I was recently asked of what's there to being so moral about Venus or otherwise immoral about anything NASA, especially about anything that's opposing Venus (especially when opposing Venus seems like the only right thing to do).

Need you have asked;

When I view upon others burning money (especially our money) and/or spending it upon illegal drugs or simply excessing/steeling or merely cheating over almost anything, I somehow (apparently unlike so many of my opposing colleges or anti-everything and/or of rejecting anything new peer groups) considered those actions as being immoral (silly me). I however believe it's almost as bad as what a wealthy nation knowingly does with it's wealth and might, by investing perhaps as little as 10% of it's resources which can easily inflict great damage upon others we elect to oppose our will upon, in so much that they might require investing 100% of their resources, thus what we do onto others can easily become an immoral act by merely causing our targeted country or ethnic group into overly investing in their counter measures, or by merely enticing them as to keeping up their end of the "cold-war" tit fot tats or of whatever politically economic war bargain, somewhat sustained at our elected pace as well as focused upon achieving our agenda (Apollo/moon race for example).

As far as for such things being immoral, in as much as that takes away critical funding and typically of their finest human resources away from such items as education, health sciences and ultimately health services, not to mention damaging if not entirely eliminating humanitarian programs across the board. Morally speaking, that's a whole lot of negative impact created and/or imposed solely by the wealthiest of nation upon others, as typically being waged against lesser capable nations which merely hold alternate ideals then ours but, most often having something we want such as energy or of a better hold onto a strategic location that's worth something when applied against another nation.

This is obviously somehow all my misunderstanding, as apparently such blatant wasting of moneys, resources, talents and of subsequently inflicting carnage are not immoral considerations for anything associated with NASA, nor of anyone other associated within or even external to NASA, nor of their partners in crime (NSA/DoD). Perhaps someone ott to tell the Pope about becoming a card carrying NASA club member, especially before those Venus Cathars get wind of anything.

I'm not a religious person nor of any cult other than the founding member of the "village idiot society" (VIS). Never the less, when I see such deliberate waste and irresponsible behavior, especially of the sorts associated with such great carnage and of little if anything to show for it, that's about as immoral as things tend to get. Unfortunately, for my side of the equation, those bodies on the other side offer as much if not more meaning and worth than of those lost from those accomplishing such carnage in the first place, as any fool can kill off other humans (just ask the Pope) and, of what other good could have been accomplished with as little as 10% of those wasted funds is another bloody crime against all of humanity. Just thinking of what 100% of such funds, talents and resources could have accomplished is perhaps considered by my opponents as immoral.

Counteracting open competitiveness through imposing militarily enforced tariffs and even embargoes is hardly fair play, hardly the moral thing for any alpha dog to do onto another and, most often soon establishes the greatest collateral damage and otherwise personal strife among those hard working soles that could generally care less whom has the bigger and baddest bomb in town, as only a bloody fool would ever take and/or promote any preemptive action again another without first receiving a good deal of physical provocation and, that sort of thing simply doesn't happen overnight nor even of months and, certainly not without a good number of tit for tats as in prior physical actions being taken against one another, as angry words alone simply don't count, unless of course we're being lied to by those reporting to us what those angry words were truly representing in the fullest of context, as without the truth, most any ulterior motivated pro-military action politician can twist almost anything into something it's not (most recent example; warlord Bush's WMD fiasco).

Instead of wasting such moneys and presumably human resources, as well as supposedly the valuable talents of those having to act and respond immorally in order to keep their job, those folks ott to be channeled into a somewhat productive contest instead of such counterproductive formulas. As equally, when our government agencies go about wasting their valuable time and of our talents and our resources for achieving greater killing power, or as towards imposing our will upon others, instead of focusing upon obtainable goals and of those having meaning to life as we know it and, not just lining the pockets of those privileged few that contribute a great deal to the re-election process but add little otherwise if anything this world couldn't live without. Unfortunately, another ten trillion dollar 9/11 along with a half decade setback is going to do us in.

Sorry if I didn't say all that just right but, you know what I mean because, if not I'll have to get downright insulting in order to drop things down to your level. And, don't come off all pissy at my re-directing our wealth and resources, as I'm not opposed to enforcement measures, as the last thing this world needs is another warlord going after fictitious WMD's, at least not in my back yard.

I certainly could be dead wrong again but, seems like the days of spend, spend, spend and burn, burn, burn are over. As we've way overspent and otherwise we've burned off all the resources we can get our hands on, in part by looking at distant stars and of exoplanets that are thousands to millions of light years away, as I believe this sort of investment as being a rather ridiculous squandering of valuable resources, as even if we should intercept a specific message from such efforts, it's already way too late and, even if we sent any reply it's equally too dam late for the best talents and resources of whomever we hopefully contacted to salvage our butts. We certainly have no process by which we can safely travel outside of our solar system (can't hardly get ourselves to Mars). So, what exactly is the point in spending such hundreds of billions and of further risking astronaut lives towards exploring what's widely recognized as humanly unobtainable and certainly becoming unaffordable.

Of our moon and of nearby planets such as Mars and Venus, these are quite another issue, especially Venus. Even though we seem to have lacked the manned capability to safely venture through our Van Allen belt zone (1000 km to 70,000 km), only having to further sustain galactic and solar radiation that's considered lethal by any recorded standard for whatever the long range and thereby most likely multi-month to years worth of exposures might become, of which even the nearest of planetary missions may require and of certainly any lunar base camp would surely represent. Today we ott to be capable of launching a sufficiently shielded craft along with a lunar lander that works. ISS to moon travels would make for good mission logistics as well as for accommodating significant numbers of crew members, offering a work force capable of doing the lunar thing while within the radiation shield of Earthshine, so that as sunrise hits the moon like a tonne of radioactive bricks, our crew can be sufficiently sheltered by a sufficiently dense structure comprised of tonnes of lunar rock.

Fortunately, there's all sorts of positive considerations and of most interesting applied physics that'll support that we needed to be situated upon our moon (as of decades ago), with every aspect of such representing an affordable and of reasonably positive scientific worth as well as of significant worth to Earth's humanity. Once folks are delivered to the moon, with the raw lunar materials at hand, sufficient shielding from cosmic and solar radiation established, these folks could be safely accommodated without our having to transport every last tonne from Earth and, that's a darn good thing because, of affecting considerable reduction in artificial CO2 generation into Earth's environment will be another important issue if we expect to keep our greenhouse acceleration to a minimum.

There's even some slim hope of worth for what frozen Mars has to offer, as for one thing there's mega tonnes of thoroughly radiated pure and/or sterile dry-ice and, of some very interesting remains of when Mars was not so damn cold (pre impact devastation era). Of what a darn cleaver nuclear reactor and a delivery scheme that hasn't yet been devised, we could some day (perhaps another decade from now) after investing another 250 billions and for risking all of Earth's known life upon obtaining those potentially lethal Mars microbes, which are not only freeze proof but obviously radiation proof as well, that somehow we turn those hardy mutations into something that's good and wholesome (there's always a first time for everything).

The better of values or bang for the buck is obviously going to come from a planet (any planet) hosting sufficient natural energy reserves along with having a sufficient solar radiation shield that would subsequently allow of whatever managed to evolve into it's surviving without their being radiated to death, as it certainly does any microbe or one of whatever life form little good being on a cooler and thus more human like livable planet if you're being radiated to death (such as on Mars or worse yet on the moon).

Heat is not of any real concern, at least not of the sort existing on Venus. Obviously there are upper limits but, those limits have not yet been achieved for all parts of Venus, not to mention of it's much cooler nighttime clouds and of sufficiently elevated territories such as Istar Terra at 10+km.

True, it's damn humanly hot but, that's only if existing at 1 bar (I'm not talking about any HOOTERS bar). However, because of the ample pressure and of the surrounding of mostly CO2, it's actually not that biologically hot. It's obviously a very dry conduction mode form of heat (none of that nasty IR and thus easily insulated from such heat) and, that crystal clear ocean of CO2 offers a darn good conduction mode heat-sink as for extracting internal heat, especially during their extended season of nighttime, as well as for being elevated is worth something in the range of -10°K/km, where at least to an exoskeletal sort of lizard folk, that's not hot.

BTW; isn't a picture (especially an SAR version) supposed to be worth a thousand words?
https://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm

Consider this; If it's always been so hot and nasty on Venus, then what in hell (Venus that is) constructed that suspension bridge, not to mention a dozen or so bigger and better or at least far more complex things to talk about?

In case you're wondering; There is no Earthly science nor laws of physics that explains such substantial formation patterns as their being anything natural. Duh and good grief, what the hell else is there left to think about?

I realize that observationally speaking, NASA's image interpreters are legally blind, thus accounting for all those dogs and white canes. But really, how can an honest sole stipulate otherwise, especially without their offering one alternate image example of any recorded geology, from any planet (including Earth) that's as complex and proven as being natural. I mean, what's so difficult about doing that, especially if others are so convenced that all is natural and as expected and entirely justified by the known laws of science and physics, then just as I can show multiple SAR class images of Earth that seem to indicate exactly the same pixel way as for depicting what's most likely natural as well as for what's artificial or man made, of those images that look nearly exactly like what has been imaged upon Venus, of either what's equally as natural as well as for what's most likely artificial. I mean, come on guys, if I can do it then you certainly can, as in "put up or shup up".

This is an inside joke, right. Somehow I'm smart and you're dumber than a post for rejecting what's been recorded as being upheld by science and physics as truth, rejected simply because it's not the sort of truth you wanted to hear. For such lost soles I have a number of analogies but, they're all rather insulting and downright degrading to say the least.

Perhaps according to your good book(s), such acts of snookery upon others (the entire world in the case of those Apollo missions), along with wasting hundreds of billions over decades of applied disinformation, plus thoroughly skewing history as well as space science and physics into the nearest toilet, if those issues are not immoral worthy acts nor of the resulting carnage and subsequent revenge tit for tats of being nothing worth morally speaking of, then what can this village idiot possibly have to say that'll alter the destiny of mankind, from entering yet another one of those overflowing toilets, as by now we're assembling an entire latrine array that's chuck full of ENRON/Andersen's, WorldCom's, Bill Gates and Martha Stewart's, not to forget the Pope taking out those Cathars nor of JFK getting in the way of a good cold-war, or how about the USS LIBERTY fiasco that eventually brought us back around to 9/11. Besides flight-800 and shuttle COLUMBIA, what's next; perhaps we'll get ourselves thoroughly nuked by Santa Claws.

I'm certainly not the one that's stipulating that investing huge amounts into research and exploration is immoral, especially if what's being honestly explored as for what's within our reach as having a meaningful goal and, of the risk factor to those of us outside the loop of command are being fairly considered. As even deep space research and limited explorations is certainty going to yield something of value that can be applied to what's humanly obtainable. After all, there are priorities such as improved housing, food, medications, education, law enforcements and so on that certainly must come before we venture ourselves and somewhat risk all that we've got by going out into other worlds. It seems fair and reasonable that we ott to have our house in order before we intrude upon others (especially if we're uninvited).

In dollars and cents or in euro, the amount(s) for that of purely exploratory research upon reasonable conjectures having no other recorded foundation for good reason ott to be limited to 1% and, of that which has good value and/or high promise of obtaining something that's likely beneficial to the majority of Earth's humanity still ott to be limited to an absolute maximum of 10% (that's overall, as in all inclusive of every sole and involved institution and that's not by Arthur Andersen method of accounting), where either of these investments are those knowingly applied instead of their accomplishing what's more than obviously in critical needed of repairs and improvements right here on Earth, as in benefiting the lower 90% of Earth's population and not tailored to improving the lifestyles of the rich and famous, as how many Martha Stewart's, ENRON/Andersen's, WorldCom's and Bill Gates can we afford, not to mention the insatiable appetites of our NSA/DoD cold-war agendas and of the repercussions thereof (like 9/11).