Terraforming Venus is a bad idea, though not impossible

"Offshore CEO" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 20:56:59 -0800, Ron Webb wrote:

Lots of problems left, including the 117 day long "days". There are books on
this subject, but I can't find a referance at the moment.

This is probably the biggest problem. AFAIK we do not have plant or
animal life that can live with days that long, and the human psyche
is not up to it, either.

I am still of the opinion that the most livable places in the solar
system are those where the length of a day is at most 50 hours, any
more than that and life gets upset.

Building greenhouses on Mars or even asteroids is probably the easiest
way into space. Lots of sunlight, in intervals short enough. We know
how to build greenhouses and a cubic kilometer of ice and carbon should
be enough mass to compensate for a slightly unbalanced biosystem, for
a very long time...
Diatoms do not get upset about too long of day, and I do believe the
solar spectrum worth of 400~450 nm is getting sufficiently into and even
somewhat effectively through them relatively cool clouds of Venus.
Diatoms should very much like photons of 425 nm.

There's sufficient buoyancy as to sustain a Venus form of
advanced/mutated diatom as flying much like a micro rigid airship,
either by having a lighter gas (perhaps H2) interior or perhaps just a
sufficient amount of vacuum could make such a silica diatom quite
aeromatic, especially if there's sufficient winds aloft as to help
promote that flight of such micro silica airships.

Speaking of "Terraforming" the likes of Venus, of which I believe this
notion is way outside of even the most advance human capability, not to
mention the terawatts of resources. However, as per terraforming our
moon isn't such a bad nor insurmountable notion.

Terraforming the Moon; this notion is merely pulverising it with a few
tonnes worth of dry-ice(CO2) per year, plus a few other heavy elements
(radon if need be) that'll stick around long enough to create a usable
terminal velocity(Vt).

Once able to access the moon via conventional methods of reentry and
deployments, then we're into the hollow rilles and/or geode pockets for
a little personal protection from the lunar surface environment that'll
need some further work before it's breathable (if ever). At least
robotics well become affordably doable and thereby enabling the next
logical phase of helping to establish the LSE-CM/ISS lobby or base camp
abodes.

There's a couple of slight details that'll need your expertise, and if
you need some ideas and/or notions as to what those might represent,
just ask and you will receive.

Regards, Brad Guth / BBC h2g2 U206251
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm


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

Especially when Brad Guth doesn't know the difference between Venus and
Mars!

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:332247e0ba97ed37fc5980bfed1ddfe3.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Why terraform when it's more than good enough to go as is?

Venus has only been too hot for the likes of "Bad Astronomy" types, and
otherwise rubs our NASA the wrong way because, they're all clearly one
of them, meaning the truly bad guys, the MIB kind of cloak and dagger
MI6/NSA spooks and moles as the borg like Skull and Bones collective
without an actual soul nor so much as a stitch of remorse. They used to
burn us witches and our books at the stake, though prime-time media has
to somewhat frown on that level of action (similar to those having
exterminated Cathars or pushing nuns off a bridge doesn't exactly
promote good PR), so instead they topic/author stalk, bash and as much
as possible banish whatever rocks their good but seriously rotting ship
USS LOLLIPOP.

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

Venusian Composite Rigid Airship: so what's the big insurmountable
deal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:332247e0ba97ed37fc5980bfed1ddfe3.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:e6d6e212729221841d7fd4983aaf915a.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Sorry folks, it seems that we haven't quite walked on our extremely big
old and otherwise nearby moon that's so physically massive in ratio to
Earth, as well as being physically dark and nasty (hardly Apollo passive
guano island like and xenon lamp spectrum illuminated at that), but so
what's the difference if one more silly lie begets another and another?

Our moon may remain as somewhat DNA/RNA taboo, although Venus isn't and
VL2 is certainly doable as is. Venus shouldn't ever require any
teraforming, just damn good CO2--CO/O2 air conditioning and structual
composite insulation that's worth R-1024/m.

If not in person, I hope to hell we don't summarily screw up Venus via
robotics to the extent that we've accomplished so much dastardly
commercial forms of collateral damage by way of having pillaged, trashed
and the ongoing raping of mother Earth without so much as a speck of
remorse.

I obviously care most about Venus, as our moon seriously sucks, and
Venus is otherwise more than obviously where all the action is at,
especially since Pluto got the royal shaft, as seemingly Ceres is
getting a similar official NASA fid, and Mercury is simply too off-world
as well as past the point of return (similar to Mars).

At least VL2 is more than cool enough, as to being POOF/(space depot)
doable, and every 19 months it gets to within nearly 100 fold the
distance of our moon. Is that good news, or what.

While rather quickly roasting our weiners on Venus (a few seconds ott to
do the trick), how much energy do you folks suppose a good air
conditioning system as part of your CO2--CO/O2 process is going to
demand?

Remember, at that sort of environment pressure you'll not require more
than a 1% O2 factor, and the remainder should be of H2. Thus 99% H2 and
1% O2. Also remember that you'll be continually fighting off the lesser
gravity of 90.5%, and otherwise having all of that pesky 64+ kg/m3 of
buoyancy to fend off. Of course, if you only had half a village idiot
brain, as such you might as well utilize such factors as to your
benefit.

Say per 1000 m3/(interior 10 x 20 x 5 meter abode) if that Venusian
habitat volume were insulated at R-1024/m2; what's the thermal budget
of keeping your cache of beer and vodka icy cold?

That's roughly a surface/foundation area of 264 m2, a portion of what
should be roughly a 828 m2 exterior that's exposed to the hotter than
hell surface that's getting rid of 20 J/m2, and otherwise fending off
the somewhat toasty atmosphere. Therefore without question it's nearly
always hot outside and there's just the structual composite insulated
barrier of R-1024/m that's giving way to an inward flux of thermal
conduction that's worth having 0.00097656/m2 of that bone dry heat to
deal with, which seems by right rather managable, if not a touch
overkill.

Is there something otherwise specific that you'd like to review or
constructively contribute, such as on behalf of those nifty composite
rigid airships?

How about we review on behalf of defending yourself from those
exoskeletal Cathars that can't seem to take no for an answer?

Would you like to talk about the VL2 POOF platform/depot, or how about
laser interplanetary communications (much the same as NASA's deep space
network), except for making those less spendy local interplanetary
calls.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:332247e0ba97ed37fc5980bfed1ddfe3.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

And I see that we have the usual PC/MAC trashing game of Usenet spooks,
moles and wise old fart MIB wizards of deploying their
spermware/****ware, as obviously the norm of their mainstream status
quo. Therefore, we'll just have to keep updating and reposting until a
few of them NASA/Apollo rad-hard cows come home.

It's a little bit like The Wizard of Oz, sorry folks, whereas it seems
that we haven't quite gotten around to having walked on our extremely
big old and otherwise nearby moon that's so physically massive in ratio
to Earth, as well as being so physically dark and nasty (hardly Apollo
passive guano island like and xenon lamp spectrum illuminated at that),
but so what's the difference if one more silly lie begets another and
another?

Our moon may have to remain as a mostly robotic wonderland, as otherwise
merely a nasty realm of local and secondary/recoil energy that's
accessible via a safe looking glass from the moon's L1, whereas
otherwise it's somewhat physically DNA/RNA taboo. Although, Venus isn't
off limits unless you're a certified moron, and VL2 is certainly more
than space station doable as is. Venus shouldn't ever require any
terraforming on our behalf, just damn good CO2--CO/O2 air conditioning
and structural composite basalt as insulation that's worth R-1024/m.

If not in person, I hope to hell we don't summarily screw up Venus via
robotics to the extent that we've accomplished so much dastardly
commercial forms of collateral damage by way of having pillaged, trashed
and the ongoing energy raping of mother Earth without so much as a speck
of remorse.

I obviously care most about Venus, as our moon seriously sucks, whereas
the planet Venus is otherwise more than obviously where all the serious
action of other intelligent life is at, especially since Pluto got the
royal shaft, as seemingly Ceres is getting a similar official NASA fid,
and Mercury is simply too off-world as well as past the point of return
(similar to Mars).

At least VL2 is more than cool enough, as to being POOF/(space depot)
doable, and every 19 months it gets to within 100 fold the distance of
our moon. If that isn't the best ever Russian/POOF good news, or what,
then nothing is.

While rather quickly roasting our wieners on Venus (a few seconds ott to
do the trick), how much energy do you folks suppose a good air
conditioning system as part of your CO2--CO/O2 process is going to
demand?

Remember, at that sort of environment pressure you'll not require more
than a 1% O2 factor, and the remainder should be of H2. Thus having 99%
H2 and 1% O2 at 96 Bar is about all the atmospheric displacement of that
otherwise crystal clear and dry CO2 that's otherwise relatively harmless
that you'll ever need. Also remember that you'll be continually
fighting off the lesser gravity of 90.5%, and otherwise having all of
that pesky 64+ kg/m3 of buoyancy to fend off. Of course, if you only
had half a village idiot brain, as such you might as well utilize such
factors as to your benefit.

Say if this were an application per 1000 m3/(interior 10 x 20 x 5 meter
abode), and if that Venusian habitat volume were insulated at R-1024/m2;
what's the thermal energy budget of keeping your cache of beer and vodka
icy cold?

That's roughly a surface/foundation area of 264 m2, a portion of what
should be roughly a 828 m2 exterior that's in part exposed to the hotter
than hell surface that's getting rid of 20 J/m2, and otherwise fending
off the somewhat toasty atmosphere that's always cooler than the
geothermally forced surface. Therefore, without question it's nearly
always hot outside and there's just the structural composite basalt
insulated barrier of R-1024/m that's giving way to an inward flux of
thermal conduction that's worthy of having 0.00097656/m2 (0.0977% which
I believe is roughly less than 0.45 K/m2/hr) of that bone dry heat to
deal with, which seems by all manner of known physics as being rather
manageable, if not a touch overkill.

BTW; Venus has all the raw elements and the energy for locally
processing whatever into the required items of surviving Venus (except
for having enough ice cold beer and pizza). All that's required is the
small factor of applied intelligence or simply deductive common sense
should otherwise more than do the trick.

Is there something other that's specific about accomplishing Venus that
you'd like to review or constructively contribute, such as on behalf of
those nifty composite rigid airships?

How about we review on behalf of defending yourself from those
exoskeletal Cathars that can't seem to take no for an answer? (you're
not alone, you know)

Would you folks like to talk about the Russian VL2 POOF platform/depot,
or how about laser interplanetary communications (much the same as
NASA's deep space network), except for making those less spendy local
interplanetary calls that shouldn't take hardly any energy to accomplish
with a quantum binary packet mode of 425 nm FM/(+/-25 nm) photons doing
their extremely efficient thing.
-
Brad Guth


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

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:a3030e122a0c24f9a30e0339590371e7.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:e6d6e212729221841d7fd4983aaf915a.49644@mygate .mailgate.org

Sorry folks, it seems that we haven't quite walked on our extremely big
old and otherwise nearby moon that's so physically massive in ratio to
Earth, as well as being physically dark and nasty (hardly Apollo passive
guano island like and xenon lamp spectrum illuminated at that), but so
what's the difference if one more silly lie begets another and another?

-mucho snippage

So, nutbar, are we going to get an apology from you when the next lunar
visits send back pictures of the original moonwalk sites, with lander and
equipment still sitting where the astronauts left them?

"Robert Weldon" wrote in message
news:YOuth.793670$R63.679574@pd7urf1no...
So, nutbar, are we going to get an apology from you when the next lunar
visits send back pictures of the original moonwalk sites, with lander and
equipment still sitting where the astronauts left them?

No, because all *those* pictures will be fake as well.

Just build a sunshade at the Legrange point between Venus and the Sun
(Similar to the one that is going to have to be built to protect the
Earth).
If we could block most of the sunlight reaching Venus it is going to
cool down within a reasonable time.
We introduce some gentically manufactured lifeforms to convert the CO2
atmosphere into solid carbon and thus reduce the pressure of the
atmosphere.

It may take many years but we should be able to live on Venus
eventually.

As you all say, it might be easier to colonize the clouds first but
there are advantages of being on the surface.

"steve" wrote in message
oups.com

What kind of anti-physics and/or naysay fool are you trying to be?

Venus is NOT purely greenhouse hot, and that's as of old but replicated
science that obviously you and others of your kind have obviously
excluded. Why is that?

It may take many years but we should be able to live on Venus
eventually.
Not that a massive solar shade isn't technically doable. However, with
unlimited energy that's easily available while on the Venus deck, as of
more than a decade ago we could have been established on Venus, or at
the very least robotically on the deck and otherwise situated within our
cozy POOF space station depot at VL2, and all of that's w/o any stinking
solar shade that'll demand a good century and trillions upon trillions
of hard earned loot in order to deploy and sustain such in the first
place (seems a waste since the sun isn't hardly at fault to begin with).

Why are you and others of your kind into excluding the well known and
replicated science about Venus?

As you all say, it might be easier to colonize the clouds first but
there are advantages of being on the surface.
Whom is "you all"? (it's not me or of anyone that I know of)

A composite rigid airship of nearly any size is doable, whereas cruising
above them cool acidic clouds is technically in the cards, although
cruising best and a touch retrograde between 25 and 35 km off the
geothermally toasty deck seems a whole lot better notion. Landing the
composite rigid airship seems also perfectly within the realm of what
applied technology should manage without busting the bank or getting
yourself roasted or otherwise traumatised on the spot.

The consequences of having ignored Venus are more than off-world
consequential. Venus isn't all that insurmountable as we've been told,
whereas instead of purely local evolved life there's a strong
possibility of ETs having a full run of access. Of course, we could
have been a few of those ETs as of more than a decade ago if it weren't
for all that we'd been doing to ourselves.

Earth's environment actually has an external peak solar energy spectrum
of nearly 2100 J/m2 at 470 nm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:M...irradiance.jpg
This makes the same 470 nm peak spectrum arriving at those highly
reflective clouds of Venus worth 4000 J/m2, which is actually within a
good opacity range of what the cloudy Venusian atmospheric transmittance
has to offer, that has filtered and shifted the surface illumination by
roughly better than 50 nm towards the UV, thus differing from what our
terrestrial peak terrestrial illumination spectrum has to offer, which
is actually of good environmental news if you'd intended to establish a
healthy anti-greenhouse configured habitat on Venus for growing whatever
(most plants and a great deal of other life as we know it tends to favor
the violet/near-UV and UV/a spectrum).

PFS science as pertaining to what's penatrating through the Venusian
atmosphere and thereby offering a better understanding as to its
spectrum opacity is actually damn good science, better yet if only their
latest PFS instrument was being allowed to function on behalf of the
Venus Express mission, because that instrument alone would have
seriously nailed the thermal energy imbalance that's clearly running in
surplus of what's clearly derived from the ground up, whereas the PFS
resolution could have most reasonably mapped out those multiple hot
spots of active lava, mud flows and gas ventings.
http://www.dlr.de/os/forschung/proje...index/pfs.html

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm
"The increasingly orange color is due to rayleigh scattering by the
thick atmosphere, and possibly an additional unknown blue-absorbing gas
component. Brightness is normalized. The text color for these web pages
was chosen to approximate the Venera-11 sky color."

Other than the orchestrated exclusions of hard scientific evidence
that's replicated, such as having been pointed out by John Ackerman,
there's nothing the least bit unknown about a substantial layer of S8
reacting/filtering and otherwise what via rayleigh scattering of solar
energy exactly as it should be doing, nor is it unknown as to that of
any number of geothermally forced elements that by rights should coexist
within that mostly CO2 atmosphere of such a newish planetology phase of
including such multiple gas components. Enlarge and take notice as to
how 37.7 km and 48.6 km are offering less than half the solar IR
spectrum getting through them thick clouds, and yet while on the deck
there's lots of spare IR and off-scale FIR to behold. Gee whiz, it's as
though the planet itself is physically/geothermally hot, as derived from
the inside out, none the less.

I and others will gladly say this again; Venus is no GREENHOUSE driven
planet by way of any known science that includes the regular laws of
physics and of planetology that's simply newish compared to that of
Earth, and otherwise via the replicated science of others that more than
proves the environment has been getting contributed to and unavoidably
roasted from the inside out, along with whatever solar influx that's
simply getting a free ride and thereby adding insult to that otherwise
geothermally traumatised environment.

The notion that "the planet Venus was born out of Jupiter" isn't of what
I'd agree to, whereas I'm more leaning towards the Sirius Oort cloud as
being a more likely realm of natural evolution of where the planet Venus
as having sufficient iron mass, and quite possibly the likes of our
originally icy and salty moon may have been derived from that sort of
complex interstellar exchange if not simply forced out of our own Oort
cloud. Seems the sheer mass of Jupiter and of it's thick atmosphere
would have represented a one-way ticket of whatever touches that
physical realm is pretty much a goner in much the same as anything
trying to get past our sun by way of using the solar atmosphere isn't
likely to survive that encounter unless we're talking of sufficient
velocity and perhaps mostly titanium and ceramic composites. And, thus
far there's no sign of any past Martian life to behold as having been
theorized as having migrated to Earth as interpreted by John Ackerman
(the Bible's mention of the Elohim simply isn't an old enough record for
having supported that degree of analogy), which doesn't in any way
disqualify his ongoing honest interpretations of the best available
science that's pertaining to Venus.

However, there's no question as to the mainstream skewed via Old
Testament intentions and of their subsequent faith based motivations of
their modern science along with all of their hocus-pocus conditional
laws of physics as having been focused upon delivering their scientific
ruse/sting, of having thus far hyped and perpetrated their infomercial
spewed notions as to the greenhouse extent that's supposedly in charge
of their thermally balanced version of Venus. Of course, much the same
could be said about our unusually taboo/nondisclosure rated moon. So,
why all the original and ongoing lies?
-
Brad Guth


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