(via Boeing/TRW Phantom Works [ABL] laser cannon)

Perhaps a wee bit of overkill, however, if the planet receiving is covered in relative thick clouds, then perhaps the TRW/laser cannon is just the ticket, especially if a little mercury will create some or a great deal of it's spectrum within the 350 nm to 450 nm zone, as well as the adaptive mirror offering a 0.5 milliradian beam is all the better for getting our point across. In which case the 1 GW input capability is a bit much, since as little as 0.1% of that amount could be sufficient for the likes of Venus, whereas 100% may be necessary for the likes of Jupiter.

It's been quite some time since I've gone through my old "interplanetary communications" proposals, as still offering a most worthy research endeavor, as well as moral consideration that's entirely within our existing technology and meager budgets, especially since we seem to have been running amuck with fewer astronauts that are willing to being exposed (roasted), especially whenever those of the Boeing/TRW Phantom Works team and of their ABL laser cannon is airborne. This is not to mention becoming tired of our flushing billions of further debt that's still going badly into the ISS platform as for representing the most expensive space toilet ever conceived, even though so far nothing even comes close to the trillions globally invested in what Hubble represents, of which Hubble has obviously involved and is still in need of taking further astronaut risk unless we were to let go of something that's merely taking great pictures of places mankind will never reach (most targets of interest being 1000+ generations distant and most of those have been traveling away from Earth at speeds we've never aproached), but likely all of this will otherwise continue to bankrupt us as well as for creating more of the same associations for global warming, by a good and respectable factor of creating thousands of new CO2 tonnes just for the prospect of our maintaining the damn thing (no wonder Earths' greenhouse is being expedited along).

I've been told by any number of pro-NASA wizards and even by others claiming as not cloaking on behalf of NASA/NSA/DoD agendas, that's it's somehow nearly "impossible to use artificial light as for any interplanetary communications method".

Well folks and fellow village idiots, how truly pathetic; sorry but, I tend to thoroughly disagree, for numerous observational qualified reasons among many others that simply haven't been disqualified, irregardless of how much incoming flak I've taken on.

Gee whiz folks; it seems that of having some knowledge is in fact downright dangerous (flak worthy), of realizing what illumination can do and, as such being further backed up by exactly what my critics claim as being their truths, such as the fact of light leaving Earth or Venus, once beyond either atmosphere is not significantly altered in divergence, nor is there any significant loss of intensity beyond what's well known of sunlight lumens reaching Earth or other planets. Obviously lightyear+ distances offer diminished lumens, although if we're focused upon 1 AU or lesser distances, such as between Earth and Venus, in which case we not likely to loose by any additional mysterious amounts.

Even though the supposed emptiness of space will always subtract lumens and thereby photon counts will diminish over any given distance and, since those are fairly well recognized factors and supposedly understood by the likes of astronomers and of astrophysics, I'll not bother to speculate upon what's what, other than for my limited understanding of what the full spectrum of solar influx upon Venus being reported as roughly 1.9 that of Earth, thus Earth receives roughly half the solar (full energy spectrum) illumination which is primarily due to the coefficient of distance, even though the near-UV and fully UV portions of our solar spectrum are not likely as affected, as are of those spectrums of larger visible photons comprising what you and I see and/or of the larger yet IR photons that's mostly associated with what's heating us up, whereas IR is apparently more so affected by distance, as to diminish at a greater proportion than the UV spectrum, thus we can see distant stars that are much more massive as well as considerably more energetic than ours (Sirius a/b) but not perceptively nor even measurably receiving their heat (thank God).

Of  UV/b/c  is more akin to cosmic radiation, especially of UV/c (such as 193 nm) is a typically lethal and a very energetic form of DNA/RNA chopping photons that penetrate free space, as well as into the bone, at a much greater efficiency than visible light. Here on Earth, much of the UV/b/c spectrum has been thoughtfully filtered out and/or converted by the ozone (O3) layers surrounding our planet and, of other more harmful radiation hazards are those blocked and/or trapped by the relatively thick magnitosphere of Van Allen belts (lucky us). A small percentage of UV/a penetrates to Earth's surface in order to make things grow and otherwise intended to giving you and myself sunburns if not skin cancers. Slightly above the UV spectrum (near-UV) we have the deep violet (380 nm) and blue (440 to 460 nm) which penetrate rather harmlessly and quite nicely, while delivering 10^28 photons per lumen.

BTW; a rather technology/biologically piss poor human eye and of its inferior visual cortex can perceive as few as 10 photons per 100 ms, whereas an evolved nocturnal sort of eye can achieve a magnitude 5 advantage, making that into 10 photons/ms or perhaps otherwise 1 photon/100 ms. Either way, nocturnals see quite nicely down to 350 nm and, their most sensitive perception is more likely 450 nm or less as opposed to humans being 550 nm.

In fact, it has been tested that of 425~450 nm is actually quite good at penetrating liquid sulphuric acid, not to mention of certain clouds containing a great deal of sulphuric acid, thus is why Venus offers a good deal of daylight illumination (similar to an overcast day on Earth, except more yellowish) and, even some degree of sunburn characteristics. If the 1.9 factor is applied onto Venus, their portion of the entire UV solar influx is 224 w/m2 and, if 25% of that's getting through, then obviously there's 56 w/m2 present, which pretty much puts a damper on developing any suntanning business enterprise potential. Even a 10% penetration of UV/a is going to make life difficult, hot or not.

Of course, Venus has a rather extensive duration of nighttime, more like a season of night, where those terrific clouds are radiating away all of their daytime solar influx of energy, aided along by the rather terrific thermal conductivity of the mostly CO2 atmosphere itself, plus of the greater thermal conductivity of them there cooler nighttime clouds. There is a planetary thermal ballance, where such clouds are in fact not only cooling things off for 2900 hours worth but as a result of radiating so much energy are in fact hovering somewhat lower to the surface, as well as for their becoming somewhat more transparent, as they're thinner and most likely offering greater contrast, of representing less density by as much as 50:1, taking a 10 km nighttime thickness down to a mere 0.2 km of depth in places.

Now don't get yourself all huffy that I'm not the Venus atmospheric wizard in charge of such things, as whatever the nighttime cloud thickness is, whether it's 20 km or 5 km thick, as either freaking way is less elevated than daytime and of that ratio of 20:1 reported as a typical daytime variance is most likely offering a greater ratio at night, at least the IR images of Venus seems to portray this as being the case. So, I'm just learning from the best and applying such in a positive spin that's not risking billions nor astronauts.

At times (especially every 18 months), Earthshine offers another worthy consideration for dimly illuminating the surface of Venus, not so much for Earthlings, as we still can see worth a damn, especially below any thick cloud covered sky and, even though there's darn little natural UV coming off Earthshine (mostly 450 to 700+ nm which is effectively cloud blocked, but not entirely), there's millions of stars emitting a great deal of their combined UV. Starlight influx (including full UV spectrum) at the very least 0.1 mw/m2, of which 10 uw/m2 of the near-UV and UV/a could easily be penetrating those nighttime clouds (still quite useless for humans), which sounds fairly pathetic until you apply that for a 10 km2 area of sky (roughly 25º as viewed from the surface), then apply the lumen factor associated with nocturnal vision and/or do the math of 10^28 photons/lumen.

10 km2 = 100^6 m2 * 10^-6 w = 1^3 w

If we were to conservatively apply only the 680 lumen/watt (noting that human nightvision sensitivity at 550 nm is actually 1700 lumens/watt, and I'm finding that of nocturnals ott to be obtaining a magnitude 5 or better yet = 170,000 lumen/watt)

1^3 w * 680 * 10^28 = 68^33 photons

(that's of CW photons unless Earth is transmitting something in binary format or perhaps better yet in quantum binary format).

Here's some Boeing/TRW Phantom Works (ABL) laser cannon prospects or what ifs:
Even though this is a wee bit of overkill, it's certainly possible to derate that laser from being of IR format into being spiked with a few ingredients such as mercury, thus creating far more lumens than BTUs. As well as for utilizing far less energy input and good use of the adaptive optics that's certainly become 2.5 milliradian if not sub-milliradian capable by now. Thus presumably the beam energy and divergence can be adjusted to suit the task at hand, as well as for modulation, even if that modulation should initially be electro-mechanically accommodated, as a relatively low baud rate is all that's necessary until we've managed to pissed off those Venus heathens to the point of creating our first interplanetary war (warlord Bush should be proud of this idea, especially if those Venus folks are hiding any of those invisible WMDs).

@1 GW input, @33% eff. = 333 MW
As for our utilizing but 1% of that 333 MW = 3.33 MW

Lets say we apply the laser cannon at broad 5 milliradian, using 1% of it's capability.

5 milliradian at a distance of 50^6km is going to project a spot or flood of illumination on roughly 75% of those Venus clouds,

That's roughly covering an area or territory of 60^12 m2
3.33^6 w / 60^12 m2 = 0.0555^-6 w  (0.0555 uw/m2)

if 25% of that near-UV should penetrate those nighttime clouds:
0.0555 uw * .25 = 0.014 uw/m2

Using the conservative human based lumens per watt of 680:
680 * 0.014 uw/m2 = 9.53 u/lumen/m2

10^28 photons * 9.53^-6 lumen = 95.3^22 gross photons per bit

Even if we should require greater focus and/or illumination in order to sufficiently override starlight as well as Earthshine, as you can see or at least read, even if I'm way off in the lumens by being 1000% too great, of which I think this is not the case, just the opposit if we're discussing nocturnal vision, as either way we've got photons to spare, not to mention what a 10% laser cannon delivery can manage nor that of a 0.5 milliradian which imposes another 100 times multiplier (that 10% power at .5 mr is creating a 1000 fold improvement). I've also recently come across a solid state laser of 5 watts offering a raw 0.4 milliradian performance, of that providing 20^9 cd, so I really do not foresee any compromise of the ABL not being capable of sub-milliradian performance, as after all, if the star-wars initiative had any worthy humanitarian defensive goal of taking out an incoming nuke/WMD, that context certainly ott to include a terrestrial 1000 mile (1600+ km) capability.

I've been informed that of any good photon detection technology, that a minimum of 10 photons (above ambient or background noise) need be detected per bit. Of course that's based upon Terabeam's IR photons and not of anything UV worthy. So, instead of giving UV any photon advantage over IR, lets say we needed 1000 of those UV photons/bit.

95^22 / 1^3 = 95^19 individual bits per ms.

If we give a great deal of further latitude to signal degrading as well as various packet dwell and/or pause or nulls of 10:1, that's still worth 95^18 of ordinary bits/ms being comprised of those 1000 photons each. I'm not absolutely certain but, doing the math seems to be indicating upon some rather substantial throughput capability, that's far exceeding what our current expertise has to offer.

Thus, what if we were to give 1^6 photons per bit, that's still 95^15 of those ordinary packet bits per ms. Taking this to the next level of 100^6 photons per packet bit and we're finally down to the dull roar of 95^12/ms (95 terrabits/ms). I'm not exactly sure but, I believe this is still pushing things just a wee bit.

Now then, I believe it become rather obvious that of the ABL method, we've got Venus nailed pretty darn good. Although, getting anything NSA/DoD focused upon a purely humanitarian and thereby morally respectable goal is like telling warlord Bush there really isn't any of those WMDs. Chances are that of the non-NASA and thereby non-NSA/DoD types are going to have to somehow accommodate this opportunity without the supposed expertise nor resources of any pagan God(s). Unfortunately we've already blown our best ever opportunity when Venus was within 0.27 AU and, it wan't even trekking directly across the sun, but of roughly 6 degrees below, as this next opportunity is not nearly as solar isolated, as Venus will trek directly across the southern hemisphere of the sun, making those observations as well as for observing anything transmitted from Venus a real bitch, though Venus observing Earth will as usual be another vibrant opportunity, somewhat like you and I look at our moon, except Earth will be only 3.5% the diameter.

BTW; viewing any planet indicating as 3.5% the diameter of our moon is of sufficient size to discriminate upon as little resolution detail as 1000 km2 by way of any naked eye, of far better yet capability by any good nocturnal eye that's situated aloft cruising over those nighttime clouds in a relatively massive rigid airship observatory (no lie). As to what motivation any surviving soul (presumably Venus lizard folk) might have for their looking at such a pathetically inhabited planet as Earth is still undetermined.

If you want my view on what other there is to consider about Venus, need you ask, as I'll certainly provide any number of rational conjectures supported by sufficient science and of the physics backing that up, to such an extent that I simply can not believe how absolutely arrogant and thereby immoral those claiming there's absolutely nothing worth looking at or of going after that's situated on Venus, as in their same breath they're insisting upon going after deeper (cost plus) space probes, more into ISS, of ever more Hubble enhancements and, of acquiring what can only be lethal Mars microbes and, of lately going after the dry-ice of all things Pluto. Not to even mention upon all the hundreds of thousands of new tonnes of artificially created and very sticky CO2 that's created just for Earth (as though we don't already have too damn much global warming), but of also justifying the added risk to future astronauts (even if the Phantom Works ABL is grounded during such missions), as there's still tremendous risk factors that can and will eventually happen. Meanwhile, Earth will likely be impacted by any number of asteroids that we've either failed to notice and/or simply failed to achieve any degree of confidence for defending Earth from such (too god damn busy pissing off Islamics or Muslims and/or subsequently having to defend Jews from half the damn world, not to mention reconstructing tall buildings). Perhaps it's just a good thing we're not after the Catholics that exterminated all those nice Cathars, as I'll just bet the Pope still has plenty of those invisible WMDs.

If and when I return to this document, it'll be to apply corrections, improve the impact, to add some graphics and share new found data and ideas, as well as whatever feedback you might care to offer.

To the INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of updates)
alternate URL's:  and
Copyright © 2000/2001/2002/2003 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: July 06, 2003

Brad Guth / IEIS