Can we subjectively discuss the planet Venus?

Keeping this topic within the laws of physics and best available science, can we remote interpret and eventually exploit the extremely nearby planet Venus?


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Allowed, as long as we stay on topic. If we go into speculation I will be very quick to cut this short.

And they wonder why its a very little used group. Pah.
Brian

--
From the Bed of Brian Gaff.
The email is valid as
Blind user.
"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...
Keeping this topic within the laws of physics and best available science,
can we remote interpret and eventually exploit the extremely nearby planet
Venus?


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Allowed, as long as we stay on topic. If we go into speculation I will be
very quick to cut this short.

On 7/16/2013 9:32 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
And they wonder why its a very little used group. Pah.
Brian


Brad Guth wrote:
Keeping this topic within the laws of physics and best available science,
can we remote interpret and eventually exploit the extremely nearby planet
Venus?

Moderator Writes:
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Allowed, as long as we stay on topic. If we go into speculation I will be
very quick to cut this short.

In the spirit of the above three item's I'll contribute something.

I don't think Venus will likely be a target of "exploitation" anytime
soon. However I think it presents an excellent target for "exploration".

I am personally a big fan of the Nautilus-X concept:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X

Assuming someday we could figure out an adequate propulsion system for
this spacecraft, a likely "second" exploratory target (after CIS-Lunar
ops) would be Venus.

Getting to Venus and back takes a lot less time (given the likely
propulsion technology that will be available in the next 10-20 yrs) than
getting to Mars and back. In fact NASA had a serious proposal on the
table to take the spare Apollo hardware left over after Apollo 17 to
execute a Venus fly-by mission lasting approximately 1 year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby See Note 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA_tdIKu-HQ

But opted for Skylab instead. The point of pointing this out is to show
that Venus WAS an option using 50 year old tech, so it should be
reasonable to assume it is well within our technological grasp today.

A Nautilus-X type vehicle would provide for the possibility of an
extended orbital stay over Venus to conduct extensive observations and
surveys of the planet's atmosphere and surface using unmanned probes.

Such a mission would provide experience and lessons in interplanetary
manned exploration with a reusable interplanetary exploratory vehicle.
Also a mission to Venus, even if surface exploration is ruled out, can
still be done in a shorter time frame, requiring fewer resources than a
equivalent mission to Mars.

I'm not ruling Mars out, I'm just saying it would be easier to start
working the kinks out with shorter visits to Venus first.

Dave

Note 1: Many of the NTRS papers referenced by the Wikipedia article are
still missing thanks to the ITAR fiasco that befell NASA earlier this
year. We can only hope this situation gets resolved soon.

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 11:27:22 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
Keeping this topic within the laws of physics and best available science,
can we remote interpret and eventually exploit the extremely nearby planet
Venus?





====================================== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:

Allowed, as long as we stay on topic. If we go into speculation I will
be very quick to cut this short.

Since most everything about the planet Venus is speculation, as based on in
direct or remote science that has to be interpreted (almost as bad off as o
ur having to speculate about our moon), it'll be really hard to accomplish
much of anything on-topic outside of speculation.

For example, I'll speculate that atmospheric pressure alone is not a suffic
ient deterrent as to exploiting Venus. This is actually based upon deducti
ve reasoning that's fully verified by physics and objective terrestrial sci
ence.

Does the moderator(s) of this mostly inactive Usenet/newsgroup not wish to
accept that complex life as existing in deep ocean environments where the s
urrounding pressure is actually much greater than Venus has to offer?

Technology assisted human life could be viable for Venus, just like methods
used for accommodating humans in extreme environments right here on Earth.
Deep oceans demand the capability to operate within extreme hyperbolic ce
lls for human work habitats, as necessary for human physiology to acclimate
for operating extended periods under extreme pressure (simulated diving en
vironments exceeding 1500 psi).

http://www.swri.org/3pubs/brochure/d...uc/msadd4b.htm

None of this is actually hyperbolic acclimation speculation, because it ha
s been done for decades, proving how life even as we know it can manage to
survive extreme pressures.

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 11:27:22 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
Keeping this topic within the laws of physics and best available science,
can we remote interpret and eventually exploit the extremely nearby planet
Venus?





========
===== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:

Allowed, as long as we stay on topic. If we go into speculation I will
be very quick to cut this short.

Since most everything about the planet Venus is speculation, as based on in
direct or remote science that has to be interpreted (almost as bad off as o
ur having to speculate about our moon), it'll be really hard to accomplish
much of anything on-topic outside of speculation.


Hardly. We know enough about Venus to make certain determinations.

For example, I'll speculate that atmospheric pressure alone is not a suffic
ient deterrent as to exploiting Venus. This is actually based upon deducti
ve reasoning that's fully verified by physics and objective terrestrial sci
ence.


I don't think anyone is claiming atmospheric pressure by itself is an issue.
But combine it with the temperature and chemical content and you have major
issues.

Does the moderator(s) of this mostly inactive Usenet/newsgroup not wish to
accept that complex life as existing in deep ocean environments where the s
urrounding pressure is actually much greater than Venus has to offer?


Don't put words in my mouth please.


Technology assisted human life could be viable for Venus, just like methods
used for accommodating humans in extreme environments right here on Earth.
Deep oceans demand the capability to operate within extreme hyperbolic ce
lls for human work habitats, as necessary for human physiology to acclimate
for operating extended periods under extreme pressure (simulated diving en
vironments exceeding 1500 psi).


I have no idea what you mean by hyperbolic cells. Reference please.


http://www.swri.org/3pubs/brochure/d...uc/msadd4b.htm

None of this is actually hyperbolic acclimation speculation, because it ha
s been done for decades, proving how life even as we know it can manage to
survive extreme pressures.

But again, pressure isn't the real issue.





--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 3:36:19 PM UTC-7, David Spain wrote:
On 7/16/2013 9:32 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:

And they wonder why its a very little used group. Pah.

Brian





Brad Guth wrote:

Keeping this topic within the laws of physics and best available science,

can we remote interpret and eventually exploit the extremely nearby planet

Venus?



Moderator Writes:

======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:

Allowed, as long as we stay on topic. If we go into speculation I will be

very quick to cut this short.



In the spirit of the above three item's I'll contribute something.



I don't think Venus will likely be a target of "exploitation" anytime

soon. However I think it presents an excellent target for "exploration".



I am personally a big fan of the Nautilus-X concept:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X



Assuming someday we could figure out an adequate propulsion system for

this spacecraft, a likely "second" exploratory target (after CIS-Lunar

ops) would be Venus.



Getting to Venus and back takes a lot less time (given the likely

propulsion technology that will be available in the next 10-20 yrs) than

getting to Mars and back. In fact NASA had a serious proposal on the

table to take the spare Apollo hardware left over after Apollo 17 to

execute a Venus fly-by mission lasting approximately 1 year.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned_Venus_Flyby See Note 1



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA_tdIKu-HQ



But opted for Skylab instead. The point of pointing this out is to show

that Venus WAS an option using 50 year old tech, so it should be

reasonable to assume it is well within our technological grasp today.



A Nautilus-X type vehicle would provide for the possibility of an

extended orbital stay over Venus to conduct extensive observations and

surveys of the planet's atmosphere and surface using unmanned probes.



Such a mission would provide experience and lessons in interplanetary

manned exploration with a reusable interplanetary exploratory vehicle.

Also a mission to Venus, even if surface exploration is ruled out, can

still be done in a shorter time frame, requiring fewer resources than a

equivalent mission to Mars.



I'm not ruling Mars out, I'm just saying it would be easier to start

working the kinks out with shorter visits to Venus first.



Dave



Note 1: Many of the NTRS papers referenced by the Wikipedia article are

still missing thanks to the ITAR fiasco that befell NASA earlier this

year. We can only hope this situation gets resolved soon.

Indeed, Venus gets extremely nearby (under 110 LD) every 19 month cycle, and the technology does exist for exploiting it, at least robotically at first.

I believe ITAR is just another excuse for those in charge doing as little as possible about exploiting our moon or Venus.

How much incentive (aka job security and benefits) do they need?


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Let's keep it to science. Policy is over there-

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 6:53:19 PM UTC-7, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
On Saturday, July 13, 2013 11:27:22 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

Keeping this topic within the laws of physics and best available science,

can we remote interpret and eventually exploit the extremely nearby planet

Venus?











========

===== MODERATOR'S COMMENT:



Allowed, as long as we stay on topic. If we go into speculation I will

be very quick to cut this short.



Since most everything about the planet Venus is speculation, as based on in

direct or remote science that has to be interpreted (almost as bad off as o

ur having to speculate about our moon), it'll be really hard to accomplish

much of anything on-topic outside of speculation.





Hardly. We know enough about Venus to make certain determinations.



For example, I'll speculate that atmospheric pressure alone is not a suffic

ient deterrent as to exploiting Venus. This is actually based upon deducti

ve reasoning that's fully verified by physics and objective terrestrial sci

ence.





I don't think anyone is claiming atmospheric pressure by itself is an issue.

But combine it with the temperature and chemical content and you have major

issues.



Does the moderator(s) of this mostly inactive Usenet/newsgroup not wish to

accept that complex life as existing in deep ocean environments where the s

urrounding pressure is actually much greater than Venus has to offer?




Don't put words in my mouth please.

Then don't exclude whatever applied physics, good science and modern technology can already deal with.





Technology assisted human life could be viable for Venus, just like methods

used for accommodating humans in extreme environments right here on Earth.

Deep oceans demand the capability to operate within extreme hyperbolic ce

lls for human work habitats, as necessary for human physiology to acclimate

for operating extended periods under extreme pressure (simulated diving en

vironments exceeding 1500 psi).




I have no idea what you mean by hyperbolic cells. Reference please.


A hyperbaric habitat cell is simply an artificially pressurized environment.




http://www.swri.org/3pubs/brochure/d...uc/msadd4b.htm



None of this is actually hyperbolic acclimation speculation, because it ha

s been done for decades, proving how life even as we know it can manage to

survive extreme pressures.



But again, pressure isn't the real issue.


--

Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/

CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

Not only is pressure a non issue, but also most of the raw elements can be for the most part safely ignored, because our technology can safely and effectively deal with most of them.

Crystal dry chemicals are not problematic, mostly because they are inert, just like hot and dry CO2 is mostly if not entirely inert, as well as easily excluded from being any part of the atmosphere inside the protective suit or whatever Venusian habitats.

A simple face mask and the OveGlove jumpsuit should be a perfectly good design start.

A supply of 99% H2 and 1% O2 takes care of breathing, but then robotics really don't seem to care about breathing.

Are you suggesting that we right off the bat send only our naked Goldilocks to Venus? (because that's not going to work any better than sending our naked Goldilocks to our moon or Mars)

Why not consider what the laws of physics, best available science and modern technology can accomplish when combined in a positive/constructive way?

After all, this topic isn't about why we can't accomplish exploiting Venus.


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
We're quickly running off the rails here. I may soon close this thread. You continue to ignore certain facts about the surface of Venus that make your suggestions nonsensical and nonstarters.

"David Spain" wrote ...
Brad Guth wrote:
Keeping this topic within the laws of physics and best available science,
can we remote interpret and eventually exploit the extremely nearby
planet
Venus?

I don't think Venus will likely be a target of "exploitation" anytime
soon. However I think it presents an excellent target for "exploration".

With current technology? The short answer is no colony. Look at the
surface temperature and pressu The combination of ninety three
atmospheres and 463 Centigrade is not survivable. Humans can live under
slightly elevated pressure, but about 10 atmospheres is the safe limit for
SCUBA or underwater habitats. Submersibles have gone much deeper
underwater, but they all maintain 1 atmosphere inside the human-occupied
portion. Even if you land a massive pressure vessel there to start a
colony, how do you keep it cool? The temperature gradient between 463 C
outside and 25 C inside requires an immense amount of refrigeration, and
that in turn calls for an enormous power plant just to run the refrigerator.
(There are also little details like not having any suitable airlock seals
that are stable at 463 C.) The extra mass for the life support system will
be enormous, and that more than compensates for the convenient location.

Also, current space suits cannot survive Venus surface conditions, but can
survive, say, Moon or Mars surface conditions. It's easier to build a
colony when you can work outside...


--
All my best,

- Ward.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day,
the plain folks of the land, will at last reach their heart's desire and the
White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic
moron." H. L. Mencken, 26 July, 1920

On Thursday, July 18, 2013 6:37:13 PM UTC-7, Ward B. wrote:
"David Spain" wrote ...

Brad Guth wrote:

Keeping this topic within the laws of physics and best available science,

can we remote interpret and eventually exploit the extremely nearby

planet

Venus?



I don't think Venus will likely be a target of "exploitation" anytime

soon. However I think it presents an excellent target for "exploration".



With current technology? The short answer is no colony. Look at the

surface temperature and pressu The combination of ninety three

atmospheres and 463 Centigrade is not survivable. Humans can live under

slightly elevated pressure, but about 10 atmospheres is the safe limit for

SCUBA or underwater habitats. Submersibles have gone much deeper

underwater, but they all maintain 1 atmosphere inside the human-occupied

portion. Even if you land a massive pressure vessel there to start a

colony, how do you keep it cool? The temperature gradient between 463 C

outside and 25 C inside requires an immense amount of refrigeration, and

that in turn calls for an enormous power plant just to run the refrigerator.

(There are also little details like not having any suitable airlock seals

that are stable at 463 C.) The extra mass for the life support system will

be enormous, and that more than compensates for the convenient location.



Also, current space suits cannot survive Venus surface conditions, but can

survive, say, Moon or Mars surface conditions. It's easier to build a

colony when you can work outside...


--

All my best,



- Ward.

With that mostly naysay attitude, perhaps we should never have bothered with submarines, going to/from our moon, much less considering Mars.

Are you suggesting our best technology and wizards of DARPA, NASA and JPL are no better off and no smarter than North Koreans, and Russians are smarter than everyone else combined?

Are you suggesting that no further technology advancements are possible or even worth achieving?

Have you never thought of developing and using a composite rigid airship?

How about the use of robotics on Venus? (nothing supplied by Walmart)

On Saturday, July 13, 2013 11:27:22 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
Keeping this topic within the laws of physics and best available science,
can we remote interpret and eventually exploit the extremely nearby planet
Venus?


Venus isn't going to be an easy nut to crack, but it'll be next to impossib
le when the only topic contributions are purely focused upon the negatives
and not upon the positive/constructive opportunities that such an extremely
nearby planet should have to offer.

Obviously the technology of our past will not be sufficient, so there's rea
lly no point in our going back in time in order to disqualify whatever Venu
s has to offer. However, Russia seems to know how to plant probes directly
on its toasty surface, and it seems they accomplished exactly what they'd
set out to accomplish.

However, of current technology and of that easily developed specifically fo
r the exploitation of Venus, is simply not all that insurmountable, nor wit
hout direct investment benefits. Continually ignoring a terrific planet li
ke Venus is obviously an option, but it's not what this topic is all about.