Article View: sci.space.history
Article #481Re: 3 knockdown arguments against human caused Global warming
From: bradguth
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:14
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:14
164 lines
10354 bytes
10354 bytes
Besides those of us ignoring that Earth has been getting summarily GW traumatised by our very own massive and nearby salty old moon, it seems we have another ongoing tit for tat with elective space missions, as for those specifically intended for accommodating us humans, those two foremost options being of going for Mars or Venus. Going for Venus instead of Mars need not be an all or nothing investment, and it's most certainly not nearly as lethal and/or as horrifically spendy as per going after Mars. Utilizing the likes of space habitat POOFs at VL2 is quite doable, as well within specs of what those nifty space depot structures are capable of accomplishing at much less cost than anything ISS/ESS, especially when Russian or Chinese launched and deployed, although India and a few others should also be within the game plan. A most basic data search for 'Bigelow' or 'POOF' should have accomplished the trick as of years ago. As for otherwise I might have to ask of those in doubt; which planet other than Earth did you folks say you were from? Much like the good sorts of Earth science that can easily if not best obtained from our moon's L1, Venus L2 is perhaps offering us even better Earth science, as to understanding our ongoing GW fiasco and of so much more. In speaking on behalf of utilizing VL2, I've also had to ask of others; what's giving you folks the impression of our having to relocate such an amount of mass? > The Ghost In The Machine: > 6.5 billion people, of course. Did you not want to save humanity? :-) Humanity has summarily screwed itself and of its frail environment in more horrific ways than either of us can count, plus we now have such a warm and fuzzy resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) as our born-again pagan God, to thank for bringing us that much closer to WWIII, and we're so much better off at making soot than making scientific headway. So, there may not be all that many souls within our badly failing environment that'll remain to salvage. However, VL2 is just representing the best go-between, as a viable science platform or space depot/gateway (potty rest-stop along the way to Venus, sort of speak). > The Ghost In The Machine: > What exactly is your objective here? Venus L2(VL2) is simply cool enough for hosting a nifty community of those Bigelow POOFs, or whatever else you'd care to efficiently park within that cool zone, and that's simply way better off than anything ISS/ESS, or of most anything other than what my LSE-CM/ISS has to offer. The objective of VL2 is clearly scientific, and it's also offering by far the most cost effective and viable interplanetary worthy alternative in town. Venus is still the one and only known planet that has more of whatever it takes for sustaining intelligent other life, including on behalf of those few of us that are not totally snookered and thus dumbfounded past the point of no return. - This following tidbit is what I've been having to share with a few others that are hell bent upon Mars, so it's not as such intended as for putting the likes of yourself down unless you too believe Mars is our one and only next pitstop. Unless Earth or Mars are derived from somewhere other (the same being said of our moon and Venus), there's simply insufficient Mars salt to behold, and yet the ongoing investments into further exploring Mars isn't in any way worthy of the past or ongoing efforts, at least not for other than robust and clearly rad-hard robotics that couldn't all that likely survive upon our somewhat salty and otherwise naked moon that's causing so much GW trauma to our badly failing environment. Usenet astronomy, physics and all sorts of related science remains deathly afraid of their own MIB enforced status quo. It's clearly all about the money, and of their otherwise having to somehow stick everything within their Old Testament cultism, or else. ESA's Venus EXPRESS mission is clearly having to operate in taboo/nondisclosure mode, all because of their findings that simply do not support the 100% greenhouse or bust policy, and otherwise most likely causing a greater degree of boat rocking from whatever their PFS instrument readings are having to say, as only adding further insult to the ongoing injury as caused by way of all those status quo lies we've been told about Venus. As I've had to stipulate upon the obvious from the very get-go; Mars is only a 100% butt kicking go if whatever ongoing cost isn't a factor, if decades of R&D plus mission time isn't a factor, if your having to bring damn near everything imaginable along for the spendy and potentially lethal to/from ride isn't a factor, if your not having rad-hard DNA isn't a factor any more so than your not having half a village idiot's brain isn't a factor. Otherwise, much like our physically dark and reactive nasty moon, Mars is best suited for those robust little rad-hard robots, that can if need be take on loads of cosmic energy plus whatever direct meteorite hits and somewhat keep right on ticking after thawing out each subfrozen to death night, whereas we humans of frail DNA would need to pack along a rather substantial cache of our banked bone marrow, and lots of ductape. Otherwise, for a fat-waverider of an airship cruising above the bulk of those acidic Venusian clouds, whereas it's still unavoidably made solar warm by day, but otherwise becomes seriously a wee bit extra cold by night, offering a rather good thermal difference to behold of 190°C, is why Venus gets so technically doable. http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Venus_Express/SEMANY808BE_0.html Higher in the atmosphere, above 110 kilometres, the mysteries continue. In the higher atmosphere of a planet as close to the Sun as Venus, why do we measure temperatures as low as 30 °C on the day side, and even -160 °C on the night side? "At around 60 kilometres altitude is a very thick cloud layer - a 20 kilometre-deep blanket surrounding the planet." By which also means there's more than a few teratonnes worth of good old fresh h2o available to easily extract, not to mention your having all of the local renewable energy that you could possibly need as for making that easily extracted h2o into the likes of h2o2 if need be. Somewhat near the bottom (46+ km) zone of that robust Venus cloud deck is also a rather nifty layer of S8 solids. Once situated well enough below the S8 layer (say operating below 35 km by day and perhaps 25 km by night) is where it gets much calmer and unavoidably warmer as headed towards that geothermally active deck, a Venusian surface that's emitting 20 some odd watts/m2 (emitting at least 256 fold greater thermal energy than Earth's surface). Of course, not each and every m2 is every bit as hot or as cool as any other, and of surface elevations do exist where you could have a nighttime surface environment of something less than 600 K, whereas many other active zones of lava, mud ponds or of mud flows, or otherwise of those pesky geothermal forced gas vents are most certainly more than smoking hot spots to keep your distance from. There's nothing that's technically all that insurmountable about Venus, and thank God there's locally such an available cache of mucho/ spare and otherwise 100% renewable energy to burn (sort of speak). With said available energy at thy disposal (of which obviously need not be imported), there's almost nothing that can't be accommodated, including while on the fly of utilizing that composite rigid airship, or that of processing CO2-->CO/O2. Of course, the usual mainstream box of status quo thinking, of what's mostly faith-based naysayism, gets you nowhere. Much like the ESA Venus EXPRESS mission's robust PFS instrument, the composite rigid airship alternative is 100% doable within existing and thus known technology. Its size doesn't actually matter, whereas with applications of micro electronics means that such a composite airship could be made extremely small (within as little as one cubic meter, or at most a few meters worth of LOA), or because of the available buoyancy and 90.5% gravity means that such a nifty composite airship could otherwise become 10 fold larger than anything accomplished upon Earth, as well as hauling 70 fold as much payload per m3. Obviously you and others of your kind don't likely grasp nor otherwise comprehend the most basic terminology meaning of "composite", or that of being "rigid", or the matter of fact being that such an airship would be operating as though efficiently within nearly a 10% density of water that's actually made better by way of that buoyancy medium being compeised mostly of clean and dry co2, which by the way is an extremely easy element to keep outside of this Venusian configured airship. - Brad Guth
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1174418049.152611.8460@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mailReferences:
<1174238426.195189.199280@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: 107d29,13a500f8207a426 X-Google-Thread: f74ae,13a500f8207a426 X-Google-Thread: 10b271,13a500f8207a426 X-Google-Thread: 102f53,13a500f8207a426 X-Google-Attributes: gid107d29,gidf74ae,gid10b271,gid102f53,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: bradguth@gmail.com Newsgroups: sci.space.history,sci.astro,sci.physics,cam.misc Subject: Re: 3 knockdown arguments against human caused Global warming Date: 20 Mar 2007 12:14:09 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 165 Message-ID: <1174418049.152611.8460@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> References: <1174238426.195189.199280@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.91.99.202 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1174418050 12363 127.0.0.1 (20 Mar 2007 19:14:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 19:14:10 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <1174238426.195189.199280@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; MSN 2.5; Windows 98; T312461),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.91.99.202; posting-account=zEXP4w0AAAAJ5s7atsfc5JlL--hpDELy