Discovery Of Life On Mars Would Not Help Darwinist Cause

Brad Guth wrote:

According to any halfass worthy 3D solar system simulator, with regards
to missions A-11, A-14 and A-16, how about Venus as having existed right
in plain unavoidable sight of most any unfiltered Kodak moment that was
pointed in the general direction, as especially viewed from orbit and/or
rather easily if not unavoidably obtained from their physically dark and
naked anticathode worthy deck, as in Venus being vibrantly plain as day
and sufficiently nearby, as being that of a fairly large item and easily
viewed as for being that of an absolutely impressive looking orb
(especially to the more spectrum sensitive unfiltered Kodak eye) that's
somewhere above their physically dark lunar horizon and that of big old
UV secondary/recoil bluish looking mother Earth.

The Earth looks blue from space because oxygen and nitrogen, in large
quantities (namely, miles-thick volumes), are bluish-colored gases.
The sea reflects the atmospheric color above it and thus also looks
blue.

The reason you can't see Venus in those photographs is that it is not
bright enough to be seen _given the exposue_. This is also why you
can't see the stars.

- Jordan

Brad Guth wrote:
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message


You'd also need a reason to build the city. I suggest deuterium
mining. The D/H ratio on Venus is more than two orders of magnitude
higher than on Earth.

Besides whatever Venusian deuterium, there should also be serious butt
loads of Venusian yellowcake, plus all of the local renewable energy as
to process that and of most anything else you can think of, such as
CO2--co/o2.

You have to go down to the surface to get uranium. Uranium is an
extremely dense element; it does not float about in any quantity in an
atmosphere, even one as dense as the Venusian atmosphere.

At 90.5% gravity plus having to deal with 65+ kg/m3 buoyancy would be
somewhat like deep-sea diving on Earth, whereas you'd need to add mass
to a given fat-waverider of a composite shuttle in order to even get
yourself down to that nifty Venusian tarmac.

The shuttle had better be both extremely well air-conditioned and
incredibly corrosion-resistant, or it will be destroyed long before it
reaches the surface. There's also the problem of dealing with _winds_
in an atmosphere 90 times denser than the Earth's and pumped by a much
closer Sun.

I'm not saying it's impossible; I really do think we'll make manned
landings on Venus some day. I'm just saying that the technological
requirements are a lot higher than those for a manned Mars landing.

BTW; there's already a nifty Venusian city to behold, and lots of
nearby interesting other stuff to behold that perfectly natural as well
as intelligently artificial.

I have never seen any photographs of cities or anything else artificial
(aside of course from parts of Soviet space probes) on the Venusian
surface. If any such objects were discovered, they would make headline
news around the world for days, and probably lead to crash space
programs aimed at exploring them. What reason do you have for
believing that any such objects have been discovered?

BTW No.2; as continually surrounding Venus, there's no actual shortage
of fresh water that isn't easily accessible.

Some theories of the Venusian atmosphere do hold that there is water
vapor there, yes. Even if there wasn't, water could be synthesized
from sulfuric acid.

And there's plenty of ice under the Martian surface. Access to water
would not be the _main_ obstacle to colonizing either world.

- Jordan

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 04:21:30 GMT, in a place far, far away, Sea Wasp
made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(one truth that shocked me; apparently there are perhaps 6% of the
United States' population that are willing to believe that the
landings were faked. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.)

I'd be surprised, and pleased, if the number is that low.

On 5 Sep 2006 22:37:40 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Jordan"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Well, it doesn't actually surprise me that 1 in 20 of any given
population are mind-bogglingly ignorant of reality. Remember that, by
definition, 1 in 2 of the population also has subnormal intelligence.

Only for a perfect normal distribution. One in two is below the
median, but not necessarily below normal.

Jordan wrote:


Sea Wasp wrote:

(one truth that shocked me; apparently there are perhaps 6% of the
United States' population that are willing to believe that the
landings were faked. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.)

Well, it doesn't actually surprise me that 1 in 20 of any given
population are mind-bogglingly ignorant of reality.

It wasn't helped by that stupid Fox show that served as a mouthpiece
for the "landing was fake" crowd. Then again, Fox also ran "Alien
Autopsy".

There was a nice little documentary on one of the cable channels,
History Channel perhaps, that debunked the issue.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Default User" wrote in
:

Jordan wrote:


Sea Wasp wrote:

(one truth that shocked me; apparently there are perhaps 6% of
the
United States' population that are willing to believe that the
landings were faked. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.)

Well, it doesn't actually surprise me that 1 in 20 of any given
population are mind-bogglingly ignorant of reality.

It wasn't helped by that stupid Fox show that served as a mouthpiece
for the "landing was fake" crowd. Then again, Fox also ran "Alien
Autopsy".

There was a nice little documentary on one of the cable channels,
History Channel perhaps, that debunked the issue.

So far as the moon landings go, NASA debunked it quite thoroughly. The
web page consisted of three words.

"Yes. We did."

Anything more is just dignifying retarded drivel.

--
"So there is no third law of Terrydynamics."
-- William Hyde
Terry Austin

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com

The Earth looks blue from space because oxygen and nitrogen, in large
quantities (namely, miles-thick volumes), are bluish-colored gases.
The sea reflects the atmospheric color above it and thus also looks
blue.
You obviously know damn little if anything about actual physics. Either
that or you're simply being a good little LLPOF minion to your Third
Reich that you and your extremely brown-nose continually butt-wipe on
command.

The reason you can't see Venus in those photographs is that it is not
bright enough to be seen _given the exposue_. This is also why you
can't see the stars.
Now you're being just plain and simply that of another certified
born-again liar of the worse possible kind, just like GW Bush and
Hitler.

You're one sick little mainstream status quo or bust puppy, arnt you.
(it's exactly what such unfortunate mutations of incest cloning tends to
accomplish)
-
Brad Guth


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

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 04:21:30 GMT, in a place far, far away, Sea Wasp
made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


(one truth that shocked me; apparently there are perhaps 6% of the
United States' population that are willing to believe that the
landings were faked. That's a pretty sad state of affairs.)


I'd be surprised, and pleased, if the number is that low.


I second that. A lot more then 6% of the people I meet are total tools.

Sorry for this delay, but my poor old PC finally got Usenet terminated
by way of the usual GOOGLE spermware/****ware dosage that was simply a
bit more of an overdosage than it could manage to defend itself from.
So yet another reboot later, and here we are again.

"Jordan" wrote in message
oups.com
A Mars hab would be a lot cheaper than a Venus hab, even if pressure
were the _only_ issue, because the Venus hab would have to be a LOT
more sturdily constructed.
Sorry, I can't help those that refuse to accept the truth and nothing
but the truth. We see that you've once again re-proven that village
idiots with less than half a brain do exist, whereas you're still
brown-nose sucking upto those mainstream status quo butt-cheeks, I see.

Pressure is actually a biological non-factor ...
This would come as a pleasant surprise to any submariner whose boat's
pressure hull was ruptured. There aren't that many to ask regarding
this issue, however, because the rupture of a pressure hull at depth is
generally fatal to its occupants.

And that's just _seawater_. At about 35 degrees Fahrenheit. Not
Venusian atmosphere at about 900 degrees Fahrenheit.
MARS GOT ENERGY? (as in lots of it)
We see that you can't even honestly think inside the box, much less
outside. How pathetic.
What semester(s) of physics, science and biology 'duh-101' did you and
your kind miss out on?

... and temperature is easily managable ...
Do please tell us all just _how_ one "easily" manages temperatures in
the high hundreds of degrees Fahrenheit, when such conditions pertain
to one's _entire surrounding environment?_ FYI, an air conditioner
pumping heat against such a massive thermal gradient woudl consume a
_lot_ of power -- it's theoretically possible to make it work, but it
would be extremely difficult.
Not that your naysay mindset is worth another effort, but locally
available insulative elements upon Venus that'll offer R-1024/m isn't
exactly a rocket-science problem, especially if it's formulated on
behalf of becoming somewhat as structually capable as you'd like to make
it.

Don't forget the unlimited local energy that's 100% renewable, squeaky
clean and way more of such energy than even your naysayism could
possibly require to process and/or to produce almost anything your
little naysay bigoted heart could think of. Local insulation that's
more than sufficiently structural at R-1024/m isn't even rocket-science,
so where's that supposed big-ass insurmountable problem?

Try really LeapFrog hard this time in order to remember that Venus
offers unlimited geothermal and atmospheric forms of green/renewable
local energy. Mars got energy? (I think not!)

By contrast, on Mars the difference in temperature between the inside
of the hab and the outside of the hab is never more than 100-200
degrees Fahrenheit, and one merely has to _heat_ the interior, which is
for obvious thermodynamic reasons a more efficient task than cooling
it. Given good enough thermal insulation, the power drain might be
fairly minimal.
Let me know when the first of those many thermal nuclear reactors are
safely deployed via your spendy AI/robotic fly-by-rocket landers that
haven't even been through the most basic of R&D (much less prototype
proof-tested), and please do share as to whenever those become fully
operational, and do otherwise share as to how many decades and trillions
of hard earned dollars later? (I believe it has already been a nearly
wasted decade, and how many billions?)

... that is unless you're a certified bigot, whereas that's only
because your butt-brain implodes.

Um, yeah, whatever. Do you actually know what the word "bigot" means,
or is it one of those words like "incest" that you throw around because
it sounds good?
I'm talking intellectual bigotry, however in your infomercial-science
case of having been sucking up to the buttology of whatever's the status
quo, just so that yourself and those of your kind can might continue to
snooker thy humanity and to otherwise rape mother Earth in the process,
I'm not exactly certain if it's not a little something incest biological
worthy.

BTW; how does near zero corrosive sound?
Very nice. This would be the situation on Mars, where your main
corrosion problem is sandblasting (which is easily avoided by putting
one's hab underground), but _not_ on Venus where there is hot sulfuric
acid vapor in the atmosphere.
Once again you've proven that your village idiot status quo is right up
to it's usual snuff of naysayism that's based almost entirely upon lies
on steroids. Mars should be relatively corrosion free but as you say,
it isn't hardly erosion friendly, nor is it otherwise solar/cosmic
TBI/DNA friendly, nor even solar wind electro/physically charged
particle friendly. Having to work Mars mostly at night or nearly
continually underground is going to get a little old if not bitchy.

Again, there are _reasons_ why Mars colonization looks a lot easier to
planetologists today than does Venus colonization, and the issue of
corrosion is one of them.
List it all out, as in honestly providing that side by side review as to
the yaysay/naysay aspects of accomplishing Mars and Venus, or even
making it a free-for-all fornacating threesome by way of tossing in a
little something as to accomplishing our nearby moon.

BTW; don't forget about that unlimited local energy that our
geothermally active and thus toasty Venus has to offer, and of the
rather nifty 65+kg/m3 worth of buoyancy and the relatively safe
biological environment that our wussy DNA can actually coexist within,
as being that of an end-user DNA friendly environment (especially via
composite rigid airship), as opposed to getting yourself summarily TBI
nailed on Mars, if not also rather easily physically nailed and/or
merely sub-frozen to death or perhaps simply via taking your final
agonizing breath onboard that daunting trek to/from Mars that's without
sufficient shielding.

Having your personal cash of banked bone marrow isn't going to save the
day if it's situated months if not a year+ away from wherever you are.
-
Brad Guth


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