Out of all that's Google/NOVA and DARPA Usenet/newsgroups, apparently
there's not one soul that's air****p technology qualified. Gee whiz,
why am I not the least bit surprised.
* Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
On Jul 30, 10:57 am, BradGuth <bradg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Still not one soul of rigid air****p expertise to behold, or that of
> any applied technology on behalf of robotics or us frail humans
> accompli****ng any such extended Venus mission of 19.5 months (plus
> their return commute should push this one well past 24 months, but not
> likely more than 36 months).
>
> Is this DARPA Usenet/newsgroup snookered and dumbfounded itself past
> the point of no return, or what? (most likely afraid of their own
> shadow, plus whatever those pesky MIB might have to offer)
>
> - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth
>
> On Jul 20, 4:06 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > That's extremely odd, when the all-knowing gods and wise old wizards
> > of these DARPA saturated Usenet/newsgroups have become so unusually
> > dead quiet on any topic the least bit related toVenus. Of course
> > that's only because of what I'd uncovered that even a 5th grader
> > should have figured out as of 8+ years ago, if not a whole lot before
> > then.
>
> > - BradGuthBrad_Guth Brad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > On Jun 12, 5:19 am, BradGuth <bradg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > If rigged air****p robotics isn=92t offering sufficient exploration
ri=
sk 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 ofVenusfor 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
technicall=
y
> > > 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 atVenusL2 would likely still be 100 fold less spendy).
>
> > > TheVenusenvironment 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 in places of negative draft getting drawn down to as low as
> > > 400K (260F).
>
> > > The closer you get to that geothermally hot surface the less
day/nigh=
t
> > > thermal differential you=92ve got to work with. Increasing upon the
> > > operational altitude to 35 km by season of nighttime is almost
humanl=
y
> > > tolerable, although you=92re also getting into that lower acidic
clou=
d
> > > 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/S8 cloud haze to deal with.
>
> > > - BradGuthBrad_Guth Brad.GuthBradGuth
>
> > > 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 polyether etherketone and fiber
> > > > reinforced balloon. Such fiber reinforced composites do exist,
> > > > although an outer skin of something in basic titanium shouldn=92t
b=
e
> > > > 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
th=
an
> > > > 10 m/s, as such wouldn=92t demand but a few KW for managing a good
=
sized
> > > > robotic managed rigid 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
actua=
lly
> > > > fairly calm, kind of dry inert and nice enough and even relatively
=
cool
> > > > because it=92s at such a good deal of altitude away from that
geoth=
ermal
> > > > radiating planet, and otherwise operating within the nighttime
seas=
on,
> > > > and still situated well enough below the bulk of those otherwise
th=
ick
> > > > and perfectly nasty acidic clouds.
>
> > > > Because the inert infrastructure of this rigid air****p doesn=92t
ch=
ange
> > > > per given altitude means that its hauling capacity or usable
payloa=
d is
> > > > capable of becoming downright impressive, getting much better as
on=
e
> > > > operates at lower altitudes, such as below 35 km by season of day
a=
nd
> > > > 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, this has a rather thick outer composite
hull
> > > > that=92s nicely insulative (critical science instrument/components
=
area
> > > > being insulated by R-128 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
ac=
id
> > > > 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
rotata=
ble
> > > > thrusters (two on either forward/aft side for a total boost of 10%
> > > > main engine thrust), that collectively can also be utilized as
forw=
ard/
> > > > reverse motion thrusters. The maximum velocity potential of 100
m/s
> > > > need not be necessary, and certainly not one of those all or
nothin=
g
> > > > 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 (solar elevated to 80~85 km by day) .
>
> > > > This craft is not going to be your average Hindenburg, much less
> > > > flammable or otherwise combustible, although intended for
efficient=
ly
> > > > cruising aboutVenuswhere 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 various inert mass
re=
lated
> > > > 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 added process
=
of
> > > > utilizing that heat at roughly 25+% efficiency for all of the
onboa=
rd
> > > > 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 above that
> > > > 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 terraformVenus, 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
uni=
t.
> > > > Instead, we=92re talking mostly about a fully robotic craft that
re=
ally
> > > > 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
configu=
red
> > > > version that=92s clearly scaled in sufficient volume in order to
su=
it
> > > > 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
regula=
r
> > > > 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
pub=
lished
> > > > 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
ab=
out
> > > > accompli****ng thoseVenu***peditions.
>
> > > >Venu***ploration papers / Geoffrey A. Landis
> > > > http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/papers.html
>
> > > > Evaluation of Long Duration Flight onVenus/ 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
o=
n
> > > > behalf of solar powered and RTG as necessary,
>
> ...
>
> read more =BB
|
