I've just recently learned a good number of "facts" regarding space radiation, as well as a number of rather interesting "facts" about those infamous Apollo missions as provided by Jay Windley of http://clavius.org. Jay has kindly informed me that there really isn't any significant space radiation, so little that a 15 day mission to/from the moon, including their 36 hours of EVA for each of those trecking about the fully solar illuminated lunar surface accumulated as little as 20 mrem/day. I learned from Jay that there was a secret back-door method of alluding most of the Van Allen zone (I'll suppose he's referencing a relatively steep polar launch and reentry), as well as he stated the entire mission involed a mere two hours worth of the least radioactive portion of said Van Allen zone.

I also learned from Jay that Hasselblad cameras and the film within were not only immune from the +/-250 degrees worth of thermal stress but immune from radiation fogging as well, but most importantly was that Jay stipulated that Hasselblad cameras and of their optics weren't worth squat for capturing stars above the 10% reflective lunar surface, though perhaps that's because the lunar surface was actually being a whole lot more like 50% reflective and otherwise entirely covered in bone dry Portland cement like powder that obviously clumpted, even though none of that clumping soil exibited those qualities that could be demonstrated back here on Earth, especially not within any vacuum chamber.

I asked wizard Jay Windley about Earth L4 and/or L5, in as much as those are equally solar illuminated/irradiated locations in free space that ott to be quit similar to lunar radiation. I did this because the new guard at NASA published their con_x_dose1.pdf report that clearly stipulated what's what at Earth L2, not to mention the Van Allen zone of death. Since it seems logical that Earth L2 was greatly shielded by mother Earth, plus receiving some further benefits from the magnetosphere as for deflecting and/or absorbing what solar wasn't being blocked by Earth, so that perhaps L4/L5 are in fact as otherwise noted by other research as being considered a whole lot more radiation hot than L2. For some odd reason, our Mr. Jay Windly remained thoroughly convinced that apparently L4/L5 and thereby the moon receive far less radiation than L2. This being great stuff to know about because, it means that I can inform those interested in going to visit Venus L2 (VL2) that's there's little if any risk, as well as for all those planning upon going to Mars can entirely disregard the con_x_dose1 report as well as those recently acquired radiation issues of Mars and just go for it. As a result of all this new found knowledge, it looks like I'll have to entirely rewrite my page on SPACE RADIATION, as I've been suggesting way too much radiation that our esteemed Mr. Jay Windley insist simply isn't there, or at least it had better not be there because, if so those Apollo missions didn't happen in the way NASA and of Jay's pagan worshiping website portrays.

I also learned from Jay Windley that any further photo processing, such as digital scanning @9600 or 19200 dpi at even 64 bits wouldn't help to resolve faintly recorded stars from any of those tens of thousands of recorded images (negatives and transparencies) acquired from those Apollo missions. I'm glad Jay has saved myself and thousands of others in the photographic industry from bothering with acquiring and/or utilizing such equipment, as that's a really big investment savings, not to mention bother that can now be avoided, all thanks to Jay Windley.

Since Jay seems to know that there's no significant radiation issues with the lunar surface, I asked him of his opinion on utilizing the moon as a rather stable platform for establishing a SAR receiving aperture, a procedure that wouldn't even involve an astronaut because, every aspect could be easily made robotic and efficiently solar powered, not costing 10% of our latest Mars probe yet far more beneficial to just about everyone (even NSA/DoD could utilize this for acquiring 1/2 wavelength resolutions of Earth, that could be pushed to as little as 5 mm) and, far outperforming even Hubble as far as looking at our planets in far greater and worthwhile detail. For someone that knows so much, he oddly had no comment.

I've had to learn a few too many things (truths) about and in addition to astronomy and even of SAR imaging, such as physics laws applied towards Earth as well as Venus and then also loads about all those opposing this discovery, by their insistence of claiming there's absolutely nothing whatsoever on Venus but seriously hot rock and/or rille wrinkles, even though those items looking none the less exactly like a very horizontal and very suspension like bridge (rille wrinkle my ass) plus load of other community like features all about the site.

I've learned (actually I've always known this part) that SAR imaging has been the very definition of being "extraordinary proof" by way of its' sheer nature, far superior in nearly every aspect to film and/or CCD imaging. SAR offers about as much imaging "extraordinary truth" as you're going to get, short of being there in person, where in fact the SAR can identify items that you and I can't as well as into their composition, thus better detecting their true nature than being there in person, especially if it's dark, hot and nasty and/or pertaining to the sheer size of things that are so freaking big that you'd have to be situated 10 km away just to appreciate the scope of it all.

I've learned that Venus is still quite humanly darn hot and nasty but, though understood by many respected other researchers that it's seemingly getting itself measurably cooler. I've also learned and/or affirmed that's it's already been relatively cooler at night and more so as you gain elevation, even cool by somewhat proportional standards as to Earths' global environment, that is if you're honestly and objectively taking the entire solar influx and subsequent nighttime outflux of energy into consideration (essentially more energy has been leaving than is influxing, thus nighttime is reasonably much cooler than daytime).

I've learned for a fact that it simply does not remain hot nor getting itself hotter at night, that the entire solar influx must in fact exit the nighttime side or else (as otherwise Venus would have exploded), so understanding that in fact the nighttime of Venus is sufficiently cooler than by day is a good thing to know, whereas the elevated territories (some being 10+km) are those more so cooled by their extended season of night, as well as more so accessing into the gradient of O2, as there's an increase in O2% as you obtain altitude, not that the CO element isn't a rather serious remaining human detriment, though the great pressure and dryness makes for CO and/or CO2 a much lesser consideration of risk than here on Earth (so it's still not such a good idea to go to Venus, other than perhaps VL2, as that's just another ISS outpost that you and I can visit).

I've learned that in fact there has been this recorded gradient of O2, of which under such terrific pressure could sustain an entirely natural evolved form of other life, though our human survival would likely have to involve a great deal of technology in order to increase that percentage to something above 0.1%, possibly even as much as 1% while isolating the CO/CO2 components by subsequently shedding the bulk of CO, and/or of storing that element as fuel.

I've learned that the season of nighttime on Venus is 2900 hours worth (120 Earth days), more than sufficient for accommodating migrations, so as to remain within the season of night (not that you'd want to but, you could walk that fast, though taking advantage the metro airship as your transport would certainly be a whole lot more sensible).

I've come to learn and/or realize that the surrounding atmosphere is somewhat like offering an ocean, representing a great deal of buoyancy, not to mention a sheer wealth of radiation shield benefits as well as a darn good energy resource of not just the CO/O2 elements but of the kinetic (darn near hydrodynamic) energy from the terrific (4+bar/km) differential of atmospheric pressure.

I've learned that heat on Venus is entirely relative to pressure (oddly obeying the laws of physics), that of its' heat is simply not the same as Earthly heat and, I've learned that such good pressure compensates greatly towards elevating the critical vapor point of most fluids, such as blood and/or other life sustaining fluids, as well as those of numerous other elements or compounds that essentially will not boil off unless you pull a vacuum.

I've learned that obtaining or creating a vacuum on Venus is something rather simple and efficient to accomplish and, if you were to have created such a vacuum you could easily distill and/or crack any number of gas into fluid compounds for obtaining just about any raw element you can think of.

I've learned that the buoyancy of N2 is roughly 26 kg/m3 (more so at night) and, of the buoyancy of H2 is 64+ kg/m3 and equally even more so at night.

I've learned that with having so much buoyancy from N2/H2 that there's simply no valid reason why rigid airships can't be utilized, unless the entire planet is comprised of my sort of village idiot ancestors (Cathars no less, as they were so pathetic that they couldn't even fend off the Pope).

I've learned of the aerodynamics and of the physics for making rigid airships capable of gathering cloud substance and, of subsequently vacuum distilling that into pure H2O is not rocket science, it's barely physics 101.

I've learned that H2O can be converted or transformed into H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide), that which doesn't boil off at the good pressure of 75 bar and thermal environment of 625ºK. I've also learned that H2 can be easily extracted or created from H2O and/or H2O2, where one recently developed method obtains a terrific ratio of 25,000:1 in terms of volume.

I've learned of modern technology providing powerful motor/generators that function quite nicely and reliably at 1000ºF (811ºK), as well as of diamond based electronic components that'll equally survive the elevated nighttime thermal environment of Venus.

Of course, I've learned another thing or two as to what NASA thinks about of all this, as apparently just another example of how we Americans belittle other species right here on Earth (many to their extinction), then we badly squander their energy resources, then we dumb ass wonder why all the global warming and of why big airplanes are crashing into tall buildings.

I've learned that on Venus the vertical pressure differential is 4+bar/km and that a nighttime thermal differential is nearly 10ºK/km, from which a great deal of kinetic energy (almost hydrodynamic in performance) can be easily derived. Even a mere 0.1 Bar (25 meters worth) of said density of mostly CO2 as kinetic energy resource can become substantial. I've learned that this form of dense CO2 powered kinetic energy is something rather quite substantial and, it's about as green of tree hugging energy resource as you're ever going to get.

I've learned that if push came down to shove, if getting mankind onto the nighttime surface of Venus was imperative, that it's entirely possible as for doing this with the invention of a suitably insulated (R-256) suit, one that's essentially powered by hot CO2.

I've learned that the aerodynamic capabilities offered by the Venus atmosphere is quite well suited to accommodating a shuttle like reentry and landing at a previously created tarmac/airport.

I've learned that small amounts of energy (electrons) can be generated from the available/ambient heat, further enhanced by creating more process heat and thereby creating thermal differentials which includes some rather fundamental laws of heat exchanging.

I've learned that with a relatively small amount of said energy, solutions do exist for cooling as well as for extracting O2 via the CO2-->CO/O2 process, that which has been a done deal for quite some time.

I've learned of biology which clearly stipulates upon life existing in places far hotter than humans can tolerate, as well as surviving on much less O2 as a percentage of their atmospheric environment, such as 75+Bar could enable life to survive quite nicely at 0.1% O2 if not less.

I've learned that pressure alone is essentially a non issue as far as life as we know it to exist, not to mention of other life NOT as we may know it, where as having less pressure and certainly of anything near vacuum is lethal to most any number of lives as we know them, making Mars a rather tough sell.

I've also learned that bio-luminance is another strong possibility, as well as nightvision of nocturnal species that have a magnitude 5 (100X) better photon sensitivity than humans, as well as just a whole lot better resolution plus an extended range into the UV/a spectrum.

I've learned that we're continually discovering new life right here on Earth, not to mention our scientist creating new genetic code of life as we speak, hybrids capable of surviving where little or nothing other could or perhaps should exist, especially if we're discussing certain biological warfare issues.

I've learned that a great deal of biology manages to accommodate the absolute worst irregardless of whatever the thermal and/or pressure environment becomes, as long as there's insufficient evolutionary time plus always adequate shielding from cosmic and solar flare radiation, as life as we know it simply can not exist if it's being radiated to death. If in fact radiated life does existed (such as on Mars) it would likely be or would soon become lethal to most all life on Earth.

Of cosmic/solar radiation issues; I've recently learned that a solar minimum is actually something far worse off for any space traveler if otherwise being sufficiently shielded from the sorts of energy releases created by solar flares. Oddly this reverse logic (truth) doesn't seem to compute for those Apollo missions but, what little does.

I've learned that unlike our atmosphere, CO2 and especially of compressed CO2 makes for a relatively good radiation shield, adding a significant layer/density of sulphuric loaded clouds is yet providing another very effective shield density attribute against cosmic/solar radiation and minimizing upon secondary radiation.

I've learned that since Venus has little if any magnetic (Van Allen) shield, that instead or in place of, their atmosphere has become more than sufficient for shielding surface life, especially if that's become a nocturnal form of life that habitats primarily within the season of nighttime, thus having their planet between themselves and the sun (can't get much better than that).

I've learned that of any astro geologist, astrophysics and just plain old astronomy types don't much like outsiders telling then a damn thing, though since they're all entirely certified as for being blind as a bat as well as deaf and dumb, thus I'm not exactly sure how they would ever know if I'm even in the room or not. I've also discovered that those nice folks at "Bad Astronomy" seem to be unable to deal with any real threat to their cult.

We've all learned that our government as well as do many other governments lie to a fairlywell, nearly all the time, as they apply all sorts of spin and damage controls for all sorts of mostly justifiable butt salvaging reasons (sometimes that's of personal lies intended to cover up despicable affairs but, usually it's been those motivated upon good old power and greed, moralised by those committing cold-war agendas or even holy war atrocities on behalf of democracy or some other religion but, of really focused upon protecting their own butt and of their pocketbook theology), as our trusted governments proceed to deliver and apply whatever disinformation into the moderated media and textbooks, so as to insure that history and of the associated knowledge reads the way best suited for sustaining the ongoing ruse/sting. For every dollar spent going good, 9 other bucks are blown on "spin" and "damage control".

For another example of government lying; I've just recently read another NYT posted infomercial on those infamous OSPREY V-22 flying coffins being resurrected from the black whole of really bad mistakes. This is where we're being kindly informed that they can be purchased for as little as 58 million bucks each (that's actually lie No.1, as thats nearly 20% below the current price tag and, thanks to the recent rounds of warlord superimposed inflation, cost cutting hasn't been looking all that great), though oddly the tally upon the sum of the entire program of contracts plus current investment (excluding loss of life) is something like 62 billions for the proposed fleet of 458, minus all those that'll crash on training (most likely killing all onboard) and of those that crash on missions (most likely killing all onboard). Now lets do the math and, lo and behold, I've got a new base of 135 million each and, that's without including operational cost, nor the value of the human factor of being at least a worth of 10 million per life, especially if you were to include the damaged/destroyed equipment, plus having to include their entirely new and improved ground support crews and facilities plus logistics for the same 12 year projected lifespan of the Osprey program and (since when has any similar program functioned under budget and been closed out when originally planned), we're looking at the true Arthur Andersen accounting formula being corrected by at least adding another 55 billion (that's 120 million more per craft) to the 62 billion dollar fleet for a grand door prize of 117 billions. Of course, absolutely none of this includes restitution for whatever damage these new weapons of mass destruction will deliver and inflict upon others (just by their frequently falling out of the sky ott to strike holy fear into all those below). Perhaps we should reclassify these flying coffins as sort of manned V-22 cruise missiles, just not nearly as reliable.

We've learned that of even supposedly close knit agencies such as NASA, that their own internal staff doesn't listen to what's being said, nor are they openly willing to share this little insight into other cults, even if that means Phantom Works has recently calibrated their ABL upon an array of thermal probes outfitted within a certain shuttle that could give them the necessary real-time and real-world data, as for obtaining their badly needed field testing results. BTW; just the ABL range finding and tracking laser is of sufficient energy to have imposed measurable thermal issues upon an already toasty hot target at 50 miles and, 1% of the main IR laser cannon potential if sustained for more than a few seconds is yet another issue that's oddly being avoided like the black plague. Perhaps someone other having security access into the February 01, 2003 flight log of the Boeing/TRW 747 ABL which has recently been operating out itself of Edwards AFB, they ott to have another look see, as even a prototype laser cannon is certainly capable of achieving damn good thermal results for providing adequate DoD technology advancement reassurances and, thereby subsequent qualifications as for Phantom Works obtaining continued funding (that is how R&D contractors get paid, buy delivering results and not by issuing vaporware).

I've learned that if there's something good about our investments into space sciences and of the technology involved, then by all means NASA takes the lead as well as as much if not all of the credit as possible, moderating all others competing for their portion of credit as right into the nearest nondisclosure toilet, whereas upon anything the least bit tainted with regard to an oversight or error, let alone an actual mistake that leads into carnage, then all bets are off for NASA being responsible, as otherwise they're busy at doing spin and damage control, usually by pointing fingers at other agencies and preferably at contractors like Phantom Works for such mishaps or oversights. Worst case, they'll finger upon one sacrificial soul within their bloated ranks as to taking the hit.

NASA may not have been officially in the business of discovering and making truths, though they're always the first in line for whatever accomplishment credits and otherwise trying to be the very last in line for whatever mistakes or oversights.

Now then, if I had previously realized this prior knowledge and wisdom; lets just say someone nice (like myself) comes along pointing a few opportunities out, such as of January 2001, like my discovering those rather highly unusual geometrical patterns existing on Venus, of those imaged by way of a top notch NSA spy/surveillance quality digital SAR imaging process, verified as that being error free as well as distortion free and unaltered, of showing us numerous items of interest which have never before been recorded as their being anything so natural, at least not by such a degree of complexity and not as recognized by imaging upon any other planet including Earth, but as otherwise looking very much artificial as well as affording a multitude of rational community like attributes, in which case I'd have to seriously consider the likely possibility that someone or something managed to evolve (in spite of our NASA moderated Borg like beliefs that Venus has been and remain simply too damn hot and nasty), in order to have so significantly modified their physical environment, perhaps by those sorts of evolutionary folks having been expedited along by the onset of global warming, so as to suit a terrifically toasty greenhouse environment.

BTW; This observation is not stating for any fact that what's to been seen is still alive and kicking, although, of now knowing what little I do about the complexities of biology, of certain nocturnal capabilities, of science, biology and of the laws of physics and just further pondering upon the exact opposit of what Mars could possibly have to offer, where Mars offers so darn little natural energy without any benefit whatsoever of cosmic or galactic radiation shielding (other than for residing under a big rock), whereas on Venus there has been a rather great deal of cosmic/solar radiation shielding plus abundant natural (renewable/green) energy just about anywhere you care to look, and because if all this, I'd have to concede that indeed that there's a sufficient probability of survivors making a go of it, in spite of all the hot and nasty aspects, as well as in spite of our inferior intellectual capabilities to even consider upon the possibilities, as absolutely nothing beats pure unadulterated arrogance.

If within that image of discovery (of at least three sites so far) there were to be a number of clear signs of a horizontal bridge spanning a deep and relatively steep canyon/rille, of that span potentially exceeding 2 km, of there being an associated and clearly excavated roadbed that's circumventing a rather rugged mountain range along with all sorts of other entirely unnatural yet oddly symmetrical excavation features along the way, plus touting a nearby/adjoining township that's comprised of multiple highrise structures hosting its' own tarmac of good size (indicating equipment on deck as well as configured with those again highly symmetrical sub-service bays), then of otherwise there being another issue of a rather huge rigid airship being depicted along with its' silo/hangar, plus having a nearby installation of two recessed rows of multiple and aligned spheres, plus realizing another larger complex or extremely close association of four massive (above surface) reservoirs interconnected to a fifth reservoir that's clearly containing something fluid or at least mud like, as then just possibly I'd have to reconsider upon what all my years of schooling, of following and believing in the Apollo program and of astronomy textbook references to planets such as Venus along with a few too many other assertions imposed by NASA as those being entirely biased if not downright feeding us disinformation.

Since recorded science and the laws of physics have not changed all that much since 40 years ago, so, how could those claiming responsibility for defining the geology and subsequent surface and atmospheric conditions of Venus be so far off, or otherwise so focused on the bad and the ugly by intentionally avoiding all of the positive what ifs, such as to what Darwin clearly defines as possible evolution, and of those what ifs of other science and physics that's clearly defining this discovery as not only probable but most likely.

Basically, I'm at a village idiot loss, as to understand the honest intentions of those opposing whatever is Venus, as oddly those very same science and physics laws that supposedly placed man on the moon (late 60's fly-by-wire and radiation proof landers and all of that making those controlled downrange lunar landings, even though we still can't seem to keep Ospreys in the air) is being touted as to why there's no possibility of life (not ever) and therefore of whatever is looking artificially geometric or of symmetrical patterns are of no worth, not even to the basic science worth of understanding planetary geology, as apparently not even the discovery of what has to be a massive and active fluid arch that's clearly indicating its' secondary erosion is of no apparent worth whatsoever. How freaking odd, how pathetically bigoted and otherwise intentionally obstructive. No wonder our shuttles are roasting batch after batch of astronauts, as no one seems to actually give a tinkers damn about much of anything except for getting all of their benefits and lucrative retirement, irregardless of whatever immoral implications or carnage.

Now folks and fellow snookered village idiots, I can certainly understand the cold-war ruse/sting motivation of what's making this holy avoidance (absolute "nondisclosure") of Venus into such a big deal, as dog-wagging has certainly been in full swing ever since I informed NASA as well as informing NIMA, NSA and even the white house (that means warlord Bush has known of this discovery), along with any number of diversions taking place in order to sufficiently preoccupy the news media while giving lots of political re-election exposure at taxpayer expense, not to mention body counts plus all those invisible WMDs and all. I can understand the financial motives and subsequent fears of worldly repercussions, not to mention of the media that's become so interdependent upon running all those government sponsored infomercials and, it's not that all infomercials are necessarily a bad thing, just a darn good way of the cloak and dagger aspects of government to control the troops without their ever having to go public with the truth.

In closing; I've just learned that for the most part we actually don't need any stinking flaming shuttles, as the Angara 5-UOHB is quite capable of placing 11.2 metric tonnes (~27,000 pounds) into geostationary transfer orbits (GTO) at US brokered prices approaching $5,000 per lb. (even thats got to be at least double the cost of what could be delivered by a purely Russian launch) and best of all, that's roughly capable of getting 100,000 lbs into LEO (such as a delivery to ISS), where size/volume of delivery is perhaps what's less than shuttle volume capability, although there's no astronauts to burn up, so that's a rather positive thing, not to mention the enormous reduction in greenhouse CO2 created since there's so much lesser dead-weight having to be delivered into orbit, not to mention all the reentry and subsequent recovery outlay.