitrogen, but
no hydrogen. A trace of water vapor, but that's about it.

Considering that the Sun is estimated to be 25% He and 75% hydrogen,
H2 wouldn't be that hard to detect with a spectrograph.

then working our way towards the
0.5% O2 before trying to survive at 0.226% and 99.774% H2.

Fancy a light, mate? *kaBOOM*

Oops.


BTW; you excluded the Venusian atmospheric element of S8, as being a
fairly considerable component that could be a whole lot more robust
than we're being told by those that don't exactly tell us truth,
especially if it's capable of rocking their boat. John Ackerman has
nailed the more likely correct interpretation as to the local S8
element of that Venusian atmosphere, though obviously we'd never
breath because of our wussy physiology simply isn't going to like
dealing with S8 or CO2 for that matter.

S8 wasn't mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. I'm not even sure what it is.

As for CO2, our "wussy physiology" deals with CO2 by expelling it.
Not much else it can do with it.



You folks wouldn't happen to have a spare rocket sitting around?

Mi/Mf = 120
v = Escape velocity = 11.2 km/s
v_e = exhaust velocity = v/log(Mi/Mf) = 11200 / log(120) = 2339

Doable (Saturn V had a v_e of about 2500 m/s) but difficult.

I agree that our trusty old Saturn V had more than enough capability
of getting 10+ tonnes deployed into the moon's L1, but that's a
seriously dead and otherwise spendy hourse, that which only those
smart Third Reich and of their Jewish wizards knew enough as to R&D
and of exactly how to fly it.

Flying isn't the problem here. Building it, maybe.


I was thinking of something 'Ariane 5 ECB' that might be worth getting
to that capability of tossing 10,000+ kg, as being capably sent
towards our moon's L1, taking a full lunar month if need be for that
package to basically coast into position along with a small kicker
brake of a thruster for slowing everything to a final stop at just the
right position. An array of onboard ion thrusters or perhaps merely
the h2o2/c12h26 alternative should manage the extended interactive
station-keeping requirements, with whatever subsequent robotic
resupply of fuel accomplished by those smart Russians that simply know
more first hand expertise about fly-by-rocket robotics.

How are they at taking my IOUs?

I doubt they even *know* about your IOUs.


If given one launch per month would offer a combined 120 tonnes per
year worth of our best technology getting situated into the moon's
L1. Eventually that would include a bulk water delivery that might
actually accomplish enough shield capability for accommodating a small
volume worth of a manned habitat (though I see little need of anything
manned, especially since the energy required for getting rid of the
surplus heat might be nearly insurmountable at full-moon that's so IR/
FIR intensive).

Of course, modern robotics and of extremely efficient micro science
instruments, whereas perhaps as little as a 1000 kg probe that's
station-keeping within our moon's L1 would become a rather nifty
improvement over what we've got, which is still nothing after better
than 4 decades and counting.

Do you folks have the fully interactive fly-by-rocket expertise, of
having a sufficient computer simulator at your disposal, as based upon
the real world of such rocket inventory that's off the shelf (sort of
speak)?

Does anyone have the *money* to boost hundreds of metric tonnes to VL2?


-
Brad Guth



--
#191,
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 13, 5:04 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
See any H2 up there? I don't. Lots of CO2 and nitrogen, but
no hydrogen. A trace of water vapor, but that's about it.

Do you also lie to yourself whenever you drop a fresh load into your
pants?

Most of Venus is hydrogen, and there's likely way more than a spare
100 teratonnes worth of easily accessible h2o within them thar acidic
clouds. Sorry, as you obviously have to know basic physics and even
more basic math for appreciating that one.

I suppose next you're going to claim not knowing of John Ackerman or
of FW Taylor.

Have you even an honest swag of any idea as to the raw mass of those
Venusian clouds, and of their above thick layer of a moist haze, with
more than a little O2 existing above that.


Considering that the Sun is estimated to be 25% He and 75% hydrogen,
H2 wouldn't be that hard to detect with a spectrograph.

then working our way towards the
0.5% O2 before trying to survive at 0.226% and 99.774% H2.

Fancy a light, mate? *kaBOOM*

OOPS! silly me, whereas I'd thought you folks knew a little something
about the regular laws of physics. Sorry, my fault for thinking you
folks had all of half a butt-cheek brain to work with. You'll need
better than a 5% worth of O2 before there's any *kaBOOM* with H2,
meaning that 99% H2 is every bit as safe as water, except without all
the mass.


S8 wasn't mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. I'm not even sure what it is.

As for CO2, our "wussy physiology" deals with CO2 by expelling it.
Not much else it can do with it.

Once again, sorry for my thinking that you Old Testament thumping
folks knew at least a wee bit of the very basics.


Does anyone have the *money* to boost hundreds of metric tonnes to VL2?

Perhaps China or India, with Russia coming in next to last. We can't
even get ourselves onto our moon, or for that matter the moon's L1
seems rather insurmountable, so that puts the USofA entirely out of
the picture of anything related to Venus or even VL2.

Each VL2 POOF (Bigelow Aerospace / Nautilus) isn't representing all
that many tonnes. 5 such POOFs as configured into a tight comumity
might amount to as little as 125 tonnes (fully outfitted and stocked
with all the basic sorts of necessary supplies).
-
Brad Guth

In article . com,
wrote:

Most of Venus is hydrogen, and there's likely way more than a spare
100 teratonnes worth of easily accessible h2o within them thar acidic
clouds. Sorry, as you obviously have to know basic physics and even
more basic math for appreciating that one.


You get funnier with each post.

--
Got mail? I did ;-) Three and counting.
Got proof? Not yet, still waiting.

In sci.physics,

wrote
on 13 Apr 2007 18:46:06 -0700
. com:
On Apr 13, 5:04 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
See any H2 up there? I don't. Lots of CO2 and nitrogen, but
no hydrogen. A trace of water vapor, but that's about it.

Do you also lie to yourself whenever you drop a fresh load into your
pants?

Most of Venus is hydrogen, and there's likely way more than a spare
100 teratonnes worth of easily accessible h2o within them thar acidic
clouds. Sorry, as you obviously have to know basic physics and even
more basic math for appreciating that one.

Ah, of course. And the reason we haven't detected this hydrogen
earthside is ...?


I suppose next you're going to claim not knowing of John Ackerman or
of FW Taylor.

The former appears to be a geologist/satellite expert; the
latter an efficiency engineer. Both are a little out of
their expertise when it comes apparently to atmospheric
analysis.

Google also coughed up "Firmament and Chaos: A New
Perspective of the Solar System". It is a Velikovsky
lookalike, which makes it automatically suspect.

http://www.firmament-chaos.com/

Among other things, it mentions that the Moon was captured
11,640 years back, and that a close pass of the Moon over
the Earth overturned the lithosphere all around the Earth.
That a close pass would overturn the lithosphere on all
Earth land masses verges on the ridiculous, especially
since the force required would also do very interesting
things to the ocean, causing tsunamis and widespread
destruction in a very short time interval -- leaving
considerable fossil and geologic evidence.

The author is also very confused about lithospheric spin,
which doesn't exist anyway. The Moon would have to slam
into the Earth with a very heavy force in order to reverse
the spin -- presumably resulting in the death of most life
forms larger than a single cellular organism. This would
also leave its mark in the fossil record.


Have you even an honest swag of any idea as to the raw mass of those
Venusian clouds, and of their above thick layer of a moist haze, with
more than a little O2 existing above that.

The clouds are easily observed by orbiting spacecraft; the Wikipedia
entry is based on the data therefrom.



Considering that the Sun is estimated to be 25% He and 75% hydrogen,
H2 wouldn't be that hard to detect with a spectrograph.

then working our way towards the
0.5% O2 before trying to survive at 0.226% and 99.774% H2.

Fancy a light, mate? *kaBOOM*

OOPS! silly me, whereas I'd thought you folks knew a little something
about the regular laws of physics. Sorry, my fault for thinking you
folks had all of half a butt-cheek brain to work with. You'll need
better than a 5% worth of O2 before there's any *kaBOOM* with H2,
meaning that 99% H2 is every bit as safe as water, except without all
the mass.

I'll admit I know little of explosive mixtures. However,
you are assuming the two gasses in some mixture, and in
any system of planetary size, the two gasses are intimately
mixed, and under the right conditions they will burn.

Closest thing on Earth is marsh gas -- methane -- which under
certain conditions might burn in the swamp.



S8 wasn't mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. I'm not even sure what it is.

As for CO2, our "wussy physiology" deals with CO2 by expelling it.
Not much else it can do with it.

Once again, sorry for my thinking that you Old Testament thumping
folks knew at least a wee bit of the very basics.

Closest thing Google can find is an Audi model. Adding "chemistry"
resulted in a ribosome, which does not appear all that relevant to
what is generally inorganic chemistry. It also suggests an S8 point
group.



Does anyone have the *money* to boost hundreds of metric tonnes to VL2?

Perhaps China or India, with Russia coming in next to last. We can't
even get ourselves onto our moon, or for that matter the moon's L1
seems rather insurmountable, so that puts the USofA entirely out of
the picture of anything related to Venus or even VL2.

Each VL2 POOF (Bigelow Aerospace / Nautilus) isn't representing all
that many tonnes. 5 such POOFs as configured into a tight comumity
might amount to as little as 125 tonnes (fully outfitted and stocked
with all the basic sorts of necessary supplies).
-
Brad Guth


So OK then. Contract with the X-prize committee and design a POOF and a
spacecraft to propel it. A few people will pay for that sort of thing.
$100M per trip, even.

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #889123:
std::vector... v; for(int i = 0; i v.size(); i++) v.erase(v.begin() + i);

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.physics, Phineas T Puddleduck

wrote
on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:50:24 +0100
:
In article . com,
wrote:

Most of Venus is hydrogen, and there's likely way more than a spare
100 teratonnes worth of easily accessible h2o within them thar acidic
clouds. Sorry, as you obviously have to know basic physics and even
more basic math for appreciating that one.


You get funnier with each post.


I'd certainly like to know how one hides teratonnes of
hydrogen gas on a planet easily observable by Earthside
spectroscopes. There are admittedly some issues regarding
proper observation of hydrogen in planets (the Sun, after
all, blocks out a good chunk of its hydrogen spectrum,
leading to many Frauenhofer lines), but one might see then
shifted as the planet approaches or gets away from us at
an approximate velocity of 5 km/s.

And of course spacecraft can lance the planet with
atmospheric probes.

No, I have faith in the Wikipedia percentages, although
peer-reviewed literature would be better.

As for "basic physics"...I'm not sure what Brad thinks
that is. I know some chemistry and can probably work out
orbital approximations on computer, in a pinch.

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In sci.physics,

wrote
on 13 Apr 2007 18:46:06 -0700
.com:
On Apr 13, 5:04 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
See any H2 up there? I don't. Lots of CO2 and nitrogen, but
no hydrogen. A trace of water vapor, but that's about it.

Do you also lie to yourself whenever you drop a fresh load into your
pants?

Most of Venus is hydrogen, and there's likely way more than a spare
100 teratonnes worth of easily accessible h2o within them thar acidic
clouds. Sorry, as you obviously have to know basic physics and even
more basic math for appreciating that one.

Ah, of course. And the reason we haven't detected this hydrogen
earthside is ...?

The Venusians are masking their spectroscopic signatures.


I suppose next you're going to claim not knowing of John Ackerman or
of FW Taylor.

The former appears to be a geologist/satellite expert; the
latter an efficiency engineer. Both are a little out of
their expertise when it comes apparently to atmospheric
analysis.

Google also coughed up "Firmament and Chaos: A New
Perspective of the Solar System". It is a Velikovsky
lookalike, which makes it automatically suspect.

http://www.firmament-chaos.com/

Among other things, it mentions that the Moon was captured
11,640 years back, and that a close pass of the Moon over
the Earth overturned the lithosphere all around the Earth.
That a close pass would overturn the lithosphere on all
Earth land masses verges on the ridiculous, especially
since the force required would also do very interesting
things to the ocean, causing tsunamis and widespread
destruction in a very short time interval -- leaving
considerable fossil and geologic evidence.

The author is also very confused about lithospheric spin,
which doesn't exist anyway. The Moon would have to slam
into the Earth with a very heavy force in order to reverse
the spin -- presumably resulting in the death of most life
forms larger than a single cellular organism. This would
also leave its mark in the fossil record.

Capture of the Moon is a standard Guth delusion, this is probably where
he latched onto is.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

Instead of playing silly word games and of your having to continually
exclude evidence, how about instead, why don't you just answer my
questions.

Such as, how many terratonnes of acidic clouds and somewhat less
acidic haze does that toasty planet of Venus offer?

As I'd often asked before, as from others such as yourself, to merely
account for the 40 km to 100 km atmospheric realm that's obviously
chuck full of something other than mostly CO2.
-
Brad Guth

On Apr 13, 7:57 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics,

wrote
Most of Venus is hydrogen, and there's likely way more than a spare
100 teratonnes worth of easily accessible h2o within them thar acidic
clouds. Sorry, as you obviously have to know basic physics and even
more basic math for appreciating that one.

Ah, of course. And the reason we haven't detected this hydrogen
earthside is ...?

Perhaps too much S8, or perhaps there's too much of science that's
suggesting Venus simply isn't nearly as old as Earth. (that alone is
more than worth WWIII in the Old Testament mindset)
-
Brad Guth