Unlike my staunch and negative about absolutely everything Venus "know-it-all" opponents, I'm still on that need to know learning curve and, I'm wide open for fresh new ideas, by way of all things, openly thinking and believing in a fairly broad assortment of "positives", especially regarding Venus, as where if that should help science and thereby humanity and not just line the pockets of a few practical NSA/DoD jokers, then so be it. After all, being all American or negative against whatever is challenging is all too simple and, we already seem to have an entire world that's chuck full of purely negative sorts, especially regarding documentation about anything Venus and, otherwise we have astronomy and astrophysics types that'll eat their own kind in order to sustain their favorite charity.
For some darn good (positive only) issues, starting us off with Mars examples;
POSITIVES for MARS:
We can certainly learn a great deal more from our exploring whatever is frozen and otherwise radiated to death on Mars.
I've learned that for two good positive reasons, unlike Venus, Mars is not affecting Earth's tectonics, not even when it's aligned with the sun or of any other planets, because first of all, it's positively too small and otherwise it's positively too far away.
In spite of it's rather compact size, there is a solar radiated but otherwise frozen to death forest of sorts and, perhaps even a few remains of whatever survived the enormously cataclysmic impacts that destroyed the other half of Mars, knocking it from it's original solar system home (that which certainly could have been caused by the influx of either Earth and/or Venus) and, even though we already knew that Mars has become cold and simply chuck full of ice, learning that there is even more ice (perhaps even a whole lot of it as dry-ice) than we may ever know what to do with and, of ice that is in places miles thick is surely a good positive thing to know (about ice that is).
In case Earth ever needs a few mega tonnes of said ice, as to offset our global warming, we'll know exactly where to go and get that ice. Of course those ice retrieving efforts will in fact generate at least 50 times their mass in additional trapped artificial CO2 tonnage (actually this could generate as much as 100 times tonnage if one includes the Mars atmosphere, unless we can just sort of fling that Ice towards Earth, whereas the other half of that CO2 gets itself situated back here on Earth as mostly but not entirely from the exhaust emissions of every Mars mission, which is going to be rather seriously increasing our greenhouse). Somehow all this is seemingly being counter productive but, then what does this village idiot know about such things.
But then folks and fellow idiots, if we ever made contact with those having evolved and lived at 96+% CO2, perhaps there's an even better life for others that evolve after our premature deaths from creating too much CO2, at least a whole lot better off for certain CO2 addapted lizard folk looking for an acceptable alternate planet, of which so far our cold and wet Earth is offering nowhere near such desirable levels of CO2, but then a whole lot of my opponents have been and are still working quite diligently upon resolving that issue, in more ways then either you or I can count, as soon Earth will have created enough artificial CO2 and subsequent warmth as to entice those from Venus to come visit, and that's certainly a positively good thing because, then we wont have to to go there. Unfortunately, since our ice caps will have all but melted, there will not be but 1/6th the Earth's surface to live upon and, since lizard folk don't care all that much for oceans (probably because they can't swim) means we humans will have to live on large ships or of whatever floats (perhaps lizard poop floats).
Looking at Mars; We now have super high resolution Mars "wallpaper", as to adorn our otherwise smut occupied computer screens as well as for using up all that expensive printer ink and color toner (damn expensive paper as well). That's obviously a very good and positive thing for companies that produce such printers and then publishers that ultimately produce all those colorful documentary books and eventual televised (NOVA info-commercials on behalf of boosting NASA agendas) extravaganzas, where at this point (post COLUMBIA) they may soon be needing all the positive PR they can get their hands on. Unfortunately, great resolution or not, there is still absolutely no sign whatsoever of there actually being anything the least bit artificial existing on Mars (I mean, why construct any big face if you can otherwise more simply construct a few towers or how about a surface bridge or two because, Mars is definitely a surface sort of planet, without sufficient atmosphere for flatulence to fly), but that's also a very good thing because, all that Mars holds is essentially up for grabs (first come, first served, having none of those pesky native inhabitance, pagan religions nor ethnic humanitarian issues to deal with and best of all, GREENPEACE is nowhere in sight and even better yet, there's absolutely no EPA restrictions upon CO2 emissions).
Placing man/woman and fido on Mars, along with the ability of returning their radiated bodies back to Earth, this should only require those couple of costly decades worth of tiral and errors and perhaps overall another ten or so trillion dollars (one must always pay for the entire meal [total associated internal/external infrastructure of NASA/NSA/DoD hidden agendas] plus a 15% tip and not otherwise just paying for the desert portion of the mere to/from travel package), which is certainly a far better and more popsitive thing to be doing with our limited (ever dwindling) talents, lesser resources and zilch worth of financing then as for otherwise resolving problems back here on Earth (apparently Earth has become a lost cause).
I fully concur, in a very positive way, we can certainly goto Mars some day and, even habitat (somewhat like we do the Antarctic, except unlike Earth and even of Venus, on Mars there's absolutely no free O2 and it's certainly much colder), drill and mine for minerals and gems and even exploit upon those potentially lethal and most likely radiation proof microbes (so far so good, as all of this is entirely positive, a wee bit humanly risky, defiantly expensive as well as vastly time consuming but, what the hell folks, apparently it's not their money and, we have all the time in the world, or of at least what's left of our world).
Once our radiation proof or otherwise near death crew members arrive in Mars orbit, along with a little further investment, say at 25 million bucks per day per person (that's based upon double occupancy and it's certainly not including getting there and back), at least those very rich celebrities can take a walk on Mars (somewhat like we supposedly did upon our more so solar radiated moon) and, thereby achieve something that is obviously essential and only intended for the wealthiest of wealthy nations to achieve (as a highly questionable worth to humanity, sort of like cost-plus financing of the America's cup, but just a few million times more costly, plus being at least two decades worth of talents and resources down the road) and, if this promise doesn't shut those AIDS stricken and otherwise whining and starving poor ass (American sweat-shop) country's up, I guess I don't know what ever will. I mean, why the hell should we waste perfectly good money and wizardly talents upon creating affordable clean energuy, clean drinking water and then whatever sanitation improvements, not to mention medical services, education and safety improvements for our undeserving sweat-shop workers, when we can be having our multi billion dollar beer and pizza on Mars.
Since the planet Mars (again being quite unlike Venus) indicates few if any accessible natural energy signatures and all but 10% of solar PV conversion (few surface locations that ever reach above freezing for brief daylight hours, as even that's mostly at best from roughly 10 AM until late afternoon, maybe all of 8 hours worth of being slightly above 0°C if you're situated near the so called Mars tropics while at -5 km); as otherwise such missions to Mars will likely require that of our taking along sufficient other tonnes of fuels, including a mega tonne of oxygen (O2) plus likely a little nuclear power, so that we can breath and hopefully not otherwise freeze to death and, so that some of that multi-mile thick and mostly dry ice can be melted or evaporated for that of hopefully extracting other deposits of O2 as well as processing upon all that extremely thin and nearly frozen to death atmosphere of mostly CO2, for that primarily of creating the required rocket fuel (CO/O2), that's going to hopefully boost our mission off Mars, with the overall plan (if all goes well) of getting those radiated wizards and their stash of lethal microbes headed back towards Earth (instead of headed for the moon, where such a lethal microbe "safe houses" should actually be situated).
So far so good, of whatever Mars should require in order to produce and supply everything for those missions will natrually be produced and then taken from Earth, all except the nasty CO2 part, as subsequently the required industry polution and CO2 emmissions created by accomplishing each mission (sort of like those heads on Easter Island of which tourist really like to look at) will naturally have to remain right here on Earth, so apparently that's also a darn good thing, at least with each mission that's positively going to be getting rid of a few thousand tonnes of O2 and then likely that'll be adding a hundred times that amount of CO2 into our greenhouse environment (that's opposed to and in addition to any natural CO2 production, of which this planet can't likely cope without inducing further greenhouse environment issues), where I'm thinking this overall Mars mission impact could soon become a mere 10% annual increase or imbalance above the natural global CO2 production and, if to be considering 8 years worth of such missions, that's only a 100% bulk increase in global CO2 levels, which will subsequently have to become fully compensated by all those thirsty and poor sanitation infected sweat-shop workers dying off.
So folks, because we're obviously not emotionally nor biologically ready for the required evolution of our species that would permit our surviving within such high dosage of CO2, nor the technology necessary as for saving our world from the same fate, what we clearly have here is yet another positive win-win situation for our infamous warlord administration, and of their crack teams of warm and fuzzy hearted CO2 producing NASA/NSA/DoD wizards. Global population control via CO2 production and subsequently rising of oceans levels and, if that's insufficient we have our crack Phantom Works 193 nm laser cannon teams that'll gladly finish off whatever's left (the good news is, with only damaged internal DNA, you'll have time to put your personal affects in order before you rot from the inside out).
If I'm to guess; being as positive as I possibly can about all this, I'm not all that certain anymore about what the actual planet of Mars has to offer, besides providing loads of dry ice and of damn thin and cold CO2 and of little else. I realize the positive attributes of our advancing upon space exploration and travel is important, however, as when our Administration was asking for Club NASA to be achieving new methods of obtaining more from less and doing all of that faster; as with any respect as towards "GUTH Venus", exactly how much less costly and faster can one possibly get? We already have all those certified digital images that sufficiently identify multiple artificial considerations and, we most certainly already have loads of CW/pulse capable lasers and/or just xenon beam technology at hand for our establishing binary/packet communications and, even all that along with introducing a VL2 platform plus a Magellan-II class mission we're talking less then 1% of doing anything towards acquiring those lethal Mars microbes (so please tell me again, was our infamous cold-war proliferating Administration and specifically president/warlord Bush just kidding, lying again or what?).
Certainly at this juncture, Mars seems to have become a relatively challenging cause that's being recorded in terrific digital detail color at taxpayer's expense, whereas for Venus, not so much other needs to be researched nor engineered nor staffed, at least not until that Venus L2 mission is being configured and, for that one I've got a few select plans capable of (God forbid) actually delivering a "for profit" expedition/mission, which is something not even remotely rational nor feasible for anything Mars related (I mean, Mars is actually great if you intended to long term freeze/store something [like bin Laden] at a reasonable cost of a mere billion dollars per metric tonne and, that's only if you never wanted to ever retrieve it, as getting it back here might cost us 100 billion per tonne and likely taking years at best effort).
POSITIVES REGARDING OUR MOON:
According to NASA; At any time we can most easily return ourselves to our moon, setup various astronomy and communications camps and even mining sites. Also according to Lord NASA, other nations need not bother with doing lunar surveys or setting foot on that asphalt clumping lunar surface because, we'll certainly do everything for them and, even share those lunar resources at essentially no charge. Aren't we being so nice, especially with respect to regarding absolute avoidance of that nasty lunar surface.
SAR astronomy wise, I believe if the small aperture receiving module were to be situated on the moon (facing Earth), that the magnification factor is rather substantial, replacing the 60 meter receiving tower with the 400,000 km lunar distance and then utilizing a 4096x4096 detector is something like 24^6 better off than the shuttle based imaging of Earth from 225 km that produced 1.5 meter raw resolution. Of course an Earth baste radar transmitter is not only going to offer another thousand fold energy improvement along with better focus by at least another 10 fold if not 100 times improved. But, since I'm no astronomer, I'd guess that sort of non optical (near zero distortion) imaging of perhaps 16 bit depth ott to be worth something, but what do I know, I'm just the village idiot that's seeing a great number of attributes existing on Venus, that look and compute as being more likely artificial than not.
As I've just stated, those lunar camp/instrument sites can and always could have provided for our most exceptional astronomy opportunities, as of decades ago (even if having to remain as purely robotic KECK-III stations), as well as obviously superior towards Earth spying observations (also, a darn good place to be when the next "big one" smacks into Earth, which seems to nearly happen more often then NASA has lately been willing to share, such as from those potentially hundreds of lunar+ sized objects orbiting and/or trailing along with that 12th planet or whatever dead star might soon become a good thing to avoid), perhaps some day after this spectacular event and of whatever's remaining of Earth, NASA is going to unveil to us morons, exactly what their "three monkey plan" was all about.
The modern day cost (Russian style, as otherwise multiply by at least 20) of our getting there and back, is a mere 100 million and, that's "first class" for a sizable crew and passenger load of perhaps 10 or more, plus the per person daily surface expedition expense might initially become as little as one million dollars (future established Russian camp expenditures per individual day might soon dwindle to a mere $1000/day or make that as little as $100,000 per day if that same lunar excursion and camp site were American). All of this is based upon our previously trustworthy track record (those records somewhat temporarily lost due to throwing one too many of those Apollo toga parties) plus the fact that essentially all of the required engineering for accomplishing this task has also been done and furthermore test proven by at least 6 times (naturally all of this lander engineering and test flight documentation has also been temporarily lost as well), thereby somehow proving by pure faith alone, that our lunar lander flight stability issues, extended down-range landing capabilities and all of those safety and even solar flare radiation concerns are simply no longer at issue. Basically, for that of our returning to our moon (according to NASA's standards), there is no new engineering nor technology required. Just by asking those appropriate NASA wizards, there has never been a significant lunar expedition problem that gobs of moneys couldn't resolve and, I'm certain this high degree of confidence level will soon place all of your concerns aside for any future expeditions.
Increasing the mission payload capacity and thereby capability as to delivering and supporting additional teams of Lunar qualified staff (plus whatever wealthy paying passengers), considering the vastly increased launch pay loads supported by Russia these days, further improved mission safety records and of the added pitstop convenience of that not so cheap ISS that keeps falling out of the sky without a boost from each shuttle delivery, where this lunar base camp opportunity is hardly even an engineering feat anymore and, all because of what those Apollo missions supposedly accomplished nearly four decades ago. So, there's positively no reason why not return to our moon, besides, there's all that lunar lander surplus just sitting there, in perfect preservation, all of which should be worth several hundred millions at EBay auction.
Lunar backside developments, especially for VLA type of radar and spectrum astronomy and/or as supporting deep space communications outpost should be another snap (not costing 1% of developing any such capability on or even near Mars), even if including those required L2/L4/L5 relay satellites, of which anything Mars associated would be needing lots more of the same. So, the backside of our moon is another very positive win-win solution as well as being the most easily obtained outpost at the least possible cost because, we've already been there and essentially done all of that on the side facing Earth (at least that's what all of Club NASA's records clearly state).
The moon is simply highly more affordable than anything Mars (by a wide margin of at least 100:1), as well as being most effective for that of establishing lunar satellites:
As having relay satellites established at LL2, LL4 and LL5 would essentially give Earth our first ability of seeing and recording astronomy targets that are a million times further away then anything Hubble can presently see (for that matter we could just for now relocate Hubble to LL2) and/or providing a surface installation capable of 1000 times the resolution capability of what Hubble can currently resolve. If that's not an entirely positive consideration, I don't know what is. As space platforms go, since the moon is certainly highly stable, as for atmospherically, geologically and orbit wise being a whole lot more so valuable than Earth and/or of any man made satellite platform that's even on the drawing boards (never in need of being refueled nor having it's stability gyros replaced).
Actually, for astronomy and future planetary expedition functions, our moon represents only positives, as I can't think of a single negative. Especially with implementing our improved remote power supplies and all other aspects of life support and of robotic systems being so advanced, so much so that any lunar research base camp for hosting KECK-III seems far less complicated and even humanly less dangerous then standing on top of mount Everest.
A new 50 or 60 meter lunar class KECK-III (say 144 segments worth), such a lunar version might weigh in at a mere 300 metric Earth tonnes:
That's merely 50 lunar tonnes, of which could be assembled from as few as 5 missions if somewhat limited to the lunar lander technology at hand (make that 10 missions of being situated on the back side). The lesser of lunar gravity and geological stability, no heavy traffic nor weather disturbances and obviously no atmospheric issues whatsoever. I mean folks, how good does optical or radio astronomy need to get.
We could also create our first and best ever solution as to prison over crowding:
Once the Lunar sub-surface is accessed (perhaps via nuclear blasting) for the frozen water and deeper yet for the core heat, with all those energy differentials (driving Sterling power generators, where actually the +/- 250°F surface environment is nearly ideal for anything sterling) and of subsequent other resources exposed, we can soon develop large facilities that will hold everyone that has been suggesting that those Apollo missions never placed man on the moon (we will not even have to install window or door locks, no guards either). Since there are millions, perhaps soon hundreds of millions of those anti-Apollo types, those lunar facilities might need to be quite large, but that would alleviate a rather significant body of despicable (nasty CO2 generating) soles from Earth and, that's certainly a good thing, as along with perhaps any of those nasty Cathars that escaped the wrath of the Pope can be sent to the moon as well.
Venus is already supposedly smoking hot. However, tempered by a good deal of pressure, not all of those parts are so hot, like those 10+km elevations hosting a few of those nearby 17+km mountains, especially in their extended season of nighttime and within all that thermally conductive CO2 atmosphere (vertical differentials at 4+bar/km), since CO2 is such a darn good thermal conductor, as seriously convection cooling things down at night, all 2900 hours worth. That otherwise regarded as hot CO2 means, nearly all of that atmosphere is not only a whole lot closer to the required process temperature for that of achieving good conversion into CO/O2 as rocket and/or turbine engine fuel (not to mention just for acquiring that breathable O2 element), as that as fuel and oxidiser being capable of delivering an impulse value of up to 280, but then half the job is already accomplished because, it's already established at a fairly good deal of usable pressure/density and somewhat of good purity to boot.
The gradient of O2/CO2 is quite interesting; Situated at 155 km, as it's been reported that it's supposedly 50/50 O2/CO2 at that 155 km and on the surface it's 0.03/96+, Thereby the per/km gradient could be something like 0.32%/km, which should indicate 1.5% at 5 km and 3+% at 10 km. That 1.5% (more likely a somewhat greater percentage at nighttime) may not do the trick for mere humans, however, at 75 bar is actually a fair amount or volume of those O2 molecules, especially if Darwin's evolution improved upon the extraction process and/or if technology permitted a solution boost, such as CO2-->CO/O2. I would suppose, if your sorry life depended upon it, you might just develop something that's going to keep your pathetic existence alive or, as otherwise you're surely dying from a lack of O2 as you're sitting there pondering those phony lunar landing movies because, if we can supposedly place man on the moon and get them back (radiation free), then those same rocket wizards can supposedly figure something out that's going to salvage what's left of your pathetic life. Right, that's the ticket, just sit back and let good old uncle NASA fix everything, as at least they can make you believe they've conquered human space travel (unless sitting aloft in ISS, safely below the significant shield of those Van Allen belts is hardly lunar class space travel).
There's at least four good things about CO2: You can quite easily float rather substantial things in it, derive substantial energy from the vertical differentials of 4+bar/km as well as the 9K/km thermal gradient, then convert any of it into CO/O2 (on the fly sort of speak) and not but least, depend upon the sheer bulk/mass of that dense atmosphere and of those cool clouds as for solar flare shielding (since Venus has none of those nifty Van Allen belts). Sorry, I just lied, as there's a fifth attribute of acquiring H2O from those cool nighttime clouds, extracted such by efficient vacuum distillation, then storing as H2O2 and subsequently extracting upon demand volumes of H2.
Because that CO2 is so available at such good pressure and already toasty (pre-heated) hot, especially hottest nearest the daytime equator surface (more so toasty hot but of even greater pressure within those Venus death valleys), the fundamental functionality of any substantial H2/N2 airship capability has become another done deal (at least science and the known laws of physics stipulates so), as is capability of sustaining cruising attitudes sufficiently near or even above those cool nighttime clouds is also a done deal (at least I and a few others realize upon such potentials, as well as for utilizing mostly CO/O2 as their fuel and oxidizer as to powering fairly large turboprops, perhaps having to toss in a little H2O2 and C12H26 only as necessary for initial start up and perhaps when cruising sufficiently above those clouds, as for their astronomy applications). Seems likely that lizard folk would like to look at the stars and certainly at patheticly cold, wet and stupid old Earth (having way too freaking much O2), as with their naked nocturnal eyes, Earth can be seen having oceans, land mass and large cloud patterns, seeing all of that throughout October/November 2002 without any stinking telescope.
Because CO2 is what it is, and of the buoyancy from that of applying just N2/O2 is rather substantial (introducing H2 is a real kick ass buoyancy boost). An airship comprized of 1/3rd H2 and 2/3 N2/O2 is initially only capable of 36+kg/m2. However, as altitude is obtained, that H2 (H2 buoyancy worth could soon become 60+ kg/m2) could soon displace as much as of 99% total airship volume, obviously the remaining 1% would be comprised of cabin interior displaced with N2/O2, where actually 10% of the the airship volume could easily be allocated as cabin interior (doing the math will deliver the buoyancy gradient per km). What can I say; a hybrid multi-gas airship is simply nothing as crude and limited as anything Earth has to offer, especially as floating in a sea of crystal clear CO2, being of a conservative vessel size offering 22.5^6 m3. Obviously smaller H2O gathering ships would likely exist, as they do seem to be represented by those large objects residing sided by side on that unusually flat and extended platform tarmac consideration. Smaller yet personal transports would likely not have been resolved my the limited imaging resolution, no matters how good the photo software, as for that detection we'll be needing Magellan-II in order to acquire 1 meter/pixel resolution and, of that degree of SAR imaging technology has been something right off the shelf for years, jut not looking at anything Venus.
Because of the available atmospheric pressures and abundance of heat (including thermal differentials) as well as whatever solar IR/UV energy, the process of distilling H2O out of those massive and dense (typically 25+% H2O) clouds is yet another done deal, by that of using a simple vacuum process. Distilling of almost anything (including petrol chemicals) requires perhaps 1% the energy expenditures of what doing such on Earth might require and, certainly that's another entirely positive factor for those lizard folks making a go of it on Venus.
The obvious side benefit of vacuum distilling H2O from those cool nighttime clouds is that of acquiring and/or producing sufficient amounts of H2O2 and then on demand just extracting H2 (obviously rejecting all of that nasty sulphur would be somewhat like we reject salt upon our distilling out pure H2O from saltwater). If some of that H2 were to be applied as towards incredibly good thermal insulation and the remainder as for airship (64 kg/m3) buoyancy considerations, then H2 would obviously represent something that's essentially being contained, as reusable as well as being entirely stable and essentially leak proof by the fact that it would be utilized as insulation barriers and/or held within glass or metallic spheres for airship buoyancy (most often being contained under a slight vacuum instead of pressure as here on Earth), with the surrounding CO2 atmosphere or hull interior being of mostly N2 and at most 5% O2 (more likely 1% O2 would be doing the trick), basically keeping that H2 in thorough check and otherwise, as applied within the airship where those H2 containment spheres would be surrounded by mostly N2 plus what little O2 (as as little as 0.1% O2 for that of accommodating life NOT as we know it can exist on Venus), nearly always N2/O2 (25 kg/m3) maintained at less pressure then the exterior CO2 but at a greater pressure then of the H2. In other words, just about representing the utmost ideal hybrid buoyancy solution possible for steel alloy clad airships and, of those capable of utilizing H2 for lifting as much as 66 kg/m3.
Due to Venus having so many surface and near surface/underground geothermal alternatives (so totally unlike anything of what that seriously radiated dead and frozen Mars has to offer), substantial energy differentials that can be locally derived or tapped into just about anywhere. Even the open storage of certain energy/chemical reserves, such as H2O2 and C12H26 are entirely safe and stable within that hot and pressurized CO2 environment. Those massive reservoirs as indicating dark centers, these could be those containing their resource of H2O in the formula of H2O2 so that (duh) it doesn't so easily boil off (at least not during nighttime).
Don't forget about utilizing those nifty atmospheric differentials as for obtaining a few handy megawatts or perhaps gigawatts of continuous energy, being easily produced from all that atmospheric differential pressure and the massive energy delivered by a mere 6 m/s worth of dense CO2 vertical wind power, like how about a conservative 21+ GW delivered day or night from one kilometer worth of vertical offset and from a 150 meter turbine. Understand that I'm still working on this windpower engineering aspect, so the initial formula may soon be revised as more then likely indicating a whole lot more potential then what I've just stated. Remember also, if any planet ever developed a need for GREENPEACE technologies, Venus surely did so a very long time ago and obviously they had plenty of motivation for their doing just that, creating energy of whatever natural renewable resources that were left.
So far folks, there's not all that much to say that's all that bad about CO2, not even for hot CO2. Especially for Venus, and especially if that CO2 density helps to block those solar flare radiation issues and otherwise affords such natural energy reserves which accommodates their toasty life as a result, as then ask yourself this; what's all the damn fuss over CO2. Just because you and I can't hack the grade, that doesn't mean that evolution failed those Islamic or Cathar lizard folks on Venus. If you wanted to be purely negative, just think of all those other Jewish reptiles having to make their go of it on Mercury, as I can't comprehend how much of anything could have survived that horrific challenge, but then Mercury has since been discovered as having ice caps (go figure; at least whatever is on Venus or Mercury isn't frozen solid and without any natural energy resource alternatives like on Mars).
If one needed a nearly ideal environment and/or incentives for establishing hydroponics, being that you have multiple natural planet and atmospheric energy resources and methods of not only acquiring N2 but also H2 and O2, plus that of constructing bulk or massive structures as having to displace CO2 from their interiors of mostly N2 and a little O2, if that external CO2 environment should offer a sufficient solar radiation blocking quality and of those thick clouds holding onto their H2O were remaining sufficiently UV transparent (say 5%), then certainly one might just develop upon the idea or conclusion of notions that, given the choice of dying or not, that such a greenhouse environment could have had a positive impact upon DNA's evolution and subsequent advanced/focused other learning for applying certain skills, like towards developing indoor agriculture (sort of like establishing an efficient reverse greenhouse, remembering that plants do like heat and CO2, as long as there is a resource of recycled H2O plus sufficient UV and a few nutrients, where in exchange such plant growth would be offering back a little more O2/N2). Such a reverse greenhouse would require a mere 1% of the normal H2O (possibly as that being openly stored and/or transported as in some formula of H2O2) as applied against Earth's open methods of extremely inefficient and thereby H2O wasteful agriculture of growing just about everything and, the crop yield per enclosed acare (given 2900 hours of UV loaded daylight access) would be at least 100 times that of anything openly grown on Earth. That's 100 times as much controlled production from a mere 1% of mostly recycled water (if that's not something entirely positive, then I don't know what is).
Of course on Earth, we're so H2O resourced and O2 overloaded (over oxidized) spoiled, that even if a disaster capable of converting a large percentage of our resources sustaining our O2 production were to create mostly CO2 and, even if this were imminent, most of us would likely do little if anything, other than begging of our government (in this instance NASA/NSA/DoD) into making it all better, which lately has backfired to a great extent and, it's looking like our future of being hit hard by any number of 100+ meter space rocks and/or from that issue of the gravitational wake and/or megatonne worth of debris to be delivered by some 10th or 12th planet could prove out as good examples of how impudent plus arrogant Club NASA has become, as for this sort of event, all the smoke and mirrors in our world isn't going to cut it.
Venus vertical wind turbines of mega watt and even GW class are due once again to the advantages of all that nifty CO2 element; as to the atmospheric differentials of obtaining 4+bar per vertical km. This vertical wind tunnel energy potential makes for nearly any vertical shaft or modified volcanic vent environment as to becoming a worthy resource for any number of megawatt power class turbines, as driven by the continuous pressure offset and thereby added velocity and density of that CO2, as offering some rather substantial pressures (deriving considerable energy conversions from simply hard vertical tunnel and/or venturi winds of perhaps as much as 12 m/s and subsequently of 75+GWH class output). Once again, this is purely a Venus thing, as nothing remotely similar could exist on Mars nor Earth for that matter. To best understand this energy potential, one simply needs to ponder in the way a smart Venus lizard would have to think and, not as to how Homer Simpson thinks.
Once you have accessed such energy options, then you obviously have what it takes for accomplishing those really big air conditioning units; Guess what folks? this one really works quite nicely upon utilizing that CO2 again. In fact, CO2 is a superior thermal conductor plus obviously a darn good gas like working element (far better then freon, except for being environmentally safe and friendly too). The really good news is, your cabins, pods or habitats are surrounded by this stable yet conduction mode CO2, so your air conditioning gas/element does not have to even be recirculated, merely compressed, then heat exchanged, then re-expanded into what we call evaporators and finally as merely being released back to the exterior environment (sort of the ultimate in refrigerant receiver accumulator). Utilizing R-64 (actually I've discovered that R-100 is not any problem and, even R-200 is within our technology base) insulation means that not all that much sustained heat transfer will be needed but (by the way folks, NASA really doesn't want you to know about this but, H2 as a displacement gas makes for a fairly darn good thermal conduction insulator of perhaps R-100 or better per 0.1 meter), if in fact you're burning CO2-->CO/O2, then of whatever energy efficiency is simply not even a factor. Another potentially better yet air conditioning fluid (as for being sealed in or contained and being recirculated like freon) is simply going to be H2O or perhaps even H2O2, as with H2O2 you can easily adjust the percentage of purity to suit the cooling demand and technology at hand and, please try remember, even the most crude airship of N2 buoyancy could easily obtain such fluids from those lower and cool nighttime clouds, then simply vacuum distillation would deliver all the H2O you could possibly use.
I've heard it said that "too much O2 is very bad". Well, there's certainly no surplus of O2 on Venus. What there is however is under considerable pressure and, the apparent O2 gradient is at best .3%/km. So, you obviously have to climb very high before you're getting even close to 1% O2, like 30+km might do that trick. Although, under such pressure, even 0.1% O2 at 5 km is actually quite alot, especially if your evolved nocturnal lizard physiology has developed whatever it takes.
The fact that we as Earth humans have not evolved sufficiently as to figure out how to properly utilize the trapped/secondary energy properties within CO2, as well as that of our requiring something better then 10% O2 (preferably humans like 20% O2 at 1 bar) just in order to badly survive, this is merely proof that this planet Earth and it's life force is not all that old nor mature, which is perhaps a good thing because, that means for at least some of us, we still have a whole lot of room to grow and/or evolve. The few Earthlings that do seem to understand CO2-->CO/O2 potentials are seemingly not in any position to make decisions nor influence others, other then as for Japan that is actually applying this secondary CO/O2 combustion technology (I wonder how Japan and a few other nations like Germany and even Russia got themselves so damn smart?).
Communicating with whomever or whatever on Venus (especially as of this coming "October 2002") is, or at least this should be another laser call as a done deal. This call is essentially a local laser or xenon beam area code, (hello SETI & OSETI) within a mere few light-minutes range (like 2.5 minutes to reach Venus) and well within the current laser/xenon technology of our existing tactical weapons. A 5 watt portable CW laser of 0.5 milliradian or even an array of 10 KW Xenon focused illuminations would become a highly visible signal transmitter as that being viewed upon or observed from the pitch black nighttime side of Venus, especially noticeable as from their massive airship as cruising above those clouds. Even if Venus has no KECK-II situated aloft, we have in our tactical inventory of multi-GW class CW lasers such as the Phantom Works Boeing/TRW laser cannon, that's enough illumination to damn near blind a lizard from 25 million miles (especially for a bugeyed and most likely nocturnal species that's sensitive to IR as well as near UV; as nighttime on Venus is not only 2900 hours worth, but it's certainly become darker then hell under those thick clouds).
I could obviously go on and on about positive Venus issues (perhaps I will, by returning to this page and adding those comments), especially as with regard to having lots of worthy positives as regarding their ample "energy-options" (nearly all of which are missing on Mars and some of which, like vertical atmospheric differentials, don't even effectively exist for Earth) and, considerably more regarding that "massive airship consideration" and of Venus style Air Travel for that of accomplishing their seasonal travels to their sunset territories of Venus but, as you and I should know, NASA has already declared the fates of those Islamic lizard heathens existing on Venus and, NASA/NSA/DoD most certainly know what's best, at least best at thoroughly aggravating some other race capable of their flying large aircraft into tall buildings.
Perhaps until we first discover that our nearest neighbors have no capability nor intentions of ever reaching Earth, let alone physically capable of flying our aircraft into tall buildings, we should remain as nice as we can. For our NSA/DoD, this could prove being somewhat over their heads and unrealistic as to denying their best opportunity as to trying out a few of their newest war toys, so we may need to lock up a few generals and of those Islamic wedding targeting flight crews before things get out of hand again. If these Venus lizards are as tough as I'm thinking they had to become, we may all want to think about changing our religion as well.
What can anyone say or do, that's anything but good as God about NASA.
They have the best of intentions, supposedly never made an intentional mistake (like Apollo-10, removing the asbestos from those Challenger "O" rings nor thermal target practicing upon COLUMBIA were no mistakes) and, as according to their records, damn few other mistakes even when cloaking for hidden NSA/DoD agendas and, if they ever did or were forced into compromising situations, it was purely for the greater good of their divine vision of what mankind needed, or at least that of NSA/DoD's vision.
Working on behalf of NSA/DoD, so as to effectively destroy the USSR, this was obviously a positively good and wholesome thing to be doing (in spite of 9/11), unless you were a USSR member/person, in which case your ass was thoroughly cooked (damn near thermonuclear style at that) but, besides thoroughly bankrupting their economy, that according to our American standards was an entirely good thing, as well as an acceptable risk (according to our latest round of "in your face diplomacy", as we're still on those same bloody train tracks, as sort of two thermonuclear and/or biological warfare locomotives headed right at each other). I am to guess, if that's not a good thing, then I don't know what is.
NASA has recently figured out how to directly utilize money as rocket propellant. In that way there's none of that nasty H2O2/C12H26 nor even O2/H2 propellants nor solid fueled via aluminum beer cans choking up our atmosphere with all that useless CO2, just soot for burning up all that loot. Just like that nasty H2, that which all educated Americans know is so freaking unsafe (because you can't see or smell it), especially as for being applied into efficient airships. Where neither CO2 or H2 of which an educated American seems to realize squat nothing of what to do with either, as for having no redeeming values and, just like removing asbestos packed "O" rings which would have saved the Challenger mission (who needs it, or those astronauts for that matter). No matters what, we simply can't have any that purely natural but somehow nasty asbestos around, not even within one stinking floor tile, let alone break pads that withstand the heat and lasts a minimum of 4 times the typically lesser performing substitutes (synthetic pads that just do not stop you nearly as good and are costing you over four times as much, and that's not including your time and the fact that your next extended downhill emergency stop might become your last).
Over the centuries, we have tried to take on, or more literally take Cuba (sort of like we took California from Mexico), but thanks offensively to our crack NASA spy wizard teams, we can now watch every move those bastards make, like that of forcing their children and adult populations as to being educated and healthy (those bastards), like keeping guns out of the hands of idiots, like eliminating dishonest mobster's that outright owned their previous puppet government and, subsequently used their people for their own privet economic (tax free) sweat-shop profits as well as political wars against American interest. Obviously we need to keep a tight lid on any nation capable of further learning and discovering cures for what affects humanity, especially while doing so by functioning on less then 10% of their GNP as compared to our 50+%. I also understand that Cuba has recently mapped out the "stupidity DNA", which has lately become something inbred and infecting nearly all of America and, I believe that's certainly a good thing (I'm not entirely sure about this procedure of transplanting a pig's butt into a human brain, as this seems to have actually improved the intelligence level for that of an average American that's involved with almost anything NASA). So, thanks to Cuba, there may be hope yet and, all NASA/NSA/DoD need do is keep spying upon them so that we can effectively benefit from their technology advancements before anyone else does.
I checked this one out with the tooth fairy; Supporting the likes of NSA/DoD can't possibly involve anything that's been under-handed nor counter productive and, our placements of global observational, surveillance, communications and GPS systems, so that those Israeli could best map and then track down and eventually exterminate their captured prisoners of the 6-Day war, this is certainly not something for Americans to be ashamed of, even though that of our USS LIBERTY (tactical spying and battle info support center) was directly involved and besides, those prisoners were mostly Islamic types and, their thoughtful relatives already paid us a return favor, that which has cost us thousands of lives and literally hundreds of billions of dollars, so that now we're sort of even, a few trillion bucks in the hole, but who's counting.
After all, those very same (NASA funded research, engineering and technology placements) capable technologies are what permitted our accurate targeting of that Chinese embassy, instead of hitting the intended daycare center, and that certainly was good thing. As without such capable space spying and GPS guided technologies, our "in your face" tactics might not have been so capable of penetrating those supposedly unknown international Chinese boundary's, then enhanced further by actually landing in China instead of Kansas (I believe there is a difference you know), along with an ample load of all of our best spy toys (the only alternative for China, this would have required that same technology be acquired from E-bay, which would have taken a whole lot more time and cost money). Without the aid of GPS and those nifty target drones, plus our smarter then man "stingers", flight 800 might have had an uneventful journey. Recently our taking out a potentially hazardous wedding was certainly that of a satellite assisted and technology guided solution we can all be proud of. I'm just wondering if the timing was all that right, like when the priest was requesting if there was anyone objecting to this marriage, let them speak now or forever !KA BOOM!.
According to pro-NASA types, even as founded upon their own divine Sea Scroll standards, everything I've had to offer on this page is entirely positive, as it couldn't have been accomplished any other way nor any better. It's certainly a good (positive) thing that NASA/NSA/DoD are on our side (even though at times we manage to shoot off our own two feet and perhaps those of anyone else standing nearby).
This is too easy; apparently there still are no positives about Pluto, other then as an early indicator of the gravitational forces being imposed by that 12th planet or perhaps by good old Sirius (but then we certainly don't have to go there for discovering that issue), which we can't do much if anything about whatever, except figuring out how to live underground for a few years, so there's nothing there on Pluto to be gained except for burning off a few hundred millions more of our surplus cash reserves (my mistake! I simply didn't realize that we had such reserves). Tell me NASA folks; do these moderated cash-cow programs simply install their own foreign currency printing presses, so as to launder whatever amounts of that currency in order to pay the hundreds of millions or, is NASA somehow being secretly funded by Osama bin Laden?
As I think of other positive aspects of our supreme madness, I'll share that with you.
If you would care to offer anything other that's positive, that's what I'm here for. At this juncture, NASA could use all the positives they can get their hands on. For some stupid reason, I foolishly thought focusing our remaining resources and talents upon something that's right next door and so easily obtainable at that, that somehow this could have become just the ticket. Boy was I ever wrong.
I'll soon be creating and subsequently updating my list of competitive negatives, as in relationship ad between the Mars quest and the GUTH Venus quest, then of course, I simply can't help but to offer something on behalf of Club NASA. I mean, someone has to step forward on their behalf because, pro-NASA supporters (mostly "space.com" moles) have lately been slacking in their responsibilities.