If robotics simply isn=92t offering sufficient exploration risk or
otherwise DARPA/NASA spendy enough, there=92s always a fully manned
mission of the very least 100 fold more spendy, plus their having to
navigate well above the hot geothermal surface of Venus for roughly 18
months before eventually upward exiting and returning to Earth. The
AI/robotic consideration would not only cost at least 100 fold less
than any manned mission, but it also doesn=92t have to ever return to
Earth, and thereby could stay on its mission throughout several 19
month cycles, as well as multiple surface landings becomes technically
doable without risk of harming a single strand of human DNA. So
therefore, a robotic rigid-air****p is actually a good thousand fold
cheaper than any kind of manned mission (perhaps even if POOF City
were set up at Venus L2 would likely still be 100 fold less spendy).
The Venus environment at one of the likely rigid-air****p cruising
altitudes of 25 km is only a bit 500K (440F) toasty warm by season of
day, and otherwise somewhat considerably cooler by season of night,
perhaps drawn down to as low as 400K (260F).
The closer you get to that geothermally hot surface the less day/night
thermal differential you=92ve got to work with. Increasing the
operational altitude to 35 km by season of nighttime is almost humanly
tolerable, although you=92re also getting into that lower acidic cloud
haze. Much above 35 km by season of nighttime you may need to
consider navigating by radar, as well as remain submarine like fully
enclosed within the rigid composite air****p. By season of day should
allow cruising as high as 45 km, although there too is that pesky
acidic cloud haze to deal with.
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
On May 4, 1:31 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Being a little hot, buoyant and having 10% less gravity is actually a
> darn good thing if you were a Venusian air****p, 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=92t be
> excluded for this rigid air****p configuration.
>
> For this topic I have this unusual air****p 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=92t demand but a few kw for managing a good sized
> air****p.
>
> 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 air****p application, and for the most part it=92s actually
> fairly calm, kind of inert nice enough and even relatively cool
> because it=92s 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 air****p doesn=92t 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 otherwise 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 air****p, intended as an extended expedition probe. It=92s
> 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=92s 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 air****p can be rated for 811 K (1000=B0F).
>
> 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 mid****p underbelly
> landing skids (just in case).
>
> Its configuration might incor****ate 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 incor****ated,
> 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=92t 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 ****table CO2-->co/o2 plus heat-exchanging unit.
> Instead, we=92re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that really
> doesn=92t 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=92s 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=92s based entirely upon the regular
> laws of physics, and for the most part using the best available
> science. This doesn=92t mean that I=92d wor****p each and every
published
> word of Landis or from others of his kind, although it does fully
> demonstrate that I=92m not the one and only wise enough individual
> that=92s deductively thinking constructively and thus positively about
> accompli****ng 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/re****ts/2006/TM-2006-214452.pdf
> This paper was for the most part generated long after my having
> insisted that such a mission via aircraft/air****p was technically
> doable, although this Geoffrey and Anthony version focused mostly on
> behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary, whereas such there=92s
> nothing much innovative or all that ground breaking to re****t,
> especially since much of their air****p 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=92m not the least bit opposed to incor****ating viable
> alternatives, or having to share most of the credits with those having
> contributed their honest expertise. In other words, I=92m 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
> ba****ng for all the grief they can muster.
> . =96 Brad Guth
|
