Because this page attempts to deal primarily with the Venus metro airship issues, I want you to pay no attention whatsoever to any of those four significantly above-surface (collected into a clover shaped arrangement) reservoirs, as being so thoroughly connected and thereby associated to that distant fifth upper reservoir which is clearly containing something fluid (altogether, just these 5 items alone offer a highly conservative capacity of something like 50 million cubic meters, which is another example of being far too large to exist according to NASA, so therefore they must not exist) and for now, don't even bother with regarding that 1+km long suspension bridge consideration (many critics say this item is actually nearly 2 km and therefore doesn't exist), as a defiantly indicating a horizontal bridge which is obviously spanning the equivalent of a "Grand Canyon", nor should you bother yourself with the associated excavated roadway which obviously has mysteriously circumvented a rather significant mountain range and, also make the effort as to disregarding each of those multiple massive rectangular excavation/quarry sites situated just north of that supposedly nonexistent suspension bridge. Then half way South in this image; disregard that which is most likely indicating suspended cable pods as traversing between the Eastern and Western Grand Canyon banks and, equally disregarding anything that just so happens to look like tunnel entrances (as there are several such illusions all over the place, even though other areas of Venus that are without indicating artificial surface structural attributes seem to lack these same tunnel like features). As with all of the above issues, you must continue with your disregarding that massively raised airport (an unusually flat surfaced tarmac) consideration that seems to be indicating sub service bays having rounded structural corner features as well as equipment on deck, all of which is situated directly North of downtown "GUTH Venus" (another illusionary area simply brimming with a variety of large vertically symmetrical structures offering complex roof like features of perhaps air conditioners and, how about those pesky causeways having tangent intersections creating the illusion of infrastructure), as apparently all of these notable distracting issues are simply total illusions, at least according to the status quo of pro-NASA "damage control" and "spin doctor" Borgs and/or mole types, as otherwise everything is purely comprised of such being the most highly unusual yet purely natural formations as common as acid rain throughout all of Venus, along with all of this general (official NASA textbook) consensus entirely conforming to and thus being supported by the official NASA moderated studies and records upon Venus (the latest pagan bible perhaps, or if you will, Lord NASA's version of those "Dead Sea Scrolls").
Just for this moment, I'll need you to concentrate upon this "extraordinary" 43° perspective SAR 8-bit imaging view, that which so thoroughly captured everything within this superb digital image, showing us what certainly looks, smells and even taste as that of a symmetrically and rational horizontal silo/hanger structure, having all sorts of parallel aligned symmetrical attributes and, what most certainly appears as depicting half of that massive airship as protruding from under that equally massive pivoting overhead hatch. This silo/hanger bay is obviously something quite long and/or deep (somewhat like 2500+ meters worth before it dives fully underground) and, obviously this silo/hanger was situated into this mountain side for some darn good reasons. Besides that of providing for their appropriate airship launch, recovery and safe stowage functionality, this facility obviously provides for that all essential deep underground access and daytime storage, thereby capable of containing an obviously cooler (mostly N2/O2 atmosphere as displacing CO2) environment, basically also solar UV and solar flare radiation proof at that.
For myself to remain on the safe side of things (since nearly the entire world is oddly leveraged against my discoveries); this airship has been based upon the rather excellent "extraordinary" proof as provided initially by the NSA spy grade SAR imaging, as depicting a good number of pixels, a fairly long collection of diagonal pixel patterns, such as to be indicating the airship diameter corresponding to at least 2+ raw diagonal pixels worth (actually I've counted 3 diagonal but that's really getting things big), that which is further associated with a rather high degree of a symmetrically structured silo/hangar. This structure is that clearly situated as residing horizontal and into the hillside of a fairly rugged mountainous area, that which sores 4 to perhaps 5 kilometers above the nearby Grand Canyon floor.
By doing the math and, based upon the lesser of 75 meters per pixel (rather then upon the more likely 94-96 meters worth), in respect to everything else that's associated with and surrounding this item, this image review places the airframe format at a very conservative 180 meters in diameter (that's 20% lesser than the 2 diagonal pixels, where a more likely diameter is 225 to 250 meters). Establishing the airship length to diameter ratio (as most Earthly airships go) further places the most conservative overall length at roughly 1200 meters (again; this calculated estimate is being extremely conservative, as the actual length, even if based upon the 180 meter diameter for that of a CO2 environment could more likely place this at 1600 meters and subsequently somewhat longer yet if this diameter were to be increased due to the 3 diagonal pixel formula).
I'm going way out onto that proverbial limb: (once again, this entire discovery is totally outside of NASA/NSA/DoD rules and nondisclosure bylaws), by actually being open minded and perhaps a little too honest and, besides all of that, it's apparently entirely over their heads. This aspect of my discovery has become a fact, simply more true then most can accept, as I can say this with confidence because NIMA and even NASA have access to far better photo resampling software then I, that even my limited capability which tends to limit at 10X magnification (3X being sufficient), has become entirely certified and, I can certainly prove this well beyond any "extraordinary proof" photographic standards. As far as my observationology goes, this effort (considering our initial raw resolution issues) is about as good as planetary imaging gets, as there are many other associated considerations at this site which are larger and some smaller that offer far more compelling issues towards supplementing and supporting this airship claim. This airship consideration is but one of dozens of artificial worthy candidates.
As yet another worthy basic discovery foundation; I am stating that Hydrogen (H2) is certainly an element which is most likely and yet sufficiently abundant, from what's existing within the planet geology as retained in petrol/chemistry and otherwise bulk available from it's upper atmosphere (according to the record, those Venus clouds contain 25+%H2O), thus containing sufficient volumes of hydrogen which could be quite readily produced/extracted by all sorts of means (natural or otherwise, such as by simple vacuum distillation for initially acquiring the H20, then by electrical or electrolysis processing upon which creates or magnifies 1000 times the volume of H2O as into becoming H2). Not that Hydrogen (H2) represents the only alternative as to obtaining viable buoyancy and/or as fuel for any such applied airship technology, as that's certainly not at all true, however, I had to start this ball rolling somewhere, preferably with something you and I should know a little about.
Now then, just because I happened to have discovered "GUTH Venus", this is not saying that I'm any expert on such airship elements or physics, I have been a pilot but I'm not even an aircraft engineer or for that matter any form of actual space transportation expert. Besides what others have to offer, all I know about such things has come from public schooling, a few published and well accepted references, a whole lot of life and my personal business and trade experiences, then of course from the infinite wisdom of NASA's own expertise, at least of any proportion they have been willing to share, which so far has amounted to my being on a "need to know" basis and otherwise nearly zip, mostly limited to that which has been carefully scripted and thoroughly approved for public release, in other words, I have to ask the precisely worded question (using correct syntax) before they ever reply with whatever pre-approved script or as in some instances "disinformation" (this quest has become sort of like pulling teeth without Novocaine). Fortunately, others (mostly those outside of NASA) are becoming interested in developing upon this opportunity and, I'll update my research and otherwise give the credits to those willing and able to supply this much needed input (that way Club NASA can simply go back to sleep for another decade).
Potential energy resources of Venus; this ongoing build is something we can all provide useful input at this time. I have only the most basics to work with and, I know others should be capable of filling in the blanks and otherwise correcting upon what I have come up with. Surely there are worthy considerations for that of producing energy and thereby mechanical work from what's available on Venus and/or by that extracted from their atmosphere and/or from those thick clouds. As energy, I'm including vertical column differential wind, solar UV/IR (sterling like) energy conversions and naturally that of common geothermal differentials and even the potential of nuclear has not been ruled out. AS with a little energy (actually Venus offers more than you can shake a flaming stick at) one can do wonders about managing your environment.
Towards better understanding this Venus airship observation; I have located yet another honest and hard working (non-Borg NASA type) scientist/engineer, apparently willing to risk it all on behalf of providing some of the required physics knowledge, as well as some actual airship and/or at least balloon experience (much of which seems to have been a total void among those residing at "space.com" or any other NASA moderated site). Some recent calculations as provided by Thomas Goodey has introduced somewhat more realistic physics data with respect to what such a massive airship might be capable of lifting. According to his expertise of knowledge about such applications, as applied towards hydrogen airship matters (again, this knowledge is vastly superior to that of mine), the net hydrogen lifting capability as being situated on the planet Venus is something over 63 kg/m3 and, at cooler nighttime temperatures it's 64+kg/m3 plus the added gravity boost of 1.235 making the end result 79 kg/m3. This offers considerably greater results then of my previous attempts of calculating such, permitting a much greater usage of steel alloys (even iron could now be utilized to a great extent), as this airship needs to be that of rigid format and then obviously constructed of a sufficient alloy (example; titanium) and of somewhat better yet, this entire airframe structure is dealing with everything being under compression mode rather then pressurized (tension mode) as here on Earth, including that of what I can believe are the primary internal spherical hydrogen cells, which if sufficiently structured might very well be capable of accommodating either a good deal of compressed H2 or as under a vacuum of half atmospheric external loading, in which instance, I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the lifting capacity could be further boosted.
I'm assuming that compressed H2 weighs somewhat more then at zero Bar, so that it's thereby reasonable to consider a spherical volume existing at -0.5 Venus atmosphere (especially on Venus, where one atmosphere at ground level is equal to 92+ Earth Bars [roughly 1350 psi] or 51 Bar at 10 km [roughly 750 psi]) as essentially under such a -.5 atmosphere would be -325 psi of H2 vacuum that should by the laws of physics weigh somewhat lessor per volume (exactly how one goes about pulling a vacuum upon H2 is something that's still out of my reach). I am assuming that in outer space H2 is in fact existing in just such a vacuum, as perhaps representing all that dark matter that obviously weighs far lesser than anything H2. Perhaps the ultimate airship buoyancy is via dark matter with only a scant few H molecules drifting about per m3.
This multi-gas hybrid airship at an altitude of 60 km might offer the ultimate solution, as the external atmosphere is below 1 Bar, at which point the initial ground level launch which offered a sufficiently pressurized containment of H2 has now been regulated/expanded into including the greater hull interior comprised all toll of 22^6 m3 (excluding the internal machinery, structure and mostly N2/O2 passenger cabin areas of perhaps 0.5^6 m3), thus further displacing upon the interior N2/O2 atmosphere so as to roughly occupying a total of 22^6 m3, giving this airship the obvious advantage of utilizing nearly 99% of it's gross volume as potentially displaced by H2 for it's maximum altitude buoyancy demands. Descending would then require the gradual compression of that H2 so as to be residing back within those massive containment spheres, along with the replenishment of N2/O2 gas refilling or back-filling the greater bulk of hull interior. Thus buoyancy compensation could be effectively regulated, based solely upon the formula of gas transitions to/from those spheres along with whatever gathering and storage of other elements (such as distilled H2O from those clouds). The proper ratio of the H2 spheres to total airship volume along with processing/storage of the compressed CO/O2 combustion elements and H2O may become all that is needed (no airship would ever return to base camp without it full load of distilled H2O). Of course one has to be intelligent and perhaps having a little motivation, such as a desire to remain living, in order to pull all this off, so that obviously excludes Earth humans.
According to Thomas; Taking into account for the Venus atmosphere average molecular weight, along with a ground temperature @735K and the pressure of 92 bar, with his more correct physics formula applied towards an airship containing 7.5^6 cubic meters worth of Hydrogen along with the remaining 2/3 hull interior displaced by mostly N2 and perhaps 5%O2, making the initial compensated buoyancy or gross lift at least 874,000 metric tons (that's obviously @sealevel or ground-zero @r=6052 km, obviously that much better yet at 100% H2 and lesser gravity of cruising at altitude).
As an airship reference; the LZ-129 contained merely 200,000 cubic meters worth and was subsequently capable of lifting 242 metric Earth tons. Hmmmm, how very interesting! and now remember about introducing the 81% planetary gravity factor, which seems to compute that a 1.1025 Earth pound equates to 1 pound on Venus (in other words; a 248 lb. Earth astronaut = 225 lbs. on Venus, thereby equally all associated structural materials as well as anything fuel and cargo related should be favorably affected). Any gas will compress and weigh more on Earth as well as Venus, however, solids and even fluids such as hydrogen peroxide (h2o2) and Kerosene will not significantly compress and therefore they will not significantly increase in weight, thus the 81% gravity factor is still a solid benefit as applied towards airframe structural considerations and of whatever required onboard fluid/fuel energy resources.
Imagine this if you will; In such a heavier (thicker) Venus CO2 atmosphere, the aerodynamic shape best suited in order to accommodate sufficient headway (momentum), so as to minimize upon outer hull drag, might just be precisely that of a fairly narrow/slender diameter to length ratio and obviously that of a somewhat pointed (missile/torpedo like) airframe, and one quite possibly that's also incorporating the additional bow-wake appendage cabin area and/or nose compartment pod format, just such as what I have determined is most likely showing itself as protruding from under that silo/hanger. According to Thomas Goodey, the Hindenburg was nearly the ideal aerodynamic form and, he believes even on Venus this might be the case (personally, I'm open for considerations that could place the length to diameter ratio as high as 9:1). I've reconstructed my drawings based upon our viewing half of that airship protruding and, thereby conservatively reestablished the overall length at 1200 meters (including that 90 meter diameter bow compartment and/or astronomy research pod area).
To fuel this massive airship; I would like others to merely consider their initial use of Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2) in concentrations of 95% to 99.5% pure if possible (as on Venus, one only needs to pull a modest vacuum in order to process and distill almost anything into near perfection), along with having this H2O2 as a good chemical catalysts (a self oxygen producing combination) to be accompanied by such as your most basic petrol Kerosene (C12H26). This is not even calculating upon the greater CO2-->CO/O2 considerations which can reportedly yield an impulse of 280/kg/sec without having to carry these elements in any quantity onboard. I'm envisioning the main power plant as that being a rocket powered turbine, capable of something like providing 25 MW (roughly 33,500 SHP). Again according to Thomas Goodey, the range of other possibilities are obviously going to have to include atomic energy and of their likely having to apply somewhat greater power levels of perhaps 50 MW. If to be burning CO/O2, 50 MW is certainly no problem.
The primary turboprop thrust would easily be that comprised of a two stage (150+ meter tip diameter) counter rotating ducted turbo fan, plus that of having one variable (intermediate) stator section for whatever rotational stability as well as further enhancing thrust. For their maneuvering; when considering the density of that co2 atmosphere, several relatively smaller steering and side ducted thrusters would be sufficiently placed fore and aft (thus; little dependency upon airfoil control surfaces). Considering the desirable 100 knot cruising speed and the density of that mostly CO2 atmosphere, any airfoil surfaces would become relatively small but highly effective, perhaps even retractable as for minimizing friction. Storage space for auxiliary fuel elements is obviously not representing any problem (just the lowest hull cavity area can easily accommodate 500,000 m3 worth of whatever fluids and/or cargo, then there are at least 12 other 10 meter height (massive hull interior area) decks worth of containment plus of whatever that 90 meter diameter bow appendage has to offer.
On Earth, a relatively crude yet far better then anything we Americans ever accomplished for such a highly effective airship, was the LZ-129/130. This was in fact fairly long (245 meters or 804') in relation to it's diameter (41 meters or 135'), containing approximately 7.063 million cubic feet (200,000 m3) worth of hydrogen. Although being somewhat blunt at the nose (effective for Earths' thinner atmosphere imposing lessor headway resistance then on Venus), yet lifting an impressive gross displacement of 242 metric tonnes. The LZ-129 offered a usable maximum hauling capacity lift of 195 metric tons and typically a net operational usage was typically configured @112 tons, this was providing an extended passenger/cargo capacity exceeding 50,000 pounds, including sufficient crew, fuel and provisions for a fairly long transoceanic range and a average cruising ground speed of perhaps 55 knots (maximum of 75+ knots as propelled by four each fairly crude by today's standards and obviously fairly heavy diesel propulsion engines at that, offering a total of 3400 continuous SHP). Here on Earth, such a modern airship variation based upon that same hydrogen format, if to be applying lighter weight and vastly more reliable turboprops, along with a somewhat sleek (lower overall structural profile as well as lesser density) hull design, could easily be accommodating 100,000 lbs worth of passengers, crew and cargo, sustaining 100 knots average cruising speed, plus offering a 12,000+nm range (by the way, that sort of range equates to more than half the way around Venus and, on Venus that airship offers nearly 66 times greater buoyancy advantage).
And please folks; what ever you do, don't start in with all that purely American anti-H2 propaganda crap, that which pertains to the so called safety issues of hydrogen, not even as applied to the Hindenburg and especially as that applied to such capable airships of Venus.
Good Christ all mighty! we today should only be so lucky, as being the worst airship disaster on record was where two thirds of those onboard essentially walked away, and that's certainly one holy hell of a lot better than anything we today have to offer. Pure hydrogen is something that's totally safe, especially when that element is stored above (as H2 simply can't leak downward) and, not otherwise as risky as having explosive liquid jet fuels stored under you and/or totally surrounding you as with regard to JP5/JP8, where basically you are having to sit within a massive fuel bomb, between two or more fire breathing turbine engines that can and have been know to blow apart without warning, often with even more fuel reserves situated directly below your feet, such as flight 800, then countless other disasters where obviously no one walks away.
In stark comparison; If at merely the 65+ kg/m3, the passenger/cargo carrying capacity of the equivalent LZ-129 (as that if it were being a Venus airship), according to Thomas, should very well become 54 fold, easily managing whatever added cargo and/or extended range fuel load which could include an overall buoyancy or capability for lifting a gross of 13,000 Earthly metric tons. Venus gravity being at roughly 90.7%, which by itself adds multitudes of structural advantages as well as other benefits and, by the way again, today we even have certain fabrics and modified mylar capable of withstanding 500°C (I'm only hoping this open concept review sort of makes you wonder about such possibilities). Now once again, I'm not the expert here and, if you're one of my devoted critics, then obviously you are an expert, so why are you even wasting time on this, especially when you should be hosting another "Apollo moon landing" party for our fearless radiation proof astronauts or merely anxious (ants in your pants) over getting your hands on those 250 billion dollar lethal Mars microbes.
If we return to the raw (72dpi) image as to be reconsidering the actual size of that Venus airship and something about it's format and propulsion considerations. Going by the clearly visible protrusion of what appears as merely the nose section, even if this dimension were still based upon fairly rudimentary as well as conservative calculations, of those calculated upon the bare minimal of 75 meters per raw pixel, that places the conservative diameter at perhaps 180 meters, then as showing 600 meters worth of length which is just with regard to the visible nose section (a portion which I'm convinced is not more then half of what would be the overall length). In case you still cant manage the math; That's seriously BIG, and that's even without introducing the more probable 94 to 96 meter/pixel criteria. Very conservatively, calculating as based upon 75 meters/pixel, That's certainly DAMN BIG! (conservatively overall at 180 X 1200 meters) and, as far as supporting this discovery goes, anything bigger is simply a whole lot better then being smaller, as such massive structures are being detectable as artificial forms are those comprised of sufficient numbers of those "extraordinary" 43° perspective 8-bit SAR imaging pixels, so much so that one can far better realize upon shape, form and contours, which clearly has also indicated function in this case.
For anyone to be suggesting otherwise; there simply must be ulterior motives at work and a great deal at risk of their becoming exposed. Folks, as for regarding "GUTH Venus" and this airship, for at least the past 2 years and counting, NASA has been lying through their teeth, either that or these sorts of individuals are the worlds biggest idiots and fools and guess what, you could be becoming just as bad for entrusting their tainted wisdom.
The following right hand image is that of a 1:1 clip taken from the official NASA original and, through applying your screen magnifier, at for example 4X, you should be capable of counting those individual raw (72 meter each) SAR imaging pixels. I conservatively count 2+ on the diagonal which equals at least three equivalent pixels as representing the airship diameter. Since essentially all of my critics have proclaimed my photo software as crap, if you would care to apply your better photo software, please start yourself off from the " TARGET="">NASA original, download it and then share your results. Pro-NASA types seem to not know how to actually do this, so, qualifying independents such as yourself have a wide open opportunity (no apparent competition from NASA or any other government agency).
This part gets a little complicated; Just for further supporting the "what if" of it all, I have once again (for the thousandth+ time) reviewed this SAR imaging scale, which potentially establishes the airship calculation at 94 meters per pixel (that factor was recalculated upon the reported SAR altitude of 618km and using the 2.1° aperture along with the 240 pixel SAR sensor). Supposedly the average resolution for the entire Magellan mapping mission was established at 75 meters, thereby the actual 94+ meters per pixel, as in this instance, was compressed to 75 meters (thus, certain objects from other SAR images of Venus, if acquired at lower altitude, may appear in their respective image as being somewhat larger then they really are, while other images, such as with this airship being acquired at a somewhat greater altitude, can be represented as being diminished by a factor of 20%). Until more raw data is made available and, as far as my correctly scaling this airship goes, a reasonable discrepancy of +/-20% should be allowed for, so I've initially taken another 20% off by using the 75 meter resolution. None the less and no matters what; +/-20% simply is not sufficient cause nor concern as to making this airship nor anything else go away. Sorry folks!
Thanks to some recent physics corrections and still without my even having to create or fabricate new and/or unproven airship technologies; I must say folks, this is certainly becoming some sort of outrageous airship potential and, if so configured conservatively at 180 meter diameter, which is 4.6 times the LZ-129 diameter and then, at a whopping 1200 meter of length (my preliminary drawing is based upon viewing merely half of that airship as showing), thus resulting in one serious form of a massively large as well as extended range capable format of air transport and, as that well suited for their heavier CO2 atmospheric environment (easily housing multiple interior decks, accommodating at the very least 500 times the usable passenger cabin interior area of the LZ-129 airframe), thus equating to a potential of spaciously accommodating well in excess of 50,000 individuals or better yet, Venus lizards or whatever else and, how about otherwise affording a somewhat massive 500,000+ metric tons worth of cargo to boot, down to at least 50,000 tonnes that can be hauled above those cool nighttime clouds.
For my conservative calculations upon this airship; I've initially estimated having a multiple hydrogen cell capacity occupying a third of the volume, that being roughly 7.5 million cubic meters, a configuration which could easily be accommodating spheres within such a massive shell. Obviously there can also become other pressure equalizing compartment/cell formats and/or a combination of both pressure/vacuum spheres that could easily provide upward of 15 million cubic meters of H2 along with another 7.5+ million m3 of mostly N2/O2 for that of accommodating passenger and crew areas. All toll, we have a potential of 22.5+ million m3 and, if that's not representing buoyancy potential, I don't know what is.
If your interest and expertise would prefer as to submitting anything different from my initial calculations, please do so, I'll see that your design is given full credits towards your accomplishments.
NOTE: as with regard to any depressurized sphere, as far as to be best containing all that hydrogen, this sphere consideration offers an airship multiple other advantages besides that of somewhat impressive lift, such as, the fact that it will always be that much easier as well as safer as to be containing hydrogen under a vacuum rather then pressure, as such a containment sphere need obviously not be so absolutely sealed (leak proof) with any respect to hydrogen escaping (virtually all other atmospheric elements are those representing much larger molecules and thereby vastly simpler as to providing an adequate inward seal). I'm hoping that someone capable of such sphere and rigid airship engineering/physics will refine upon this potential without becoming just another pro-NASA Borg jerk about it and, develop upon what it may take as to obtaining that half atmospheric sphere interior differential, towards effectively adding sufficient buoyancy/lift by that factor alone, as to potentially more then offset for the added mass of utilizing such structural spheres (remember; this is application restricted to Venus, as for Earth, this method of airship is simply not an option, never will be).
As shown in my relatively crude mechanical drawing, I've indicated upon what I can perceive as a nose bulb or extended (@90 meter diameter) pod or compartment area which may be that housing their captain, crew and/or first class passengers as well as potentially providing for their version of an extreme high altitude KECK-II astronomy observation platform (hopefully that astronomy technology includes laser/xenon communications as well). The aft propulsion section could be that comprised of a two stage counter-rotating (25 to 50 MW, @15 to 30 rpm) ducted fan along with an actively variable (stabilizing) intermediate stator section and, as far as nose steering as well as other essential maneuvering capability, as this could be managed via ducted thrusters, otherwise from relatively small aerodynamic control surfaces (possibly retracting) may provide for their flight control and trim. In my drawing I've indicated landing gears or extended pads of 8 each retractable at 10 meter diameter pads each (obviously not that this is the actual size or number, as this issue could even become simpler as merely skids), for a potential total pad support area loading of roughly 2500 psi, which should due just fine and dandy for that of being supported upon most hard soil and mixed rock (remember, this support is based on the maximum of potential pad loading with all hydrogen removed and the craft otherwise fully loaded, obviously a highly unlikely event that includes having full fuel load, provisions, passengers and cargo without the benefit of having any hydrogen nor N2/O2 lift gas onboard). These landing pads or perhaps otherwise long skids could be static or they could be those retracted vertically into the massive hull (obviously there is plenty of internal room as well as machinery/buoyancy capacity).
Such an airship, properly ballasted for their upper (above or at least near cloud top) atmosphere, should be that capable of sustaining such flight with 50% load at an altitude of perhaps 30km. (98,425 feet) and, obviously of higher altitudes should then be capable. As with all airships, it is only a fundamental matter of configuring with lessor ballast (less cargo, a few thousand fewer lizard passengers and perhaps lessor fuel = less gross ballast or displacement, thereby permitting considerably more altitude capability), where a 25% load could well be affording operations at 65 km (at altitude, even 10% overall displacement/load represents nearly 174,000 metric tonnes worth and, even if 100,000 t of that were to be airship structure and outfitting, that's still a whopping 74,000 t worth of whatever else).
Exactly how thick that Venus atmosphere is, as far as knowing at what altitude would their 2900 hour nighttime environment provides a sufficiently clear shot at the stars and Earth (30km, 50km, 70km), this argument is still in the works, unless you already happen to know, and for that context Chris Schiller may have already compiled one of the most relevant reports and, if so, I would be honored to post such information, such as that of incorporating your research support into my discovery package, otherwise, I'll eventually have to uncover more of this for myself by reviewing whatever is available on that efficient NASA format of exploratory archive research, as being on that not so efficient "need to know basis". Either way the answers and my updates into this aspect should become interesting to say the least, like the 20:1 cloud density ratio and the UV transparency factors.
Also; do try to understand that such an airship of Hydrogen and Nitrogen lift technology is simply not rocket science. For what little airship history I know of, it takes relatively limited intelligence and thereby fairly minimal technologies (especially within a 94% CO2 environment) to initially discover and/or implement such fundamental transport capabilities (none of which need be realized in the same historical time-line as was here on Earth and, certainly nothing of radio requirement and, for one other very important reason, unlike Venus, our folks certainly had no motivation such as any massive global warming nor the terrific option of having essentially a 2900 hour nighttime/daytime seasonal cycle worthy of assisting any life or death situation as a result of surviving on a greenhouse planet). Also, the more I discover about such airship capabilities, the more likely I'm thinking, this is exactly what we are viewing at "GUTH Venus". (by the freaking way; the discovery at "GUTH Venus #2", this also seems as to accommodate a very similar horizontal silo/hanger, site #3 most likely has their's as well, we simply can't see it from the angle and resolution of the SAR imaging). The very idea that pro-NASA supporters and thereby of their standards suggesting; simply because we can't see and touch something means it does not exist, is simply another pathetic example as well as sufficient proof that we have a deeply rooted and for real ongoing problem here, that problem clearly has nothing to do with my discovery, but is clearly that which is interfering with others and myself attempting to reconcile with the more likely truths, so in that way it is involved.
The perfectly valid atmospheric study and report (late 80's) generated by Chris Schiller, has helped others and myself to further outline and thereby understand some of the potential atmospheric elements and cloud layers of Venus and, this form of external NASA documentation has so far exceeded that which NASA or their formal army of moles at space.com have so far managed to deliver (perhaps that's because NASA and space.com have equally black-balled Chris Schiller's work as well, as perhaps it's simply too objectively honest). Eventually, I hope to see something a bit more formal out of NASA, as I can foresee a time when they will have little recourse but to at least go on record as supporting the theory or conjecture that my discovery has managed to uncover some real possibilities (that probably should happen any day now, like how about 20 or 30 years from now). Gee, I can't wait!
From Chris Schiller's report; "Below 40 km the lapse rate of the measured temperatures dT/dz is about 8 K/km." "The most opaque clouds occur in the 49-50 km range," This obviously represents that whatever the 2900 hour nighttime near surface temperature becomes, at 10 km that temperature becomes at least 80°K lessor and that those cloud tops are those likely below 50 km. In addition, there should be a rather considerable degree of thermal transfer, considering that thermally conductive nature of CO2 and the cool down affect of nighttime caused from atmospheric transfers of all sorts.
A somewhat older Venus atmospheric study (as a link provided within another NASA feedback reply, which I'll also disclose if given permission) ""places the cloud tops at typically 20 km, the same as by day. The paper to read is Knollenberg etal., "The Clouds of Venus: A Synthesis Report", J. Geophys. Res., 85, A13, pp 8059-81, 1980."" (even though this altitude of 20 km sounds almost too good to me, obviously this atmospheric report was generated pre-Magellan, therefore it could be somewhat outdated, to the extent that 20 km is not likely the case unless this measurement was being derived via the nighttime environment, in which case those 17+km mountains of Venus are likely to be occasionally receiving acidic precipitation, then it's clearly something a whole lot cooler).
This scale drawing depicts the basic airship outline along with placement of the internal spherical hydrogen cells and indicating main thrust propulsion, as being depicted where I best believe they could likely exist. Depending upon your expertise of such Earthly and thereby much smaller airships, your final concept may be based upon somewhat more qualified knowledge and experience then mine, however, this drawing is at least something close to rationalizing based upon the protruding portion I view as showing itself from under that silo/hanger pivot hatch. The bulk of available interior for accommodating ballast, fuel, passengers and cargo would obviously include those non-cell areas and primarily that configured as surrounding and below cell midpoint or at least situated below the airship's CG (although, other significant airframe cavity areas between and above cell midpoint could obviously become those occupied by lessor density usage, such as deluxe (first class) sky lounges, just as long as the appropriate CG is being maintained). The nose area is likely to be housing many decks worth of accommodations and equipment, as somewhat offsetting the propulsion mass as well as securing the best and perhaps most stabilized (least noise and least vibration environment) area for that of an observatory. Either that or this represents one hell of a massive warhead.
It seems that every time I critically return as to review upon this research, something (entirely new to me) comes to light that only improves upon or at least verifies upon the possibilities and, I certainly do not understand how others supposedly smarter than I have not and still can't seem to manage such but, I am slowly beginning to comprehend why Club NASA and their "for profit" and/or "for sport" partners as well as their legions of damage control moles at web sites like space.com can't still see this opportunity for what it is (hell, what am I saying; obviously their being braille image interpreters means, they can see at all).
This following image/drawing is simply my enlargement upon what I see as their bulb/nose section. As you may have guessed, at the conservative 90 meters diameter and, by that of allotting 10 meters height per interior deck plus, allotting 25+ meters for a upper observational KECK-II dome platform as well as having the bottom dome for planet surface observational aspects, the gross usable interior for just this appendage alone is rather impressive. Obviously, the massive main hull interior remaining, if we were to accommodate merely 12 full length decks situated mostly below cell midpoint and otherwise the lower surrounding areas of those hydrogen cells, we are obviously talking some sort of serious contracts for wallpaper and carpet to say the least. Even if you were to allot 10 sq. meters per individual, just within the first 120 meters worth including the nose/bulb areas, that's representing a spacious accommodation for 2,500 first class passengers, crew, scientist and engineers, then perhaps affording another 50,000 or so within the aft hull section (potentially that main hull interior could by itself be exceeding 100 thousand as for those flying lizard coach, as obviously space is not going to become any problem, serious B.O. on the other hand could impose a real life threat).
Once again folks; need I remind others, as honest (by that I mean unbiased) interpretation of this SAR images goes, I am being totally conservative. That bow appendage diameter of 90 meters could just as easily become 125 meters worth (if based upon @94m/pixel), with the main airship then having a hull diameter of 250 meters along with an overall length of 1800 meters. So, don't start yourself off with anything suggesting that my initial 180 x 1200 meters is the least bit over estimating. Besides; what exactly are your true motives for even attempting to disqualify anything at this point, be that dimension 90 X 600 or 250 X 1800, what the hell is the difference because, is it not still a damn airship that sitting on Venus? I can fully understand why NASA/NSA/DoD wants to hide from all this, but unless you're one of them, what's your problem?
This brief paragraph is intended for our NSA/DoD types:
What say is the remote possibility of just such an airship being capable of obtaining something like 75+km altitude and, then having whatever it should take (such as another CO/O2 powered shuttle craft), to launch away something other that's capable of sufficient momentum as to escape Venus. If you were a thirsty and miserably hot nocturnal Islamic lizard sort, What do you suppose their destination(s) might be? Would that be headed for frozen Mars and beyond or might they be making a slight pitstop at Earth?.
Well Folks, it's certainly a darn good thing that I at least foresee that bow appendage as being a passenger and research consideration, not otherwise a mega tonnage load of Ammonium Phosphate. But then, according to the majority of pro-NASA supporters and apparently that's also of NASA's crack teams of cloaked NSA/DoD wizards, all of this airship consideration is simply an illusion, somewhat just like those 100+meter space rocks that keep zipping nearby Earth and perhaps even that 12th planet issue, so you can all go about relaxing, go back to your eavesdropping and spying upon everyone and everything right here on Earth (perhaps nuking out a few more of those Islamic weddings), after all, the next (one up manship) 9/11 is likely right around the corner and, this time everyone is playing for keeps. Perhaps if this pathetic Earth keeps itself on this favorable track, along with warlord Bush at the helm, there shouldn't be all that much left for visitors from Venus to see or taste, at least not without becoming infected and killing themselves by doing so (that'll teach them lizards to mess with Earth).
This airship issue has only further led me into considering their having established such truly capable observational astronomy research programs, I mean, why the hell not (unlike Earth, at least they certainly have the correct moral motivation and perhaps even obligation to their lismanity) via extremely high altitude observational technology (sort of KECK-II on steroids, except earing loads of frequent flyer miles) and, doing so exactly for the very same reasons and then basically utilizing the same approach as we initially did and, in fact we still do. My "first contact" program hopefully addresses this as a viable possibility and, you should be at least somewhat interested in this approach because of the substantially lesser cost impact onto the taxpayers is nearly zilch and, the potential rewards are so freaking great. For example; perhaps on Venus, as that functioning from an airship nose compartment of upper observational platform, as that being capable of being soared sufficiently above all that thick/dense upper atmosphere (lesser elevated and somewhat less thick clouds as well as for everything being significantly cooler, thereby likely somewhat more transparent at night), then it is quite entirely possible if not probable these Venus souls have been able to clearly view the stars and Earth, especially from their Earth viewing dark side coming up once again this October/November 2002, and then approximately every 18 months thereafter, where those researchers on Venus could simply travel upon their massive flying observatory in order to have an extremely illuminated and sufficiently close observation look-see of Earth (nearly too close if you should be of the type least bit concerned about alien invasions, especially of Islamic lizard sorts).
At any time folks, feel free to correct or contribute to my information, especially if I'm being flat out wrong: With your average ground-zero winds of 2 knots or lessor and, somewhat elevated (10 km) surface winds on Venus being perhaps as great as 10 knots or lessor (potentially null other then vertical up/down drafts during the majority of their 2900 hour nighttime), the possibilities of maneuvering such a massive airship into and/or out of that distinctively geometrical horizontal silo/hanger accommodation, should not impose significant issues. Of course sight would likely play an important role, so that again eliminates NASA's crack teams of their supposed planetary image interpreters as well as most of those Apollo types because, they still can't seem to locate critical films and other documentation nor even those original lunar surface negatives that were somehow thermally shock and radiation proof, as these guys obviously so blind that they couldn't park a VW Bug in one of those massive Area-51 studio buildings.
Dealing with the greater atmospheric pressures of Venus's lower elevation, as far as addressing passenger safety and capable transportation requirements below 5km;
Since I don't see any long distance roadways (only local roadbeds), I'm assuming that travel over land, especially down into the greater atmospheric pressures and obviously hotter then hell environments would have long been a detriment to one's health, as well as somewhat more challenging upon whatever ground machinery. Ask yourself this; If their air travel were to have evolved and been implemented first (say a few million years ago), why would anyone even care as to engineer and construct land transportation? Then also; what is so damn hard about engineering and constructing insulated passenger compartments that essentially keep the outer environment in check, as it's so much easier to fend off heavier and therefore larger molecules than of having to keep thinner and smaller molecules inside under pressure, as external pressure is always something structurally superior than having to deal with external vacuum considerations such as here on Earth. Nearly every substance we have at our disposal, that performs structural feats, is vastly superior at compression mode then of accommodating internal pressure or tension (there is nearly a 10:1 structural advantage whenever you're having to engineer and then construct as for compression, that's not even including the lessor gravity issue which yields another 20% advantage). Thereby, engineering and constructing any such massive airship as what I'm reviewing, this is obviously not the same as doing such on Earth, not by any long shot.
As far as whatever other (ground or air) transport passenger compartments are concerned, I personally view this challenge as simply an engineering snap, as that of constructing an enclosed structured passenger cabin or pod that maintains it's crew and passengers under depressurization (instead of being limited by our pathetic pressurized air-transport alternatives) and insulated to R-200 utilizing micro spheres containing H2 at 1 bar, all of which makes for a vastly simpler as well as somewhat stronger structural consideration per ton of airframe materials. Structural compression is simply far better then what we must contend with, such as when keeping our frail passengers alive and well at our typical (instantly lethal) 10+km cruising elevations, having to substantially heat and otherwise sustain cabin pressurization and thereby breathable air requiring massive quantities of energy as well as imposing all sorts of structural havoc and/or limitations as to what can and can not be utilized for our airframes and outer skins (in other words; danger, danger, danger, one small rip, one popped rivet and the whole damn sky is full of ejected dead passengers and along with a flaming airframe of shredded debris).
Back on Venus; That substantially raised and obviously flat platform/runway item (situated amidst all the obvious rough mountainous territory), as located just North of the primary structural attributes of downtown "GUTH Venus". This issue seriously raises many other aerodynamic considerations, especially when I can clearly identify that of machinery/aircraft or at least several worthy items of size are clearly those situated on this tarmac, plus, my contemplating of that darker (near black, upper left area) as a section which seems sufficiently square and could just as well represent their flight equipment deck elevator. Also, there are issues in my ongoing review of those two (possibly three) major sub service/staging bays facing South towards town. Remember; that Venus daytime is smoking hotter for 2900 hours (lots of UV and otherwise nearly ideal by the way, for that of growing things indoors, but don't tell this to any pro-NASA type, they might blow out another one of those "O" rings), and even though this is a highly elevated (clearly mountainous territory) region, their daylight hours must still be fairly intense and potentially overly UV/IR destructive to anyone or anything fully exposed, so, obviously individuals as well as their equipment must be that capable of being sheltered, at least until nighttime (we even do that much right here on Earth).
Don't become frustrated; I know all this is a bit much to consider, so if you at first can't see and realize what it is that others and I see, remember that it takes a considerable amount of experienced image viewing (I have thousands of such hours invested), as well as actual aerial observational including radar imaging experience. My recommendation is for you to keep returning yourself to this image and updates, doing so by zooming out and then back in, utilizing your windows magnifier as a small side viewing port at merely 2X. Continually review and evaluate the surrounding terrain of natural rock formations, channels and erosions because that's still what's mostly contained in the image and, not just of "GUTH Venus" attributes, then continue onto several other imaged areas of Venus, as this effort will eventually get you towards better realizing upon what is natural verses artificial.
Another potential problem; most of my enlargements can be simply too large for your monitor, especially if you are stuck with a 17 inch or smaller and further limited your screen resolution to 1280 dpi (many have their resolution set at 1024, which means, if my original was @180 dpi, then 10" worth of image is 1800 dots across the screen, you will have to extensively pan or slide bar along if to view the entire image). In order to resolve this, I recommend that you download the image and simply apply it into your own photo software, as nearly any such photo software will allow re-sizing as to best accommodate your viewing and printing format.
Thick or heavy atmosphere (@92 bar) should also make for some extremely interesting conventional aerodynamics; Even at 10km elevation we are at 50 bar pressure, where such aerodynamics would be those comprised of fairly stout/compact efficient wings (rather minimal control surfaces and/or perhaps merely of ducted thrusters, sort of Osprey's that actually fly), otherwise very heavy lift main body airfoil profiles, then obviously, even if not hydrogen or even N2 lift assisted, having much slower takeoff and landing speeds (something like the size and/or bulk of our 747 might be landing at 25 knots or less), and therefore require substantially shorter runways. (even calculating @75 meters/pixel we are indicating 7000+' and, that's perhaps several thousand feet more then might be required of your typical/largest conventional Venus style aerodynamic configured aircraft). At the elevation of "GUTH Venus", a somewhat smaller light airfoil personal craft (6 to 12 passenger) may have a takeoff/landing speed of merely 10 knots (remembering that even at the elevation of 5 km, a mere cubic foot of H2 offers 4 lbs buoyancy which can easily become incorporated so as to displace significant portions of the aircraft's structural weight, so that even if constructed of high temperature tolerant alloy steels, this aircraft could really fly, especially if powered via hydrogen peroxide and kerosene or as I've been informed by a NASA wizard, CO2-->CO/O2 obtaining as for an impulse of 280/kg, which is obviously a great deal of energy release from fuel that need not be carried onboard).
PERHAPS ABOVE AND FAR, FAR BEYOND THIS DISCOVERY:
I guess, I simply don't much care; if others wish to contend it's 475°C or even 8 million degrees on Venus or how about even if their contentions were to become that the entire atmosphere is a cocktail comprised of purely formaldehyde and sulfuric acid, or even more so especially, if the mere size of everything is simply so out of their reasoning (how size could possibly introduce anything disqualifying into this discovery is beyond my comprehension unless they're thinking of the size of their brain which is sort of elongated and currently what's located between their legs). The visual facts are that far too many obvious and truly distinctively artificial appearing formations do exist, those that are so well surrounded and otherwise differentiated by the very same equal imagery photo enlargement process, that of depicting fairly common Venus terrain that's surrounding what is most likely artificial, all of which was originally acquired via the "extraordinary" SAR imaging at the very same 43 degree perspective, where as the overall image is clearly comprised of common Venus attributes, such as those clearly depicting terrain which clearly shows occurrences of otherwise easily to be identified as to what's natural mountain and rock formations, tectonic issues as well as soil and channel erosions and, that even all of NASA's so called lava-flow considerations have been equally enlarged upon without subsequent distortions, where these natural occurrences are simply providing too damn good of an observational reference base by which all of those other multiple artificial structural issues seem by stark contrast to so boldly exist, along with their associated infrastructure as being so well differentiated, as that being clearly something that's artificial, and otherwise, as clearly that representing a whole lot of something other than of anything that's purely of complex natural elements.
In other words; if you are still looking as to disqualify what's depicted in this image as somehow being natural, then you're a much bigger fool and idiot than I could imagine, either that or you're one of the guys I've recently placed into a no-win situation. It's bad enough for such an empire to have overlooked something this essential for 13 years, however, if it turns out that Club NASA has had anything whatsoever to do with suppressing "truths", then I'm sorry but, your ass is cooked.
For another extremely good example of what to be looking for; Those distinctively connected reservoirs may in fact not contain Earthly water, but perhaps something far better for those existing on Venus (that upper NW reservoir is in fact containing something fluid which clearly absorbs SAR radar imaging, perhaps h2o2 or just petrol like) and, excuse me once again folks, if you are still not convinced, try considering the very reality of this being a sufficiently elevated area as simply a perfectly valid cause, as for fundamentally comprehending that just perhaps Venus nighttime, especially at such upper elevations offers temperatures that are those somewhat cooler then of their daylight ground zero environment and, combine that fundamental logic with perhaps a 75 bar or lessor atmosphere. What I mean is this, other then for accommodating us frail humans, at this 5+km elevation we are obviously not talking "Death Valley" here and, 2900 nighttime hours seems just a little more than sufficient time as for things to cool down.
Beyond the basic "GUTH Venus" observation discoveries; I have attempted to offer (in the continuing absence of others willing or apparently all that capable of doing so) building upon several description paragraphs throughout my URL pages, mixed in with plenty of critical review of NASA's past research and exploration episodes on behalf of NSA/DoD, orchestrated mostly by and/or under the cloak of NASA. Basically, I would like others to help discover and then perhaps to understand more about what everyone at NASA/NSA/DoD has been doing for at least the past 13+ years and, perhaps then better to understand why this magnitude of discovery has been so easily overlooked and more so now being so intentionally ignored as of to date. I have real concerns, besides all of our astronaut and several upper and a few mid-management unexpected/unnatural deaths, we just might very well have to tally in another factor for the 6 day war which involved our infamous NASA supported USS LIBERTY fiasco, as well as a little something more for the multi trillion dollar 9/11 impact, as well as our ongoing defensive/retaliation carnage, Muslim weddings, Canadian troops and all (what the hell, I guess it's become an all or nothing event, it's either them or us and, what more could our NSA/DoD possibly want; I know, maybe we can keep provoking those having known nuclear and/or mass biological/chemical capabilities [like those no good Chinese or perhaps North Korea] into making their first move because, we apparently have lots more of the same to offer in return). ( Swell!, just swell ).
As far as Earth human life ever existing on Venus is concerned; I never once suggested that frail humans from Earth could likely survive upon any portion of Venus, most likely because we are simply too stupid, obviously overly smug and damn arrogant as well as so totally self richest and otherwise challenged in more ways than a rock, therefore so totally unable to even consider the possibilities. And besides, we are clearly far too busy with all our cloak and dagger crap, subsequent damage control and ongoing cover-up's to even give a tinkers damn about anyone or anything existing on Venus, yet we seem somewhat focused upon our acquiring those potentially lethal microbes from Mars, at a cost that's likely to exceed 250 billion. If we ever do go to Venus, most likely those entities (bad-ass Islamic Venus lizard souls) as clearly surviving on Venus in spite of NASA, would probably end up wiping their acid dripping butts with our kind of pathetic smart-assed pro-NASA know it all's attitudes.
As soon as my proof readers and technical publishing staff return from their extended (paid) vacations, I would expect all of my syntax and math will be corrected and then some. And again folks, if you think you're so great at all this, I just may have for you a terrific high paying job opportunity as suited specifically for your talents, so don't start out by pissing me off by showing your blind arrogance towards a little "truth". OOPS; "truth" is almost as bad as using the "humanitarian" word in any phrase having associations with the likes of NASA/NSA/DoD, as obviously you could get yourself fired (or worse) for such breach of protocol.
>Basically, this is how all this is going to happen; if you still have not figured this one out and you believe you want to help, but just don't understand what all this is about. Essentially I am requesting whatever technical expertise including constructive criticism, just not more of that baseless defensive ideology pagan worship crap. If you have nothing to truly submit and discuss, don't even bother because, I've heard everything negative you can think of, as NASA and their supporters seem very capable at doing their own bashing as well as damage control at taxpayers expense. However, if you insist, I'll read through and/or review whatever you care to offer, even if it's merely restating the obvious conclusions of those so staunchly opposed to my discovery because, somewhere in all that flak could actually be some truth, and that's mostly what others and myself have been looking for. The fact that you may not be capable of seeing these truths is not an essential requirement nor worth my effort as to pointing that out onto others, unless of course you care to make it so.
Again, please don't go calling upon NASA (at least not on my behalf, unless you intend to kick a little butt). Besides, they already know everything there is to know (just like God), they just seem to be having another one of those prolonged (not now sweety) headaches over all this Venus stuff (as well as their never ending anti-Apollo damage control issues). Besides, NASA may also have run out of those official "POST IT" notes instructing their staff not to be disclosing anything more then what's already public and been officially scripted (nondisclosure approved), they may also have simply worn out all those heavily used ENRON/Andersen document shredders, and damn if their 2002 as well as 2003 and so forth budgets aren't already over-spent. Gee, isn't that a downright shame, I guess besides what they are telling everyone as to how wonderful Mars and now Pluto is, I'm wondering where all their billions has actually gone this time? (perhaps those NSA/DoD agendas have become a wee bit more costly then expected)...
On the other hand, perhaps we don't need to do one damn thing about Venus; just sit back while those tough old reptiles from Venus manage their own space travel and come visiting Earth (again?). That way, NASA can concentrate upon some real damage control and towards their acquiring those 250 billion dollar frozen microbes from Mars and, otherwise their devoting whatever remaining resources (not already allocated for NSA/DoD) towards cosmic deep space, that which represents entirely unobtainable goals of a thousand or more light years away, where one such costly endeavor already managed to determine what could be happening several billion light years away, like we really needed to know all of that, instead of being informed about those massive life extermination class asteroids headed for Earth (worse yet is the inbound 12th planet consideration).
I am to guess, we're not all that certain about our continuing trust of these NASA guys anymore. How about instituting a secure lock-box to put that cooky jar into, then throw away the damn key, or at least give the one and only key to me. I like to spend tax money just as much as NASA/NSA/DoD, I simply choose not to waste it by simply burning it off for heating my cathedrals, chopping cruise ships in half, slicing through gondola cables, target practicing stingers upon drowns while a mere few thousand feet above is flight-800 or, how about that of our taking out UN helicopters, Islamic/Muslim weddings, Canadian troops and even those of our own (need I go on?).
I'll just bet NASA has been asking this lately; Where in the hell are those three monkeys when you really need them?