Venus is not too hot to touch with the Ovglove

BradGuth wrote:
On May 29, 6:47 am, BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2,Venusis still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venusis not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planetVenuswins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:



As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where's all the love and affection on behalf of Venus? (the next best
other planet to Earth)

It's as though our toasty and somewhat newish planetology of Venus is
taboo/nondisclosure rated, almost as much so as our moon.

Where's all of the supposed expertise and otherwise wizards of space
and planetary science?

Why all the topic/author banishment?

Life is most-often weird enough.

"ah" wrote in message
...
BradGuth wrote:
On May 29, 6:47 am, BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2,Venusis still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venusis not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planetVenuswins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
Brad Guth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:



As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your
disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime
acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5%
gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop,
goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image
site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as
opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick
with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the
total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a
whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we
don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated
page

ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...s/venus_thumbn
ails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of
'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle
1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where's all the love and affection on behalf of Venus? (the next best
other planet to Earth)

It's as though our toasty and somewhat newish planetology of Venus is
taboo/nondisclosure rated, almost as much so as our moon.

Where's all of the supposed expertise and otherwise wizards of space
and planetary science?

Why all the topic/author banishment?

Life is most-often weird enough.

We know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMEGN2bdVJk

HJ

On Jun 29, 3:44 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 29, 6:47 am, BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2,Venusis still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venusis not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planetVenuswins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
BradGuth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:

As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where's all the love and affection on behalf of Venus? (the next best
other planet to Earth)

It's as though our toasty and somewhat newish planetology of Venus is
taboo/nondisclosure rated, almost as much so as our moon.

Where's all of the supposed expertise and otherwise wizards of space
and planetary science?

Why all the topic/author banishment?

Life is most-often weird enough.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree that "Life is most-often weird enough", so why not ET life
that's just smart enough in order to deal with the active and mostly
geothermal driven toasty environment of Venus?

The somewhat newish planetology of the Venus surface environment isn't
outside of existing technology to deal with, and especially of those
already smart enough for interplanetary travels.
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 29, 5:22 pm, "John \"C\"" wrote:

We know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMEGN2bdVJk

HJ

Apparently you silly folks do not know enough.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:44 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 29, 6:47 am, BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2,Venusis still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venusis not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planetVenuswins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
BradGuth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:

As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where's all the love and affection on behalf of Venus? (the next best
other planet to Earth)

It's as though our toasty and somewhat newish planetology of Venus is
taboo/nondisclosure rated, almost as much so as our moon.

Where's all of the supposed expertise and otherwise wizards of space
and planetary science?

Why all the topic/author banishment?

Life is most-often weird enough.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree that "Life is most-often weird enough", so why not ET life
that's just smart enough in order to deal with the active and mostly
geothermal driven toasty environment of Venus?

The somewhat newish planetology of the Venus surface environment isn't
outside of existing technology to deal with, and especially of those
already smart enough for interplanetary travels.

Simple explanation: we don't know 99 44/100ths of what lives below the
waves of our own planet.

Seems such a waste of time to venture on what may have existed some handful
of millennia ago on an inner planet that will be consumed before Earf.

On Jun 30, 12:07 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 29, 3:44 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On May 29, 6:47 am, BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2,Venusis still not the least bit too hot to touch
with the Ovglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venusis not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planetVenuswins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
BradGuth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:

As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made by Ovglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where's all the love and affection on behalf of Venus? (the next best
other planet to Earth)

It's as though our toasty and somewhat newish planetology of Venus is
taboo/nondisclosure rated, almost as much so as our moon.

Where's all of the supposed expertise and otherwise wizards of space
and planetary science?

Why all the topic/author banishment?

Life is most-often weird enough.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree that "Life is most-often weird enough", so why not ET life
that's just smart enough in order to deal with the active and mostly
geothermal driven toasty environment of Venus?

The somewhat newish planetology of the Venus surface environment isn't
outside of existing technology to deal with, and especially of those
already smart enough for interplanetary travels.

Simple explanation: we don't know 99 44/100ths of what lives below the
waves of our own planet.

Seems such a waste of time to venture on what may have existed some handful
of millennia ago on an inner planet that will be consumed before Earf.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What's to waste?

It's there, it's extremely nearby, it has unlimited raw elements and
locally renewable energy to spare, other ETs or perhaps Venusian
locals have been doing there thing.

Doing Venus isn't one percent of doing Mars, much less of planets or
of their moon that are each considerably further away.

I agree that Earth should come first, with secondly relocating of our
moon to Earth's L1 being our global warming priority No.1. Perhaps
thirdly we should establish POOF City at VL2, and go on from there.
-
Brad Guth

I somewhat agree with the likes of Christine(CRxx), that we're but a
single specimen among millions of other interesting specks of complex
life, many of which having survived millions if not a good billion
years longer than us, as far better at their survival and even better
at having retained nifty physical attributes than us humans, but
there's also new stuff of DNA arriving all the time, and thusfar we
haven't nailed down a clue as to connecting our frail DNA dots to
those early robust proto-humanity dots of DNA that supposedly had to
have included those somewhat nifty and robust survival attributes,
especially if we'd emerged as though our DNA only having originated
upon this 98.5% fluid planet of such an extremely salty, wet and/or at
times mostly frozen surface because at the time it didn't have its
moon or even the full benefit of our sun that apparently was not quite
up to snuff.

It's as though our complex yet extremely frail DNA arrived out of
nowhere. Either that or perhaps some nifty creation or at least
intelligent design effort having kicked into high gear, in order to
terraform this planet.

Perhaps the other intelligent life that's existing/coexisting on Venus
managed in the same way, except without their having any of that pesky
surface ice or salty oceans to deal with. Instead, only global
cooling is the ongoing threat to Venus.

In our case, we've clearly lost some of the absolute best DNA code
around, and any trace of such is simply nowhere in sight. Meaning
that either we didn't originate here, or that most other complex life
(much of which surviving where we humans simply can not) got imported
into our terrestrial zoo. Either way it represents that other complex
and most likely intelligent other life has existed off-world.

The anti-ET or naysayism of this Zion Usenet swarm mindset is simply
proof positive that I'm right more often than not, which explains why
all of their ongoing taboo/nondisclosure about our salty old moon and
that of a newish Venus that offers clear indications of intelligent
other life.
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 1, 6:45 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 30, 5:29 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 30, 3:08 am, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 7:44 pm, ah wrote:
Double-A wrote:
On May 29, 5:37 pm, ah wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
At losing 20.5 w/m2, Venus is still not the least bit too hot to touch
with theOvglove, much less of any problem for a composite rigid
airship.

Comparing Earth/Venus is not even a fair game, as to any half smart ET
village idiot, the planet Venus wins every time.

Too bad that Cambridge and the like are too mainstream snookered and
otherwise dumbfounded past the point of no return, as to know about
such things.

Too bad that ADOBE PhotoShop or the likes of digital photographic
enlargement alternatives that are even better, is still so taboo/
nondisclosure rated.

Too bad them pesky laws of physics and of whatever's the best
available science can't function off-world. I obviously didn't know
that such regular laws of physics and of whatever science were so
unusually terrestrial limited.
-
BradGuth
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell

On Apr 4, 5:07 pm, wrote:
As long as you don't run yourself out of ice cold beer and pizza, I
don't see all that much of a problem.

As long as you've got way more spare/renewable energy at your disposal
than you could possibly know what to do with, and having that nifty
thermal suit made byOvglove, where's the big-ass insurmountable
problem with taking that hot-foot of a toasty stroll onVenus?

CO2--CO/O2 is not hardly a technical problem, hasn't been for a good
decade or more.

Pure H2O as easily extracted from those somewhat cool nighttime acidic
clouds (above the S8 layer) is simply another mission positive win-
win.

The 65 kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as working along with the 90.5% gravity
is offering a couple of other nifty factors that'll work rather well
for your composite rigid airship (just like on behalf of those
Venusian composite rigid airships).

If you're any damn good at PhotoShop, goto:http://guthvenus.tripod.com/http://g...om/gv-town.htm
or best you start with your very own look-see at the following
official image site:http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif

The 36 look per pixel of that GIF image format starts getting
interesting at being 3X resampled, and then giving it all the best
PhotoShop or whatever else you can muster, although the original GIF
1:1 image was actually good enough for my PhotoShop configured brain
to deductively interpret upon what's most likely artificial as opposed
to what's perfectly natural. 36 looks per pixel is offering a lot of
truthworthy image data to start with, so it's a good one to stick with
rather than dealing with their individual 75 meter/pixel versions as
having combined but four looks per pixel.

Don't try to process the entire image unless you've got one heck of a
nifty PC or MAC. Try clipping out only the small portion of the total
image that's roughly a third up from the bottom and just to the right
of center, as we're talking about utilizing less than 10% or perhaps
even as little as 5% of that primary GIF image, and to process upon
just that much shouldn't traumatise your memory or performance PC or
MAC.

I'll review each of your results, that by rights should become a whole
lot better than mine. Obviously anyone can over/under force those
PhotoShop refinements, well past the point of no return, so don't do
that. My extremely old version of PhotoShop can't accomplish much
better than 8X resampling without losing ground, and besides, we don't
actually require much better than 6X for most others to see most
clearly what I'd interpreted from the original 1:1 format.

Thanks once again to 'tomcat' for also having posted this updated page
ofVenusimages.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/th...humbnails.html

It's image No.17 from the top left being the one that so happens to
include the robust, sizable and somewhat complex community of 'GUTHVenus'.
"Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles,Venusfrom Magellan Cycle 1"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.htm...
-BradGuth

Quiet, ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

Quiet ko0k.

You are an AA sock, AICMF$!

Who you calling sock, sock?

You, you . . . you sock!

Sock it to me!

You just don't appreciate the gravity of the situation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps gravity within certain mindsets doesn't really exist,
therefore the "gravity of the situation" doesn't exist.
-
Brad Guth

Seems a tadbit odd there's so little honest Usenet motivation on
behalf of Venus, as though Venus is supposedly too hot to touch with
that Ovglove, when in fact it isn't nearly half as hot as a
terrestrial craft doing Mach 5 (1700 m/s).

Even that old SR-71 Blackbird at the subfreezing and humanly lethal
altitude of 85,000', making mach 3.2 creates an outter skin of 1200
degrees F, thus geting itself much hotter than Venus.

So, where's the big insurmountable deal about the geothermally active
environment of Venus being a whole lot less hot than what we otherwise
deal with and obviously survive on a regular terrestrial basis all the
time?
-
Brad Guth



On Jul 1, 7:51 am, BradGuth wrote:
I somewhat agree with the likes of Christine(CRxx), that we're but a
single specimen among millions of other interesting specks of complex
life, many of which having survived millions if not a good billion
years longer than us, as far better at their survival and even better
at having retained nifty physical attributes than us humans, but
there's also new stuff of DNA arriving all the time, and thusfar we
haven't nailed down a clue as to connecting our frail DNA dots to
those early robust proto-humanity dots of DNA that supposedly had to
have included those somewhat nifty and robust survival attributes,
especially if we'd emerged as though our DNA only having originated
upon this 98.5% fluid planet of such an extremely salty, wet and/or at
times mostly frozen surface because at the time it didn't have its
moon or even the full benefit of our sun that apparently was not quite
up to snuff.

It's as though our complex yet extremely frail DNA arrived out of
nowhere. Either that or perhaps some nifty creation or at least
intelligent design effort having kicked into high gear, in order to
terraform this planet.

Perhaps the other intelligent life that's existing/coexisting on Venus
managed in the same way, except without their having any of that pesky
surface ice or salty oceans to deal with. Instead, only global
cooling is the ongoing threat to Venus.

In our case, we've clearly lost some of the absolute best DNA code
around, and any trace of such is simply nowhere in sight. Meaning
that either we didn't originate here, or that most other complex life
(much of which surviving where we humans simply can not) got imported
into our terrestrial zoo. Either way it represents that other complex
and most likely intelligent other life has existed off-world.

The anti-ET or naysayism of this Zion Usenet swarm mindset is simply
proof positive that I'm right more often than not, which explains why
all of their ongoing taboo/nondisclosure about our salty old moon and
that of a newish Venus that offers clear indications of intelligent
other life.
-
Brad Guth

BradGuth wrote:

Seems a tadbit odd there's so little honest Usenet motivation
on behalf of Venus, as though Venus is supposedly too hot to
touch with that Ovglove, when in fact it isn't nearly half as
hot as a terrestrial craft doing Mach 5 (1700 m/s).

Even that old SR-71 Blackbird at the subfreezing and humanly
lethal altitude of 85,000', making mach 3.2 creates an outter
skin of 1200 degrees F, thus geting itself much hotter than
Venus.

So, where's the big insurmountable deal about the geothermally
active environment of Venus being a whole lot less hot than
what we otherwise deal with and obviously survive on a regular
terrestrial basis all the time?

That was extra stupid, Crazy Brad. You obviously don't
understand that temperature and heat are not the same thing.