Venus is alive, Mars is dead

How much proof positive do we need about Venus, as to realize what an
absolute treasure throve of a nearby planet Venus represents?

Venus is very much an active planetology of what's representing the
next best thing to a proto-Earth, and at times being just 100 fold the
distance of our salty old moon. Is that good news, or what?

Since our moon's L1 is still taboo/nondisclosure rated, and humanly
lethal as all get out, whereas if not Venus, then why not Venus L2
(VL2 POOF City)?
- Brad Guth

In sci.physics, BradGuth

wrote
on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:20:22 -0000
.com:
How much proof positive do we need about Venus, as to realize what an
absolute treasure throve of a nearby planet Venus represents?

Venus is very much an active planetology of what's representing the
next best thing to a proto-Earth, and at times being just 100 fold the
distance of our salty old moon. Is that good news, or what?

Since our moon's L1 is still taboo/nondisclosure rated, and humanly
lethal as all get out, whereas if not Venus, then why not Venus L2
(VL2 POOF City)?
- Brad Guth


Why not indeed? Got a white knight investor yet?

As for Venus being "100 fold the distance of Luna", I might note that
Luna is 3.85 * 10^8 m away on average, or about 0.00256 AU. Under ideal
circumstances Venus would be 0.718 AU away from Sol and therefore
0.282 AU away from Earth. That translates into a 110x distance;
however, a free-flight elliptical orbit from Earth to Venus would
require about 3-4 AU, plus some timing considerations to ensure
all of Earth, Venus, and spacecraft are in the right place.

A timeline is available for the ESA Venus Express; this spacecraft would
probably be similar to, if smaller than, your POOF city proposal.
It was launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome on 2005-11-09, and arrived at
Venus 2006-04-11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Express

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i 1000000; i++) sleep(0);

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

On Aug 11, 8:20 am, BradGuth wrote:
How much proof positive do we need about Venus, as to realize what an
absolute treasure throve of a nearby planet Venus represents?

Venus is very much an active planetology of what's representing the
next best thing to a proto-Earth, and at times being just 100 fold the
distance of our salty old moon. Is that good news, or what?

Since our moon's L1 is still taboo/nondisclosure rated, and humanly
lethal as all get out, whereas if not Venus, then why not Venus L2
(VL2 POOF City)?
- Brad Guth

The problem though is if you're looking for living organisms or the
remains of them, Venus is far too extreme. And it's also extremely
difficult to actually land on Venus. The two landers that were sent
a long time ago got crushed and melted by the heat and pressure.

On Aug 11, 4:19 pm, mike3 wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:20 am, BradGuth wrote:

How much proof positive do we need about Venus, as to realize what an
absolute treasure throve of a nearby planet Venus represents?

Venus is very much an active planetology of what's representing the
next best thing to a proto-Earth, and at times being just 100 fold the
distance of our salty old moon. Is that good news, or what?

Since our moon's L1 is still taboo/nondisclosure rated, and humanly
lethal as all get out, whereas if not Venus, then why not Venus L2
(VL2 POOF City)?
- Brad Guth

The problem though is if you're looking for living organisms or the
remains of them, Venus is far too extreme. And it's also extremely
difficult to actually land on Venus. The two landers that were sent
a long time ago got crushed and melted by the heat and pressure.

Venus is NOT "far to extreme". Mars is by far extreme to most any
life as we know it, that is unless it's rad-hard and runs itself on
the likes of antifreeze, and/or having to keep itself deep underground
where it's merely somewhat frozen to death most all the time (the
reserve core heat of Mars can't hardly be all that great, losing
perhaps at most one mw/m2 at the surface).

The problem though is that something sufficiently intelligent has
clearly been there, and that intelligent other life could still be on
Venus for us to behold as is, whereas if it's not of something locally
evolved then it's ETs (perhaps much like us, except obviously a whole
lot smarter or at least less dumbfounded).

Under the atmospheric pressure of nearly 100 bar (greater than 100 bar
on some of the lower terrain of Venus), whereas even plain old water
vapor is likely to exist, though steamy hot and likely acidic, it's
not technically too hot or too acidic to manage, and to think if we
dumbfounded humans can manage to safely Ovglove it, then chances are
that whatever's of local survival smart evolution has us and our
Ovgloves beat in more ways than you can fry an egg on Venus.

BTW, with 65+ kg/m3 of buoyancy, it is NOT the least bit difficult to
land on Venus, especially compared to accomplishing a similar deployed
tonnage on that frozen CO2 and near vacuum likes of Mars. Dumb and
dumber landers that clearly failed to survive on Venus for any period
of time is simply proof of how absolutely pathetic those efforts
were. Unless we're still up against physics naysayism, accommodating
high pressure and of high temperature circuitry is not the least bit
of any modern probe/lander consideration, that is unless you're
planning upon landing within some active lava/mud flow, or directly on
top of various hot geothermal S8+CO2 gas venting considerations, and
for good reason I'd also steer clear of that *fluid arch*.

But why bother to land at all, when a composite rigid airship would
stay efficiently off that toasty deck for as long as any robotic craft
might like, or at least as long as your ice cold beer and pizza holds
out, perhaps cruising extensively at 25 km and otherwise at times
getting right down next to that toasty deck without ever having to
physically set your landing pads on any hot rocks. In spite of your
swarm of naysayism, I actually have a constructive and thus positive/
yaysay list of methods and applied technology that's good to go as is,
that is if such is ever allowed to be incorporated into those
composite rigid airships, and if per chance such composite rigid
airships are simply not your cup of hot tea, then how about going for
establishing that cool POOF City at VL2 can't possibly be all that
insurmountable.
- Brad Guth

On 12 Aug, 04:46, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 11, 4:19 pm, mike3 wrote:





On Aug 11, 8:20 am, BradGuth wrote:

How much proof positive do we need about Venus, as to realize what an
absolute treasure throve of a nearby planet Venus represents?

Venus is very much an active planetology of what's representing the
next best thing to a proto-Earth, and at times being just 100 fold the
distance of our salty old moon. Is that good news, or what?

Since our moon's L1 is still taboo/nondisclosure rated, and humanly
lethal as all get out, whereas if not Venus, then why not Venus L2
(VL2 POOF City)?
- Brad Guth

The problem though is if you're looking for living organisms or the
remains of them, Venus is far too extreme. And it's also extremely
difficult to actually land on Venus. The two landers that were sent
a long time ago got crushed and melted by the heat and pressure.

Venus is NOT "far to extreme". Mars is by far extreme to most any
life as we know it,

It boils down to the simple question of, life, or life as we no it. If
Venus does habour life (not as we no it) would we ever detect it?

Ian

On Aug 12, 3:56 am, Ian wrote:
On 12 Aug, 04:46, BradGuth wrote:





On Aug 11, 4:19 pm, mike3 wrote:

On Aug 11, 8:20 am, BradGuth wrote:

How much proof positive do we need about Venus, as to realize what an
absolute treasure throve of a nearby planet Venus represents?

Venus is very much an active planetology of what's representing the
next best thing to a proto-Earth, and at times being just 100 fold the
distance of our salty old moon. Is that good news, or what?

Since our moon's L1 is still taboo/nondisclosure rated, and humanly
lethal as all get out, whereas if not Venus, then why not Venus L2
(VL2 POOF City)?
- Brad Guth

The problem though is if you're looking for living organisms or the
remains of them, Venus is far too extreme. And it's also extremely
difficult to actually land on Venus. The two landers that were sent
a long time ago got crushed and melted by the heat and pressure.

Venus is NOT "far to extreme". Mars is by far extreme to most any
life as we know it,

It boils down to the simple question of, life, or life as we no it. If
Venus does habour life (not as we no it) would we ever detect it?

Ian

But what about accepting life NOT as we know it?

Yes, by all means we should detect it, in more ways than you'd think.

However, one might start off with a good dosage of applied
observationology, then apply the regular laws of physics as based upon
the best available science in order to interpret and/or conjecture
upon what little we can detect.

An honest SWAG is more than good enough for starters, then deploy a
small composite rigid airship probe or two, as sent in for a very
close and easily sustained look-see. If your mindset perceives that
Venus itself is simply too gosh darn hot and nasty, then send off
another improved Magellan that'll give us better than 10 meter
resolution (I believe we've had this capability for the past decade,
capable of perhaps as good as extracting one meter resolution as of
lately), whereas this mission should be sent along with an improved
version of PFS imaging that can get us right down to that geothermally
active surface without even cruising below them acidic clouds.

In other words, I'd use our best radar and thermal imaging to the
fullest extent before going in for the kill.
- Brad Guth

On Aug 11, 10:43 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics, BradGuth

wrote
on Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:20:22 -0000
.com:

How much proof positive do we need about Venus, as to realize what an
absolute treasure throve of a nearby planet Venus represents?

Venus is very much an active planetology of what's representing the
next best thing to a proto-Earth, and at times being just 100 fold the
distance of our salty old moon. Is that good news, or what?

Since our moon's L1 is still taboo/nondisclosure rated, and humanly
lethal as all get out, whereas if not Venus, then why not Venus L2
(VL2 POOF City)?
- Brad Guth

Why not indeed? Got a white knight investor yet?

As for Venus being "100 fold the distance of Luna", I might note that
Luna is 3.85 * 10^8 m away on average, or about 0.00256 AU. Under ideal
circumstances Venus would be 0.718 AU away from Sol and therefore
0.282 AU away from Earth. That translates into a 110x distance;
however, a free-flight elliptical orbit from Earth to Venus would
require about 3-4 AU, plus some timing considerations to ensure
all of Earth, Venus, and spacecraft are in the right place.

A timeline is available for the ESA Venus Express; this spacecraft would
probably be similar to, if smaller than, your POOF city proposal.
It was launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome on 2005-11-09, and arrived at
Venus 2006-04-11.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Express


Thanks much, except we know for a matter of fact that you folks can do
a whole lot better than than, but since you're nothing but another
spook/mole (as well as a pretend atheist), so what's the difference,
whereas most anything original that rusemasters such as yourself have
to say can't be trusted.

I'm thinking of those initial robotic POOF deployments out to VL2
could become managed over a much greater time and thereby fly-by-
rocket achieved as rather energy efficient, whereas the crew and guest
arriving via shuttle like craft might accomplish that trek inward
within as little as 3 months, and taking perhaps 6 months coming back
home.

However, once again, you folks are the ones having all of those nifty
3D interactive orbital simulators and spendy supercomputers to play
with. For the sport of it all, why don't you spooks and fellow Yids
knock our village idiot socks off, in a very spiffy NOVA 3D animation
production sort of way?
- Brad Guth

On Aug 11, 7:20 am, BradGuth wrote:
How much proof positive do we need about Venus, as to realize what an
absolute treasure throve of a nearby planet Venus represents?

Venus is very much an active planetology of what's representing the
next best thing to a proto-Earth, and at times being just 100 fold the
distance of our salty old moon. Is that good news, or what?

Since our moon's L1 is still taboo/nondisclosure rated, and humanly
lethal as all get out, whereas if not Venus, then why not accomplish
Venus L2 (VL2 POOF City)?
- Brad Guth

I believe lots of stuff is older than our solar system (such as Mars
and perhaps our salty old moon), and perhaps oitherwise some items
like Venus as being potentially less old since their last planetology
make-over trauma of getting red giant blown out of their original
binary solar system.

This following is a typical honest usenet chat or perhaps mainstream
status quo roast, that's ongoing between Darrell and myself within
another similar topic. Too bad that it's all so taboo/nondisclosure
rated as to the all-knowing naysay mindset of the typical Yiddish
swarm, that which can't hardly think independently inside of their own
box, much less outside without those pesky MIB Yids showing up.

Darrell:
My experience here on the usenet is that not many are familiar with
early solar system orbit swapping, near miss, and ejection theory.

They are actually all too very familiar with everything under that sun
which shines down upon their flat Earth, as well as their having
access to the very best of our 3D interactive orbital simulators along
with our spendy supercomputers, though I might agree that some folks
as mainstream status quo minions (easily spotted by their brown nose)
are rather snookered and thus easily dumbfounded, and that's just the
tip of our badly polluted and melting iceberg of infomercial physics
and skewed in order to suit whatever faith-based science, of
representing what most usenet folks as being other than whomever they
pretend to be, as most often having been opposing all that's off-world
unless it's totally inert, meaning dead as a door nail and especially
forbid as for such research not capable of revising one damn thing is
absolutely essential to sustaining their swarm like naysay mindset.


I also buy off on the post Apollo moon formation
theory of a Mars sized impactor on an early but completely formed
"earth". That way the moon could have been completely molten all at
once as the rocks suggest.

Buy yourself into all that you like, as there's no actual evidence of
Earth having that moon as of prior to 12,000 BP, only conjecture and
theory upon theory that's obviously well published into most every
other faith-base accepted textbook and science journal you can find,
as though it's the one and only word of their typically Jewish God.
Sorry about all that.


A body the size of the moon could not
retain this heat for many years and of course it is probably
completely cold today. I am unfamiliar with all this talk of heat
loss measurement, the lunar L1 designation etc. You realize that
classical thermodynamics will come into play here and that heat
losses will always vary with time and will not stay linear. Also
consider the largely molten state of the earth 4-1/2 billion years
after its formation when none of the other planets have been able to
perform this feat. That also suggests a large collision of a
magnitude that probably formed a large moon whose rocks suggest it
was also completely molten at one time.

There is still no direct measurements of the moon's geothermal cache
of whatever core energy, such as per whatever's leaving its physically
dark surface. Obviously you don't get it, that our salty old moon of
either having an unusually low density (perhaps salty) core, or
otherwise being somewhat hollow, of which this extremely nearby and
massive orb that's keeping Earth a little extra warm from the inside
out is simply not made of Earth, and it's not that the moon itself
couldn't have impacted Earth via a glancing blow and of its
lithobraking/icebraking arrival upon its marry way of having migrated
itself into our realm, of having deposited itself into becoming the
naked moon of Earth.


My interest is in an exposed planetary core of a past gas giant or
ice giant. I do not believe there are two molecules of hydrogen at
their core. There is rock and iron enough all the way out to the Ort
Cloud. So there is rock enough and iron enough to be at the core of
Jupiter under all that metallic hydrogen. Now imagine the sun going
nova and stripping all that away. There would be left a core of
largely iron with a layer of rock overlaying it (maybe 3/4 to 1/4 ?)
and the possibility of exotic materials laying on its surface formed
from the rock/iron mix from its metallic hyrogen influenced and
stellar nova influenced days.

Possibilities?

Darrell Lakin

Possibilities; you can bet your bottom dollar there's possibilities.

For example, ice is actually a good interstellar thermal insulator and
offering an even better radiation shield on behalf of accommodating
small, large and complex DNA life as we know it, especially if such
ice is extra thick and better yet if such Oort cloud accumulated ice
became a little salty. My theory is that of a rogue planet along with
its icy moon of perhaps 4000 km in diameter, having a rocky and
somewhat salty core of 7.35e22 kg, as for this icy moon or possibly
the rogue planet itself having once upon a time impacted Earth at a
glancing blow, thereby established and of that moon having ever since
sustained our seasonal tilt, and this nifty encounter from such a
rogue item happened well after the peak of the very last ice age this
humanly over populated Earth is ever going to see, causing antipode
generated mountains and established a spare ocean basin here and
there, as well as having unavoidably contributed some extent of its
salty ice.

You do realize that the very same face of Venus is still somewhat
tidal locked to Earth, don't you.

I totally agree with your analogy of there having been and still being
such nifty interstellar rogue planets along with a few of those
potentially icy moons to boot. If a brown dwarf or especially of any
significant black dwarf star is headed our way, as such we could be in
for serious trouble in River City (sort of speak), if not on the
receiving end of obtaining another planet or moon for our solar system
if all goes according to plan.

There's supposedly a missing 97% worth of the universe that's out
there, and even if 0.1% of that 97% is comprised of those pesky rogue
brown and black dwarf stars along with a few spare binary/trinary iron
orbs worth of their planets and icy moons, as such that's a lot of
potential mass and worthy items to pick from.

You'd also think that a given brown or black dwarf star represents a
fairly old sucker, such as 10s of billions of years older than our
solar system's star that's apparently so gosh darn passive that it
illuminates upon our guano island looking moon that's somehow
anticathode immune to cosmic gamma, as well as otherwise looking
exactly as though it were being passively xenon arc lamp spectrum
illuminated, thus somehow offering hardly any UV and next to zilch
worth of gamma or Xrays, and of somehow making the likes of Venus as
invisible as Muslim WMD. I'm not kidding, that is if you absolutely
must believe in anything NASA/Apollo.
- Brad Guth

Apparently, within the all-knowing Yiddish realm of our NASA and of
their mainstream media, an icy world that's otherwise mostly colder
than fluffy dry-ice snow = local energy.

Whereas a very newish planetology like Venus, that's relatively nearby
and nothing but loaded with local energy, for some silly reason isn't
worth squat, not even when there's an image of what's looking so
intelligent and/or rational that's otherwise larger than life, as
having been situated on its surface for all to see.

Apparently, evidence excluding and of banishing the regular laws of
physics for all that's off-world is pretty much a Yiddish status quo
kind of global domination thing. In other words, it's still business
as usual, just like in them good old days of having their Roman
partners put their own kind on a stick was simply a nifty PR stunt,
that which only eventually worked according to plan. Unfortunately
for humanity and our environment, even our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Bush) has been better at having pulled off such stunts.
- Brad Guth

On Aug 15, 7:24 am, BradGuth wrote:
Apparently, within the all-knowing Yiddish realm of our NASA and of
their mainstream media, an icy world that's otherwise mostly colder
than fluffy dry-ice snow = local energy.

Whereas a very newish planetology like Venus, that's relatively nearby
and nothing but loaded with local energy, for some silly reason isn't
worth squat, not even when there's an image of what's looking so
intelligent and/or rational that's otherwise larger than life, as
having been situated on its surface for all to see.

Apparently, evidence excluding and of banishing the regular laws of
physics for all that's off-world is pretty much a Yiddish status quo
kind of global domination thing. In other words, it's still business
as usual, just like in them good old days of having their Roman
partners put their own kind on a stick was simply a nifty PR stunt,
that which only eventually worked according to plan. Unfortunately
for humanity and our environment, even our resident LLPOF warlord(GW
Bush) has been better at having pulled off such stunts.
- Brad Guth

Usenet naysayism, the pretend atheist forum of faith-based crapolla
spewing on steroids, where the likes of NASA/Apollo rusemasters get to
fornacate their brains out.

Within such a cozy swarm like mindset of naysayism, as based upon
evidence excluding and of their Yiddish conditional laws of physics
that forbid all that's off-world unless it's long dead and/or DNA
inert to start off with, whereas such is what mainstream religion and
of their puppet governments are all about, their being every bit as
anti physics and/or as anti science as their holy swarm can manage to
get away with.

No wonder our kids are getting molested and we're right back at war as
based upon lies, greed and arrogance, as having been faith-based
applied against all of humanity (including many of their own kind) and
for otherwise traumatising that of our badly failing environment.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth