Re: Terraforming Venus is a bad idea, though not impossible
- From: "Brad Guth" <bradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:10:25 +0000 (UTC)
"steve" <stephen.colbourne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1169703853.513656.149690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What kind of anti-physics and/or naysay fool are you trying to be?
Venus is NOT purely greenhouse hot, and that's as of old but replicated
science that obviously you and others of your kind have obviously
excluded. Why is that?
It may take many years but we should be able to live on VenusNot that a massive solar shade isn't technically doable. However, with
eventually.
unlimited energy that's easily available while on the Venus deck, as of
more than a decade ago we could have been established on Venus, or at
the very least robotically on the deck and otherwise situated within our
cozy POOF space station depot at VL2, and all of that's w/o any stinking
solar shade that'll demand a good century and trillions upon trillions
of hard earned loot in order to deploy and sustain such in the first
place (seems a waste since the sun isn't hardly at fault to begin with).
Why are you and others of your kind into excluding the well known and
replicated science about Venus?
As you all say, it might be easier to colonize the clouds first butWhom is "you all"? (it's not me or of anyone that I know of)
there are advantages of being on the surface.
A composite rigid airship of nearly any size is doable, whereas cruising
above them cool acidic clouds is technically in the cards, although
cruising best and a touch retrograde between 25 and 35 km off the
geothermally toasty deck seems a whole lot better notion. Landing the
composite rigid airship seems also perfectly within the realm of what
applied technology should manage without busting the bank or getting
yourself roasted or otherwise traumatised on the spot.
The consequences of having ignored Venus are more than off-world
consequential. Venus isn't all that insurmountable as we've been told,
whereas instead of purely local evolved life there's a strong
possibility of ETs having a full run of access. Of course, we could
have been a few of those ETs as of more than a decade ago if it weren't
for all that we'd been doing to ourselves.
Earth's environment actually has an external peak solar energy spectrum
of nearly 2100 J/m2 at 470 nm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MODIS_ATM_solar_irradiance.jpg
This makes the same 470 nm peak spectrum arriving at those highly
reflective clouds of Venus worth 4000 J/m2, which is actually within a
good opacity range of what the cloudy Venusian atmospheric transmittance
has to offer, that has filtered and shifted the surface illumination by
roughly better than 50 nm towards the UV, thus differing from what our
terrestrial peak terrestrial illumination spectrum has to offer, which
is actually of good environmental news if you'd intended to establish a
healthy anti-greenhouse configured habitat on Venus for growing whatever
(most plants and a great deal of other life as we know it tends to favor
the violet/near-UV and UV/a spectrum).
PFS science as pertaining to what's penatrating through the Venusian
atmosphere and thereby offering a better understanding as to its
spectrum opacity is actually damn good science, better yet if only their
latest PFS instrument was being allowed to function on behalf of the
Venus Express mission, because that instrument alone would have
seriously nailed the thermal energy imbalance that's clearly running in
surplus of what's clearly derived from the ground up, whereas the PFS
resolution could have most reasonably mapped out those multiple hot
spots of active lava, mud flows and gas ventings.
http://www.dlr.de/os/forschung/projekte/venuspfs/index/pfs.html
http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm
"The increasingly orange color is due to rayleigh scattering by the
thick atmosphere, and possibly an additional unknown blue-absorbing gas
component. Brightness is normalized. The text color for these web pages
was chosen to approximate the Venera-11 sky color."
Other than the orchestrated exclusions of hard scientific evidence
that's replicated, such as having been pointed out by John Ackerman,
there's nothing the least bit unknown about a substantial layer of S8
reacting/filtering and otherwise what via rayleigh scattering of solar
energy exactly as it should be doing, nor is it unknown as to that of
any number of geothermally forced elements that by rights should coexist
within that mostly CO2 atmosphere of such a newish planetology phase of
including such multiple gas components. Enlarge and take notice as to
how 37.7 km and 48.6 km are offering less than half the solar IR
spectrum getting through them thick clouds, and yet while on the deck
there's lots of spare IR and off-scale FIR to behold. Gee whiz, it's as
though the planet itself is physically/geothermally hot, as derived from
the inside out, none the less.
I and others will gladly say this again; Venus is no GREENHOUSE driven
planet by way of any known science that includes the regular laws of
physics and of planetology that's simply newish compared to that of
Earth, and otherwise via the replicated science of others that more than
proves the environment has been getting contributed to and unavoidably
roasted from the inside out, along with whatever solar influx that's
simply getting a free ride and thereby adding insult to that otherwise
geothermally traumatised environment.
The notion that "the planet Venus was born out of Jupiter" isn't of what
I'd agree to, whereas I'm more leaning towards the Sirius Oort cloud as
being a more likely realm of natural evolution of where the planet Venus
as having sufficient iron mass, and quite possibly the likes of our
originally icy and salty moon may have been derived from that sort of
complex interstellar exchange if not simply forced out of our own Oort
cloud. Seems the sheer mass of Jupiter and of it's thick atmosphere
would have represented a one-way ticket of whatever touches that
physical realm is pretty much a goner in much the same as anything
trying to get past our sun by way of using the solar atmosphere isn't
likely to survive that encounter unless we're talking of sufficient
velocity and perhaps mostly titanium and ceramic composites. And, thus
far there's no sign of any past Martian life to behold as having been
theorized as having migrated to Earth as interpreted by John Ackerman
(the Bible's mention of the Elohim simply isn't an old enough record for
having supported that degree of analogy), which doesn't in any way
disqualify his ongoing honest interpretations of the best available
science that's pertaining to Venus.
However, there's no question as to the mainstream skewed via Old
Testament intentions and of their subsequent faith based motivations of
their modern science along with all of their hocus-pocus conditional
laws of physics as having been focused upon delivering their scientific
ruse/sting, of having thus far hyped and perpetrated their infomercial
spewed notions as to the greenhouse extent that's supposedly in charge
of their thermally balanced version of Venus. Of course, much the same
could be said about our unusually taboo/nondisclosure rated moon. So,
why all the original and ongoing lies?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: ...The US Should BOMB Iranian Oil Facilities
- Next by Date: Re: ...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???
- Previous by thread: Re: Terraforming Venus is a bad idea, though not impossible
- Next by thread: Re: ...White House "Rump Group" created the Vision...who were they???
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
