Planet to planet, of interplanetary communications is simply not of rocket science, of no longer all that complicated (especially when we're this freaking close). It's certainly no longer of any mystery science nor nearly of any science at all, I mean, exactly how difficult is it, for any number of sighted species being stimulated by light, as to being essentially provoked by what they see, then as for a few of those species being capable of returning a reciprocal flash or beacon of similar light (perhaps as a warning to either stand off or else)?
Unlike our having to transmit a significant beam from the relatively bright (daylight/Earthshine) side of Earth, whereas we might require a mercury spiked CO2 laser cannon, such as the Boeing/TRW Phantom Works ABL modified or of a much lesser alternative (such as any prototype will do quite nicely), as such we're not even talking about their having to create all that much return illumination as originating from the Venus dark side (especially if that's created from above those terrific clouds), as otherwise these nighttime clouds are at least 10% transparent to the near-UV spectrum and more than likely 25% transparent to a specific wavelength of 425~450 nm, yet they remain as nearly black to our observations, other then being slightly illuminated by Earthshine, Venus surface nighttime is (duh) humanly dark as hell.
Therefore, a good perception or sensitivity to that of any artificially created illumination, that was intended as returning a reply from Venus is simply not about creating all that much light throughput on their part, such as would easily be detected by any number of our space platform instruments and/or as detected by a number of Earth based telescopes. So, since I'm not the "all-knowing" wizard of things Venus nor of lasers or astronomy, if you can help specify upon what that cloud top illumination might have to become, in terms of uw/m2 or lumens or of candela/m2, in such that a good instrument like TRACE, or better yet Hubble, would sufficiently detect an illumination differential (a packet or beacon). For that sort of assistance, I'll not only post credits in your name but see that you are highly compensated, as some day this discovery is going to be worth a buck or two.
As I've stipulated upon many occasions, initially we're not really looking at Venus for their sending and/or obtaining any significant binary throughput, although I believe a bite/second would certainly more than qualify as "first contact". Hells bells, I'd even accept a lousy bite per minute as "proof positive".
My critics have often stipulated (in addition as to my being the village idiot) that we must first understand something of the intelligence of others before we bother with attempting communications, such as do they have radio. I actually do not think so, unless that's referring to an understanding of the rather pathetic lack of intelligence represented by those opposing this endeavor (as that part I'd understand). As otherwise compared to anything as pathetic and inefficient as radio, whereas receiving and subsequently emitting light is not only entirely universal to just about every recorded species, I'm thinking this is especially efficient as for Venus and of their having to survive within it's terrific greenhouse season of night, where generating such light seems somewhat like a rather fundamental contribution of sustaining evolution, as in being rather essential for ones survival, just not normally requiring of the intensity that we might have been looking for, nor therefore capable of our technology detecting such amounts if that were of a subdued level of life essential illumination, especially if originating as coming off their surface would simply not have created a sufficient light show for those of our totally certified braille astronomers.
At this point, I'm not even certain most of those official image interpreters within and working on behalf of NASA could detect their own white cane if it were headed directly up where the sun don't shine. We already know that the image interpreters for our crack NSA/DoD can't tell the difference between a stash of cumquats or a pumpkin and that of a WMD.
In retrospect to all of this opportunity of discovering other life NOT as we may know it, the official response has been truly dismal and, of the vast bulk of their tightly knit collective community of NASA moderated published works and subsequently of textbooks created by those all-knowing wizards and/or Borgs of space research and exploration, where they're persisting in claiming that it's simply too damn hot and nasty, you know, so why bother looking for life on Venus. I realize I said this before but; how pathetically piss poor and/or Borg like are these diehard pro-NASA fools anyway?
Of course I'm thinking (always a bad sign), why limit a surviving species to their surface and of furthermore, restricted to the fully UV exposed daytime, especially when the science and laws of physics clearly stipulate they should have been able to at least clime towards much higher ground as well as for making good utilization of the available natural energies, that's including what it takes to fly, as within rigid airships and, as such being entirely capable of exceeding in elevation to cruising slightly above those cooler nighttime clouds. In which case there's damn little two-way (duplex) illumination to be required, especially from our vantage point of our viewing against their pitch black background of those terrifically thick nighttime clouds of Venus, only obscured by a slight bit of starshine and of Earthshine illuminating those clouds by a relatively constant (CW) influx value of perhaps 0.1 mw/m2 or 0.0001 lux. It seems rather simplistic for adding as little as .01 mw (10 uw/m2) onto any given area of clouds, especially if that's of a spectrum not similar to the starlight and/or Earthshine that will more than likely become detectable, especially so if there's any of those superior nocturnal eyes looking directly back at Earth, as then 1^-6 lux as any visual illumination differential being directly viewed ott to be perceived by a nocturnal sensitive eye and, of all those millions of photons being intercepted and subsequently interpreted by a visual cortex as for being obviously of more likely artificial than not.
I've learned that Earths' cloud cover diminishes the influx of star light by roughly 90%. In other words 10% of starshine manages to filter its way through an overcast sky, even though our ozone and other atmospheric qualities have greatly diminished the overall throughput of the UV spectrum, whereas all of 1% of the entire UV spectrum still manages to get all the way through. Whereas the Venus cloud cover (lacking in ozone or at least there's damn little of it) my in fact be a whole lot thicker, though its transparency to UV is actually quite good, where I'm speculating that near-UV (425~450 nm) of 25% and perhaps of the upper UV/a (350~400 nm) might even reach greater throughput.
Taken out of context from a 1991 reconnaissance reference source; "I am less sure how useful the HST would be for imaging the nighttime Earth (by man-made light and starlight)," being that with respect to HST having been reported that a 100-watt lightbulb from 300km up is at least a 6th magnitude (1^-8 lux); where this is supposedly too bright for the most sensitive aspects of HST to image. "On the whole, it wouldn't work out very well." Obviously this sort of HST reference clearly qualifies that a mere 100 watt source (say if that were illuminating a km2 would = 1 uw/m2) as viewed from Hubble should be something easily detected against the otherwise pitch black Venus nighttime. Obviously that's using a farly long scan or exposure dwell, whereas TRACE isn't nearly as CCD sensitive but otherwise capable of taking an image scan of a few ms to minutes worth if need be, thus certainly it'll be capable of detecting if a full kw were illuminating a km2 (10 uw/m2), especially if the illumination were of CO2/xenon format which provides at least 100 unfocused lumen/watt, of which a full kw = 1 mlm/m2 and, if TRACE can't manage to see that, then it's blind as a bat.
Since free-space diminishes light very little and, if that 100 watt lightbulb as a source is "TOO bright" for Hubble, then multiplying out the FOV for that target area being 1600 X 1600 km (instead of the 16 X 16 meters), that's only 100^6 times greater coverage, where perhaps that same 100 watt lightbulb could be safely detected with the most recent CCD improvements and, most certainly the 100^6 cd beam which I have previously stipulated as being easily obtainable as a commercial xenon focused lamp/fixture should become damn near lethal to Hubble but certainly not TRACE.
I know that the latest round of CCD upgrades deliver a far greater degree of illumination range or contrast and, I certainly know that Hubble has imaged upon Earth's artificially illuminated nighttime as well as it's fully solar saturated day and of the moon, so obviously we've been lied to in the past as well as likely upon whatever the current performance capability is. As another worthy example of our official "disinformation"; our shuttle based SAR imaging of Earth was reported as being not 1/20th the results of what the German team had to offer from the very same experiment. I guess our government thinks if we're all sufficiently stupid enough to believe we landed man on the moon, then we're equally stupid (especially if you're one of those snookered NASA Senate Appropriations sorts) to believe almost anything our government wants.
Regarding ET intelligence; This is about detecting but one reciprocal flash or beacon "first contact"?
Obviously it would be damn nice to exchange fully GFI binary packets right off the bat, those which our existing software can make heads or lizard tails out of.
In place of such a first-off GFI exchange of whatever potential smut, apparently unlike SETI, I would settle for just that solitary reciprocal flash or beacon. Then in whatever amount of time (not all that much I would think), we would either learn/teach each others code or, perhaps settle upon an all new quantum binary format, that which is more inter-species supportive as well as utilizing the spectrum throughput to the greater extent possible.
I recall mentioning, that on a planet such as Venus, as existing in that pitch black dungeon of their season of nighttime, that a nocturnal type would likely have evolved, as to be obtaining their magnitude 5 or better visual sensitivity performance, obviously that's in relationship to whatever you and I have to work with. I've been told it takes 10 photons per 100 ms before a good sighted human can detect any perceptible (550 nm) light (in my case that's more likely a requirement of 100 photons per 100 ms as perhaps representing a bit more realistic or typical base measurement). Thereby, a magnitude 5 should place that nocturnal sensitivity at something much less than one photon per 100 ms (I've been wondering; is there such a thing as half or quarter photon or how about biological/neural detection of those same photons in but 1 ms?).
My continuing thoughts are; Should a good nocturnal vision perceive but 1 photon per 1 ms, as even that would certainly represent a fairly good amount of faint baud rate that could be perceived by that naked lizard eye. Obviously the sorts of sensitive CCD's would way outperform that nocturnal eye however, on Venus there may not have existed the need for developing such technology, especially if such offered little if anything towards salvaging your sorry ass, as how in hell is any CCD going to keep your butt or your beer cool and/or as for any prospect of extracting O2 and/or H2O from that truly nasty environment. On Earth; that analogy would be somewhat like our most northern Eskimo's working hard at inventing a refrigerator, then having to utilize nearly all of their precious resources just to run the damn thing, I mean, what's the freaking point of applied technology, unless of course, as an Eskimo you wanted to keep food a whole lot warmer then it is outside?
If a 0.002 degree laser beam (1 milliradian) from that Boeing/TRW cannon offers a 50^6km target zone/area of 2.4^12 m2 and, if that originating source happened to be accomplished by a 10^6 watt laser cannon and furthermore, if that transmission were accomplishing a relatively pathetic delivery of a mere 1.5^6 cd/watt, that's a whopping 1.5^12 cd, or 1.6 cd/m2. Actually a 0.01 degree (5 milliradian) format might be for the best and safest, as such a delivery could be viewed by nearly the entire nighttime side of their planet, still at sufficient photon levels as to be realized as being of artificial as viewed from the surface. Obviously once contact is established, then a narrower beam and of less power level would be required, much lesser yet if those receiving Earth's transmissions were those cruising above their nighttime clouds, as I believe this is not only possible but entirely most likely, since I've more then proven the accessibility of obtaining through vacuum distillation nearly any amount of H2O, thus obtaining volumes of H2 becomes a realistic buoyancy factor of 65+kg/m3, that's certainly physically capable of placing rigid astronomy configured airships above those cool nighttime clouds.
At the target range of 50^6 km;@5 milliradian created illuminated area = 59811490.47 km2 (59.8^12 m2)
Analogy time again; if we had the similar advantage of a crystal clear CO2 surround as our ocean of atmosphere and, still having technical access to our H2O (even though our existing wet oceans and all other surface water had long ago migrated into those now acidic greenhouse clouds surrounding our planet), then obviously we too would have been into rigid airships because, that's just the absolute best ever ticket (especially if one discovered [presumably out of necessity] how to go about converting and then burning off that CO2 as CO/O2). Unfortunately, because our world rotates so fast, staying cool as for remaining in the relief of any nighttime season would not be possible, unless our airships were of supersonic class, where obviously for Venus this is a non issue (lots of time to settle in for the night and eventually migrate upon sunrise to your alternate sunset camp.
Of creating 1.6 cd/m2, as such illuminating a sufficient worth of Venus cloud and, if a mere 10% of that accomplishment plus additional divergence or spread were to become viewed from below those clouds, that's still offering 0.1 cd/m2. At any lesser divergence of 0.001 degree (0.5 milliradian), where that laser beam is targeting a mere 0.6^12 m2, that's obviously also creating 4 times the intensity pr m2, however at just 1/4th the zone coverage and therefor, if we don't carfully realize the correct target area, we could be communicating to a bunch of seriously hot Venus terrain rocks, instead of upon those capable of viewing such a light show happening in their clouds over the township of GUTH Venus. Also worth noting is by viewing through all that crystal clear CO2, as looking up at the clouds that are being illuminated some 25+km above, would likely have increased that initial top-side illuminated zone to a spread of 10% to 25% more as viewed from below.
I believe I've mentioned that a well evolved human eye/brain can be aroused by an illumination that's as faint as delivered at 1^-4 cd/m2 (say that's perceiving at a rate of at least 10 photons/100 ms).
A truly dim star might be acquired @0.001 lux (.01 lux is perhaps more likely in my case)
(1E-4 Nit) 1^-4 cd/m2 (say that's being perceived at 10 photons/100 ms or 100 photons/sec)
Well folks, I believe that Boeing/TRW laser cannon is capable of saturating those clouds with 1000 times greater illumination (that level should be damn near blinding to most any nocturnal having that magnitude 5 advantage) and, a 0.01 degree (5 milliradian) beam would still offer whatever it takes as to being detected. If I would have to guess, if we start seeing really big Venus lizard folks wearing black sunglasses and using a white cane (perhaps even a guide lizard dog), we'll certainly know that they've been looking at Earth from above those clouds during our laser beaming (I'm wondering what their penalty or retaliation is going to be for our blinding another lizard).
Back into regarding Hubble, as again from that 1991 reconnaissance reference source;
"The HST instruments don't seem to me to be well-suited to military imaging. The most obvious choice would be the wide-field/planetary camera. The current WF/PC (it will be the first instrument to be replaced) has two imaging modes: in one, the field of view on the ground would be 232 meters on a side, with a pixel size of 0.15 meters. In the other, field of view would be 100m with a pixel size of 0.06 meters.  Whether these would be useful would depend on the exact mission, but I certainly can't think of any military missions being well-served by an image covering such a small area. (The other imaging instrument, the faint-object camera, would have a field of view 16 meters on a side with pixels covering 3cm.)"
OK folks, that's of Hubble's performance as of 1991 (obviously pre upgrades).
That of the original "faint-object camera" offering that 16 X 16 meter patch of Earth is a factual 0.003 degree FOV or 10.8 arcseconds. That's not all bad for pre 1991. That was likely a 512 chip which I believe has been upgraded with a 1024 or better and a 7 arcsecond or better FOV (even that aspect could be public and not of the true NSA resolution potential) and, still understanding that we're talking raw pixel and not of the PhotoShop 10X, that which brings us down to far less then nightvision news print. So what if it's not fast scan, so what's the big deal? At this point we obviously need to be looking for just the mere existence of any illumination event or time exposure accumulation of illuminations, that which should only be there if there's lizard folks attempting to reply.
In spite of all I've delivered, it seems the vast majority of folks out there (speaking of Earth, speaking of the pro-NASA Borg collective) are still bashing away at every aspect of what's possible, calling themselves honourable and moral researchers and honest scientist that have been either flat out lying and/or knowingly proliferating upon the lies and intentions of others and, that's with damn few exceptions, sucking up to the cash cow utters of whatever they can milk out of the snookered taxpayers has become the sport of the day, screw whatever carnage.
Good grief! It's certainly become little wonder why America is being attacked, as if I keep receiving all this sort of negative whining and of continued disinformation to boot, perhaps it's understandably why others are simply trying to do the world a big ass favor by putting all of us nice cold-war perpetrating folks out of our pathetic misery. Seems of what's possible and even of the more likely truth doesn't much matter, just as obviously truthful history and thus humanity doesn't seem to matter to those of our NASA/NSA/DoD hawks (as they keep saying and even publishing one thing and, then as we discover after the fact, they've been doing just the opposit), as though opportunity for gathering their prey and the nearly unlimited funding as to supporting their cold-war intentions (focused upon global energy and thereby economic domination) is all that matters. I'm beginning to think our nasty NSA/DoD somehow managed to import some of Hitler's DNA and, have been cloning away ever since, then having been utilizing NASA as their personal cloak.