A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Terraforming Venus is a bad idea, though not impossible



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 1st 04, 10:13 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #2  
Old November 1st 04, 09:42 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


  #3  
Old November 2nd 04, 03:26 AM
OM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:42:41 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

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


....The worthless Glad bag of trailer trash doesn't even know a photo
of a cheese pizza from one of Venus, for that matter.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr
  #4  
Old November 2nd 04, 03:29 AM
Neil Gerace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:42:41 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

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


...The worthless Glad bag of trailer trash doesn't even know a photo
of a cheese pizza from one of Venus, for that matter.


The difference is that photos of Venus are welcome in my house, while cheese
pizzas and photos of same are not.


  #5  
Old November 2nd 04, 03:30 AM
Terrell Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:42:41 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

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



doesn't matter, they're alright tonight

--
Terrell Miller


" A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster


  #6  
Old November 2nd 04, 04:40 PM
Scott Hedrick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:42:41 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
wrote:

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


...The worthless Glad bag of trailer trash doesn't even know a photo
of a cheese pizza from one of Venus, for that matter.


Imagine if he mated with the Big Bertha Thing--oh, wait, we don't have to,
we have Bbo Hallre.


  #7  
Old January 31st 05, 06:03 AM
Brad Guth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message



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


OK, so I'm not nearly as all-knowing as yourself, and thus unlike our
resident warlord, I actually make more than my fair share of mistakes.
So, what's your pathetic all-knowing excuse?

I happen to understand there's been a fairly large test cell in France
for decades, an environment chamber/cell that's capable of housing and
sustaining several folks as they're pressurized to 68 bar, feed 1% O2
and 99% H2. Thus it's more than clear that perhaps as slight as 0.1% O2
is humanly survivable upon Venus (given perhaps months to gradually
adjust along the way of getting ourselves there), that is as long as
we've managed to create the necessary H2 (which need not be replenished
since it's not all that likely to being consumed or otherwise modified
by our biological chemistry.

I still have a couple of old basic questions that'll give me some
further clue as to how water might have materialized upon Earth and
Venus, whereas the vast bulk of the water on Venus has resided in them
relatively cool clouds.

In retrospect to what should be old science, but damned if I can find
it; exactly how long does it require for ice to vaporise in space?

The same question goes for dry-ice(frozen CO2), how much time per
shifting a ccm or per m3 into vapor?

In spite of all the orchestrated flak imposed against my notions of
other life on Venus (we're talking of originating forms as well as
visiting ETs), and my continual suggestions on behalf of seriously
accomplishing nothing but good and honorable things with ISS, I have
managed to create a few other related topics, several of which are not
specifically about our moon or Titan, though in more than a few ways
offering just about everything under the sun on behalf of improving
future space exploration and just plain old space travel bang for the
buck/euro that's at least indirectly related to folks utilizing our moon
as a rather necessary gravitational booster shot. Of such missions
passing as close to the moon as possible hasn't even been such a new
idea, it just so happens to coincide with the even better physics,
science logic and numerous other values of what the LSE-CM/ISS is good
for.

"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"

The task of relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly much easier said
than done, but at least it's something that's been doable. For the
benefit of salvaging our environment, extracting and exporting
helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just offering a little beneficial fusion
icing on the cake.

Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
  #8  
Old January 2nd 07, 12:43 AM posted to sci.skeptic,sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.bio.misc
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Terraforming Venus is a bad idea, though not impossible

"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
  #9  
Old January 2nd 07, 05:33 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.skeptic,sci.bio.misc
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Terraforming Venus is a bad idea, though not impossible

"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
  #10  
Old January 22nd 07, 02:07 AM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy,sci.skeptic,sci.bio.misc
Brad Guth[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,941
Default Terraforming Venus is a bad idea, though not impossible

"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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GUTH Venus is way too hot for even Bad Astronomy Jon G Policy 29 January 2nd 07 04:25 AM
Space Calendar - January 28, 2005 [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 January 31st 05 10:33 AM
Long post, transit of Venus 1882 John Carruthers UK Astronomy 13 March 22nd 04 06:54 PM
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 Ron History 6 January 29th 04 08:11 AM
Space Calendar - July 24, 2003 Ron Baalke Misc 0 July 24th 03 11:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.