Venus Airships / by Brad Guth

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.
. – Brad Guth

On May 4, 2:31*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.
. – Brad Guth

Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk or www.disclosureproject.org

On May 5, 12:34 am, LIBERATOR wrote:

Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe...ureproject.org

Thanks to our popular mainstream media that'll publish and/or exclude
whatever they're told by those in charge, and otherwise by that of our
"no child left behind" policy, I didn't here a darn thing about it,
and Usenet/Groups certainly didn't make much if anything of it.
(wonder why)

Besides the fact that ETs do exist, and that it's quite likely they
have also existed/coexisted on Venus (because that's technically
doable), what if anything of this "Disclosure Project" doings had
anything whatsoever to do with any composite rigid airship, as
intended for cruising Venus?

In other words, why did you fail to grasp the meaning or intent of
this topic "Venus Airships"?
.. - Brad Guth

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
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.

snip drivel
And, pray tell Brad, where would the above ship be manufactured ? On the
surface of Venus, you say? I don't think so. Oh, I see ... you'd build it
on Mars and then have the Acme Intergalactic Airship Towing Company move it
to Venus and insert it into the proper orbit.
Good plan, Brad. Keep up the fine work.
Ed Conrad wants to talk to you .... something about an ossified brain ...

On May 5, 7:25 am, "Hagar" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
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.

snip drivel

And, pray tell Brad, where would the above ship be manufactured ?
On the surface of Venus, you say? I don't think so. Oh, I see ... you'd
build it on Mars and then have the Acme Intergalactic Airship Towing
Company move it to Venus and insert it into the proper orbit.
Good plan,Brad. Keep up the fine work.
Ed Conrad wants to talk to you .... something about an ossified brain ...

Dear "snip drivel",
Most certainly not in your backyard, or by way of any of your "snip
drivel" certified friends. It seems your profound nayism and lack of
constructive contributions to this or for that matter of most any
topic is equal to none other than whatever DARPA expects of their
brown-nosed minions. As such, your warm and fuzzy services are no
longer needed, especially since you show no honest signs of being the
least bit qualified or even knowing of those qualified in rigid
airship R&D. Did I miss anything?

In other words, you and others of your disinformation spewing kind are
either bogus to start with or totally dumbfounded past the point of no
return, and as such you each need those DARPA instructions as to wipe
your butt or blow your nose, not that you'd know one such brownish
hole from another.

If you had anything on-topic and constructive to say, you'd have said
it.

BTW, of where this rigid and mostly composite airship is created is
immaterial, and of how it gets deployed to Venus and through those
robust acidic clouds is apparently outside your best expertise,
because if you were the least bit human, as such you would have shared
a little something for accomplishing that aspect.

In case you somehow misunderstood the intent of this topic, there's no
required airship orbit, other than aligned for the rather bumpy
reentry of getting this rigid airship down to the initial 50 km,
before descending to its nominal 25 km (+/- 5 km) intended cruising
altitude. Possibly something as halo station-keeping within Venus L2
might be required for the data relay or mission transponder in
addition to whatever's left in orbit upon having released the airship
for its extended expedition of cruising below them thick clouds.
. - Brad Guth

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On May 5, 7:25 am, "Hagar" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
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.

snip drivel

And, pray tell Brad, where would the above ship be manufactured ?
On the surface of Venus, you say? I don't think so. Oh, I see ... you'd
build it on Mars and then have the Acme Intergalactic Airship Towing
Company move it to Venus and insert it into the proper orbit.
Good plan,Brad. Keep up the fine work.
Ed Conrad wants to talk to you .... something about an ossified brain ...

Dear "snip drivel",
Most certainly not in your backyard, or by way of any of your "snip
drivel" certified friends. It seems your profound nayism and lack of
constructive contributions to this or for that matter of most any
topic is equal to none other than whatever DARPA expects of their
brown-nosed minions. As such, your warm and fuzzy services are no
longer needed, especially since you show no honest signs of being the
least bit qualified or even knowing of those qualified in rigid
airship R&D. Did I miss anything?


Yea, you dumb ****, you didn't answer my question, which is:
Where will you build them and how will you get them into the
atmosphere of Venus. A straight forward question, to which
you obviously do not have an answer, you loon.

Considering the sulphuric content of said atmosphere (minor detail),
what materials of construction were you going to use ?? No generalities
please, since that seems to be your forte.
do you plan to use?? Titanium you say, holy moley, it'll drop like a rock

On May 5, 6:32 pm, "Hagar" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On May 5, 7:25 am, "Hagar" wrote:



"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
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.

snip drivel

And, pray tell Brad, where would the above ship be manufactured ?
On the surface of Venus, you say? I don't think so. Oh, I see ... you'd
build it on Mars and then have the Acme Intergalactic Airship Towing
Company move it to Venus and insert it into the proper orbit.
Good plan,Brad. Keep up the fine work.
Ed Conrad wants to talk to you .... something about an ossified brain ....

Dear "snip drivel",
Most certainly not in your backyard, or by way of any of your "snip
drivel" certified friends. It seems your profound nayism and lack of
constructive contributions to this or for that matter of most any
topic is equal to none other than whatever DARPA expects of their
brown-nosed minions. As such, your warm and fuzzy services are no
longer needed, especially since you show no honest signs of being the
least bit qualified or even knowing of those qualified in rigid
airship R&D. Did I miss anything?

Yea, you dumb ****, you didn't answer my question, which is:
Where will you build them and how will you get them into the
atmosphere of Venus. A straight forward question, to which
you obviously do not have an answer, you loon.

Considering the sulphuric content of said atmosphere (minor detail),
what materials of construction were you going to use ?? No generalities
please, since that seems to be your forte.
do you plan to use?? Titanium you say, holy moley, it'll drop like a rock

If I were put in charge, the last kind of folks I'd have on this team
are those continually spouting off with those naysay loaded questions
that usually have nothing whatsoever to do with the R&D phase, such as
where it's going to be built and for those methods of getting this
airship safely deployed below them Venus clouds is entirely another
can of worms, much like yourself.

Since I’m unlike most in Usenet/Groups, whereas I'm not all-knowing
nor otherwise a crack wizard at everything is perhaps why I've merely
posted this topic as a worthy idea, with allowances for design
variations and methods that'll take kindly to the toasty environment
of Venus. Silly me for thinking your supposed expertise and better
numbers would ever help further this topic along.

In case you’re still interested, I'm assuming we'd start at something
of a 1/10th scaled down prototype. However, at 50 km by season of
nighttime is potentially freezing, as well as getting some of that
acidic haze as fallout from those thick clouds, and that's why
cruising at 25 km by night seems likely.

BTW, your comment “Titanium you say, holy moley, it'll drop like a
rock” is proof-positive that you have no idea what airship buoyancy
Venus has to offer. A relatively thin outer shell of titanium is not
a mission killer, although tough and high temperature certified
composites as rated for reentry trauma shouldn’t be all that
unlikely. Why don’t you suggest whatever makes Hagar a happy camper.
. – Brad Guth

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.
. – 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

LIBERATOR wrote in news:60fd3bdd-ede0-4c06-8e82-
:

On May 4, 2:31*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 publishe
d
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.
. – Brad Guth

Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk or
www.disclosureproject.org


Hey Libby! How's thngs at the Bates motel?


Bertie

In article ,
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

LIBERATOR wrote in news:60fd3bdd-ede0-4c06-8e82-
:

On May 4, 2:31*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 publishe
d
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.
. – Brad Guth

Brad what did you think of that "Disclosure Project"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk or
www.disclosureproject.org


Hey Libby! How's thngs at the Bates motel?

does this havce anything to do withg the late great bodes sunspot

arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple