If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Venus Airships / by Brad Guth
BradGuth wrote in
: On May 8, 5:34 am, "Jeff Findley" wrote: "ah" wrote in message anews.com... BradGuth wrote: You are James Follet, AICMF Stop replying to Brad Guth's posts. At the very least, please learn how to trim the quote of his post, especially if your reply is only one line! Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein Terrific, in that "ah" and others of his/her silly kind are simply another infowar cop or private minion doing his/her brown-nosed job of protecting their collective status quo, rather than contributing constructively as to the topic at hand. Just think if the likes of Einstein were not Jewish, where would we be, would there have even been a WWII or much less a mutually perpetrated cold-war? It seems there's no end to the incest mutated pile or heap of disinformation and DARPA mindset folks here in Usenet. It's as though Google/NONA have accommodated their very own army of such clowns, spooks and moles from their rusemaster dark side. 99.9% of Usenet seems to be sold on having allowed our government and of its faith-based puppeteers to essentially pillage, plunder and rape humanity, and to otherwise traumatize our frail environment for all it's worth. Rubbish, i haven't been sold on this, i'm only leasing. Bertie |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Venus Airships / by Brad Guth
On May 9, 1:12 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote: I'll say one thing for Brad Guth - he's the perfect "canary in the coal mine". All you have to do is watch who replies to him and immediately killfile them, as obviously nothing worthwhile to read is ever going to come from them. God bless you, Brad. You've saved me literally _days_ of pointless posting reading over the past few years. A "birdie num-num" for you, sir...and fresh newspapers at the bottom of your cage! :-D Pat Is that why you so often topic/author stalk and bash at every opportunity? .. - Brad Guth |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Venus Airships / by Brad Guth
On May 8, 10:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
BradGuth wrote : On May 8, 5:34 am, "Jeff Findley" wrote: "ah" wrote in message ctanews.com... BradGuth wrote: You are James Follet, AICMF Stop replying to Brad Guth's posts. At the very least, please learn how to trim the quote of his post, especially if your reply is only one line! Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein Terrific, in that "ah" and others of his/her silly kind are simply another infowar cop or private minion doing his/her brown-nosed job of protecting their collective status quo, rather than contributing constructively as to the topic at hand. Just think if the likes of Einstein were not Jewish, where would we be, would there have even been a WWII or much less a mutually perpetrated cold-war? It seems there's no end to the incest mutated pile or heap of disinformation and DARPA mindset folks here in Usenet. It's as though Google/NONA have accommodated their very own army of such clowns, spooks and moles from their rusemaster dark side. 99.9% of Usenet seems to be sold on having allowed our government and of its faith-based puppeteers to essentially pillage, plunder and rape humanity, and to otherwise traumatize our frail environment for all it's worth. Rubbish, i haven't been sold on this, i'm only leasing. Bertie Then by all means you had to sign that lethally binding nondisclosure lease agreement, or else. (the all-inclusive "till death do us part" was incorporated within the nearly solid block of gray fine print on the back side of your lease agreement) .. - Brad Guth |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Venus Airships / by Brad Guth
BradGuth wrote in
: On May 8, 10:15 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote: BradGuth wrote innews:577f662a-f5b7-4046-a543-fcf785588a90 @k10g2000prm.googlegroups.c om: On May 8, 5:34 am, "Jeff Findley" wrote: "ah" wrote in message ctanews.com... BradGuth wrote: You are James Follet, AICMF Stop replying to Brad Guth's posts. At the very least, please learn how to trim the quote of his post, especially if your reply is only one line! Jeff -- A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein Terrific, in that "ah" and others of his/her silly kind are simply another infowar cop or private minion doing his/her brown-nosed job of protecting their collective status quo, rather than contributing constructively as to the topic at hand. Just think if the likes of Einstein were not Jewish, where would we be, would there have even been a WWII or much less a mutually perpetrated cold-war? It seems there's no end to the incest mutated pile or heap of disinformation and DARPA mindset folks here in Usenet. It's as though Google/NONA have accommodated their very own army of such clowns, spooks and moles from their rusemaster dark side. 99.9% of Usenet seems to be sold on having allowed our government and of its faith-based puppeteers to essentially pillage, plunder and rape humanity, and to otherwise traumatize our frail environment for all it's worth. Rubbish, i haven't been sold on this, i'm only leasing. Bertie Then by all means you had to sign that lethally binding nondisclosure lease agreement, or else. (the all-inclusive "till death do us part" was incorporated within the nearly solid block of gray fine print on the back side of your lease agreement) . - Brad Guth Well, of course i did. There was a free toaster oven going! Bertie |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Venus Airships / by Brad Guth
Wow! look at all the brown-noswed minions of the Semitic Third Reich
kind (aka DARPA) that showed up (as per topic/author stalking usual). . - Brad Guth On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth wrote: Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist, although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be excluded for this rigid airship configuration. For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized airship. Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season, and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick and nasty acidic clouds. Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2 atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions). Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common terrestrial 5:1. In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F). There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat- exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly landing skids (just in case). Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10% main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/ reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving clouds (80~85 km by day) . This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg. In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated, there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard systems and main propulsion. Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere. Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2--co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit. Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km. Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about accomplishing those Venus expeditions. Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza and Geoffrey A. Landis http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...006-214452.pdf This paper was for the most part generated long after my having insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report, especially since much of their airship application is operated within a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude. This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and bashing for all they can muster. . –BradGuth |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Venus Airships / by Brad Guth
Oops, too much information. Sorry about that.
. - Brad Guth On May 6, 5:40 am, BradGuth wrote: In the simplest form, a sphere within a sphere is perfectly capable of becoming a rigid airship, of sustaining the most pressure or vacuum per any given form. Think of this rigid airship as a series of such spheres aligned and interconnected as to forming this otherwise blimp like airship. A 100 meter outer sphere of 5.236e5 m3, having a 0.1 m thick composite hull offers an internal volumetric sphere of 99.8 meters, for a gross internal volume of 5.2046e5 m3. If we use 2.5 kg/m3 as the nighttime buoyancy of what’s roughly available at 45~50 km 5.236 * 2.5 = 13.09e5 kg gross buoyancy If the volume worth of this shell/hull being .0314e5 m3, and if this composite hull required 100 kg/m3 = 3.14e5 kg 13.09e5 – 3.14e5 = 9.95e5 kg as the net buoyancy (- infrastructure) Obviously 995 tonnes leaves us with a sufficient amount of buoyancy per sphere, as capacity for accommodating internal infrastructure and matters of displacing this interior with hydrogen, or that of merely pulling a vacuum, and otherwise incorporating all of the necessary systems for airship management, including those insulated and heat exchanged compartments of science instruments. The external CO2 itself becomes the ballast whenever necessary. In other words, without intentionally doing so, there’s no way in hell (so to literally speak) of this rigid airship ever falling out of that Venusian sky, as the buoyancy increases to 65+ kg/m3 before coming in contact with that geothermally heated surface, and greater yet as you head down into the low lands or basins of Venus where it’s really hot. At 1/10th scale, utilizing a 10 meter sphere we’re looking at 9.95 tonnes, so obviously doable though bigger is defiantly better, and of cruising at 25 km instead of the initial 50 km is going to drastically increase that buoyancy, as well as keeping this airship entirely within the crystal dry S8 and CO2 atmosphere of what’s becoming somewhat toasty but otherwise without h2o it’s not the least bit acidic unless parked over some nasty geothermal steaming vent. Fortunately, if the crew in remote operation of this otherwise robotic airship were station-keeping within their cool POOF City of Venus L2, means the control management loop isn’t but a few seconds, not that any such POOF City need be the case, even though it would be rather nice. Otherwise via terrestrial command, we’re talking of minutes to hours per command loop due to the great amount of difference in range from Earth. However, being this is an airship that’s going nowhere all that fast, and it isn’t going to bump into or otherwise fall into anything unexpected, at least other than encountering VHS(Venus Homeland Security) forces, means that whatever command loop delay isn’t all that important. . –BradGuth On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth wrote: Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist, although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be excluded for this rigid airship configuration. For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized airship. Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season, and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick and nasty acidic clouds. Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2 atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions). Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common terrestrial 5:1. In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F). There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat- exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly landing skids (just in case). Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10% main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/ reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving clouds (80~85 km by day) . This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg. In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated, there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard systems and main propulsion. Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere. Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2--co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit. Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km. Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about accomplishing those Venus expeditions. Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza and Geoffrey A. Landis http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...006-214452.pdf This paper was for the most part generated long after my having insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report, especially since much of their airship application is operated within a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude. This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and bashing for all they can muster. . –BradGuth |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Venus Airships / by Brad Guth
How the heck did this nifty topic get left in the dust?
One of my lose cannon shots must have hit some mainstream status quo private parts. . - Brad Guth On May 16, 2:54 pm, BradGuth wrote: Wow! look at all the brown-noswed minions of the Semitic Third Reich kind (aka DARPA) that showed up (as per topic/author stalking usual). . - Brad Guth On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth wrote: Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist, although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be excluded for this rigid airship configuration. For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized airship. Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season, and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick and nasty acidic clouds. Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2 atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions). Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common terrestrial 5:1. In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F). There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat- exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly landing skids (just in case). Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10% main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/ reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving clouds (80~85 km by day) . This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg. In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated, there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard systems and main propulsion. Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere. Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2--co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit. Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km. Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about accomplishing those Venus expeditions. Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza and Geoffrey A. Landis http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...006-214452.pdf This paper was for the most part generated long after my having insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report, especially since much of their airship application is operated within a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude. This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and bashing for all they can muster. . –BradGuth |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Venus Airships / by Brad Guth
How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit
of sci.geo.geology? A 'search for' _ brad guth _ brings up 99.9% as sci.geo.geology topics. Other than Venus and our moon having extremely unusual geology considerations, I can't quite understand how the Google search engine w/o DARPA help has somehow AI/robo focused all of it's CPUs and vast archives upon connecting my name with sci.geo.geology . - Brad Guth On May 27, 8:49 pm, BradGuth wrote: How the heck did this nifty topic get left in the dust? One of my lose cannon shots must have hit some mainstream status quo private parts. . - Brad Guth On May 16, 2:54 pm, BradGuth wrote: Wow! look at all the brown-noswed minions of the Semitic Third Reich kind (aka DARPA) that showed up (as per topic/author stalking usual). . - Brad Guth On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth wrote: Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a darn good thing if you were a Venusian airship, even if limited as to an oven-wrap or KetaSpire PEEK polyetheretherketone and fiber reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist, although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn’t be excluded for this rigid airship configuration. For this topic I have an unusual airship to R&D, as intended for a rather toasty dry and calm environment. Think of this application as a floating city if you like, or consider this one as merely a small or as large as need be robotic probe that can remain efficiently aloft for nearly unlimited time without much energy demand while drifting or even when cruising along at perhaps an average air-speed of less than 10 m/s, as such wouldn’t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized airship. Taking into account the 1.75 kg/m3 by day and perhaps 2.5 kg/m3 of nighttime buoyancy at 50 km is roughly worth twice that of any terrestrial airship application, and for the most part it’s actually fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool because it’s at such a good deal of altitude away from that geothermal radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime season, and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise thick and nasty acidic clouds. Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid airship doesn’t change per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or payload is capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as one operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day and below 25 km by season of nighttime is where that robust S8/CO2 atmosphere is nearly crystal dry and clear for as far as you can see (depending on terrain, roughly 500 km in all directions). Initially, this is a very rigid composite and robust kind of mostly robotic airship, intended as an extended expedition probe. It’s somewhat of a conventional blimp like craft, except using a rigid composite hull with a 6:1 L/W ratio instead of the more common terrestrial 5:1. In my way of thinking, it has a rather thick outer composite hull that’s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components area being insulated by R-100 or better) as obviously acidic proof, not to mention melt proof, not that its failsafe hydrogen gas displacement or that of its vacuum worth of artificial buoyancy need be all that acid proof or even having to be excessively cooled, because the bulk of this airship can be rated for 811 K (1000°F). There are four rather over-sized longitudinal stabilizer fins, used for obvious flight stability, but also utilized for their heat- exchanging functions, and otherwise a pair of midship underbelly landing skids (just in case). Its configuration might incorporate one fully ducted set of large diameter counter-rotating pusher fans, plus four other fully rotatable thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10% main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as forward/ reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100 m/s need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or nothing considerations, because 10 m/s is more than good enough unless striving to migrate though those acidic clouds in order to cruise essentially above the 75 km nighttime worth of those fast moving clouds (80~85 km by day) . This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for efficiently cruising about Venus where size and mass are of little concern when having 64+ kg/m3 worth of buoyancy, and only 90.5% gravity to work with is certainly going to avoid all sorts of inert mass considerations that would have more than grounded the Hindenburg. In addition to certain liquid fuels that can be safely incorporated, there will be a pair of custom RTGs running at more than hot enough to melt aluminum, and a likely Stirling thermal dynamic process of utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the onboard systems and main propulsion. Getting rid of 75% worth of RTG heat shouldn’t be all that insurmountable, especially with such a thermally conductive flow of that toasty Venusian atmosphere flowing past, as worthy of roughly 10% the density of water, in that the closer we cruise to the geothermally active surface the more dense and thermally conductive becomes the surrounding S8 and CO2 atmosphere. Once again, on behalf of Usenet/Group diehard naysayers, this topic is not about our having to terraform Venus, or that of our having to prance ourselves about in the buff, at least not without our trusty OveGlove jumpsuit and portable CO2--co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit. Instead, we’re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really doesn’t care how hot and nasty it is outside, and may never have to land for the next hundred years, with a future human flight configured version that’s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to suit the applications of sustaining human our frail life for extended periods of time while cruising extensively at or below 25 km. Even though Geoffrey Landis wisely publishes most everything of his expertise as science fiction, it’s based entirely upon the regular laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available science. This doesn’t mean that I’d worship each and every published word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully demonstrate that I’m not the one and only wise enough individual that’s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about accomplishing those Venus expeditions. Venus exploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html Evaluation of Long Duration Flight on Venus / by Anthony J. Colozza and Geoffrey A. Landis http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...006-214452.pdf This paper was for the most part generated long after my having insisted that such a mission via aircraft/airship was technically doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there’s nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to report, especially since much of their airship application is operated within a terrestrial like environment by way of keeping good altitude. This is not saying that my ideas are of the one and only do-or-die alternatives, as I’m not the least bit opposed to incorporating viable alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I’m not the bad guy here, nor am I interested in hearing from those having ulterior motives or counter intentions of merely topic/author stalking and bashing for all they can muster. . –BradGuth |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Venus Airships / by Brad Guth
BradGuth wrote:
How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit of sci.geo.geology? What good name? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Venus Airships / by Brad Guth
On 2008-05-28, BradGuth wrote:
How the heck did my good name get sucked down into the newsgroup pit of sci.geo.geology? I'm still trying to figure out what this topic has to do with rec.aviation.piloting. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!) AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 10 June) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Homebuilt hot-air airships | Jim Logajan | Home Built | 8 | July 21st 06 06:49 PM |
Airships Flying boat 1934 FA | JaneyP | General Aviation | 0 | August 11th 05 12:21 AM |
Balloons Airships vintage book FA | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | July 16th 05 01:12 AM |
Are there any fligh-simulators for Venus ??? | Tristan Beeline | Simulators | 7 | June 28th 05 02:42 PM |
Unmanned airships at FL650! | Roy Smith | General Aviation | 0 | July 6th 04 06:31 PM |