Geomagnetic Solar Wind and K Index Watch: Incoming...
40 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Sun May 09, 2010 9:54 am » by Kingz
kingz wrote:Current Geo-Magnetic Storm Level
Low: Dst > -20 nT
Medium: -20 nT > Dst > -50 nT
High: -50 nT > Dst > -100 nT
Extreme: Dst < -100 nT
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/dst_index/
HOLY CRAP!
EDIT:
I guess I should had to make a screencapture.. since the picture above is updated every now and then.... It was in the red area for queit a while:
Last edited by Kingz on Sun May 09, 2010 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Map Is Not The Territory, The Word Is Not The Object....
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Sun May 09, 2010 10:04 am » by Kingz
Simulating the Sun's Worst Storms
Thursday February 11, 2010
Image Credit: Image of visualization by John Clyne, NCAR/CISL, copyright University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 2002. Visualization based on research by the following scientists: Dusan Odstrcil, NOAA/SEC, Jon Linker, SAIC, Zoran Mikic, SAIC, Roberto Lionello, SAIC. Use for noncommercial, non-profit research or educational purposes only. Contact UCAR for permissions regarding additional use.
This Research in Action article was provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation.
From Sept. 1 to 2, 1859, the Earth’s magnetosphere — which is trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field and envelopes the planet like an invisible atmospheric cocoon — was hit by a coronal mass ejection (CME), a massive blast from the sun containing highly charged gases and plasma. The material in the blast may have weighed as much as a billion tons and raced through the solar system at several million miles per hour.
The resulting temporary disturbance of the Earth’s magnetosphere, known as a geomagnetic storm, set skies ablaze all over the world with technicolor auroras that reached as far south as Cuba and El Salvador, and blew out global telegraph systems, the high-tech communication devices of the day.
The 1859 geomagnetic storm, called the Carrington Storm, was the largest geomagnetic storm ever recorded.
"But there is absolutely no reason why the Earth couldn’t be hit by an equally or even more violent geomagnetic storm today, tomorrow, or the next day," said Sarah Gibson of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
Because Carrington occurred during relatively low-tech times, the havoc it unleashed provided but a tame preview of a contemporary Carrington-like storm hitting our technology-dependent society. In fact, according to a report by the National Academy of Sciences, a contemporary Carrington-like storm could trigger cascading catastrophes, including melted transformers that could shut down large, interconnected power grids, power outages impacting as many as 130 million people, backed-up sewage systems, failure of electronic transportation systems, and the collapse of systems used to distribute drinking water, food, medicines and fuel.
But a geomagnetic storm would not have to reach Carrington's record-breaking strength to cause serious damage. In recent years, weaker geomagnetic storms have downed satellites, increased the radiation exposure of astronauts, disrupted communication and navigation systems and knocked out power to large populations.
CME's are associated with peaks in the activity of sunspots, which are knots of magnetism on the sun’s surface generated by subsurface movements of solar material. (Sunspots appear dark because they are cooler and therefore less bright than their hotter surroundings.) Sunspot activity peaks about every 11 years; this 11-year cycle is, in turn, related to a 22-year cycle of reversals in the Sun’s magnetic field.
During a typical 11-year sunspot cycle, the sun hurls about 100 severe CME's and about four extreme CME's into the solar system, only a fraction of which usually hit the Earth. Such CME's are most likely to occur during peaks in sunspot activity, and are less likely to occur during periods of low sunspot activity.
"But," warns Gibson, "CME's still occur during periods of low sunspot activity; but they are just fewer and further between than during active sunspot periods. And so it is still very possible for a fierce geomagnetic storm to occur during a solar minimum."
Because scientists vigilantly watch for CME's through high-tech telescopes and because it usually takes two or three days for most of a CME's impacts to reach the Earth, scientists can anticipate geomagnetic storms once Earth-directed CME's start. Nevertheless, scientists cannot yet forecast when CME's will start.
With funding from the National Science Foundation, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are currently using various methods to improve their understanding of CME's and their ability to forecast them. Among these methods are computer simulations (see image) of CME's that describe their physical properties based on conditions on the Sun and Earth and the laws of magnetism, electricity, gravity and thermodynamics.
Some simulations are based on hypothetical data that is designed to reflect typical solar events. But other simulations are based on specific data collected on a particular day and are designed to recreate actual CME's. Data incorporated into such simulations may include, for example, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun during the CME; the mass, composition, size and electrical charge of the CME; and conditions immediately around the Earth upon the CME's arrival. By comparing their simulation with direct observations of the real-life CME it was designed to recreate, scientists can evaluate their simulation’s accuracy and improve it.
To see an animated simulation of a CME, visit: http://www.vets.ucar.edu/vg/SME/index.shtml
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. See the Research in Action archive.
http://www.livescience.com/researchinaction/archive.php
- Lily Whiteman, NSF
http://www.livescience.com/researchinac ... 00211.html
Thursday February 11, 2010
Image Credit: Image of visualization by John Clyne, NCAR/CISL, copyright University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 2002. Visualization based on research by the following scientists: Dusan Odstrcil, NOAA/SEC, Jon Linker, SAIC, Zoran Mikic, SAIC, Roberto Lionello, SAIC. Use for noncommercial, non-profit research or educational purposes only. Contact UCAR for permissions regarding additional use.
This Research in Action article was provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation.
From Sept. 1 to 2, 1859, the Earth’s magnetosphere — which is trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field and envelopes the planet like an invisible atmospheric cocoon — was hit by a coronal mass ejection (CME), a massive blast from the sun containing highly charged gases and plasma. The material in the blast may have weighed as much as a billion tons and raced through the solar system at several million miles per hour.
The resulting temporary disturbance of the Earth’s magnetosphere, known as a geomagnetic storm, set skies ablaze all over the world with technicolor auroras that reached as far south as Cuba and El Salvador, and blew out global telegraph systems, the high-tech communication devices of the day.
The 1859 geomagnetic storm, called the Carrington Storm, was the largest geomagnetic storm ever recorded.
"But there is absolutely no reason why the Earth couldn’t be hit by an equally or even more violent geomagnetic storm today, tomorrow, or the next day," said Sarah Gibson of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
Because Carrington occurred during relatively low-tech times, the havoc it unleashed provided but a tame preview of a contemporary Carrington-like storm hitting our technology-dependent society. In fact, according to a report by the National Academy of Sciences, a contemporary Carrington-like storm could trigger cascading catastrophes, including melted transformers that could shut down large, interconnected power grids, power outages impacting as many as 130 million people, backed-up sewage systems, failure of electronic transportation systems, and the collapse of systems used to distribute drinking water, food, medicines and fuel.
But a geomagnetic storm would not have to reach Carrington's record-breaking strength to cause serious damage. In recent years, weaker geomagnetic storms have downed satellites, increased the radiation exposure of astronauts, disrupted communication and navigation systems and knocked out power to large populations.
CME's are associated with peaks in the activity of sunspots, which are knots of magnetism on the sun’s surface generated by subsurface movements of solar material. (Sunspots appear dark because they are cooler and therefore less bright than their hotter surroundings.) Sunspot activity peaks about every 11 years; this 11-year cycle is, in turn, related to a 22-year cycle of reversals in the Sun’s magnetic field.
During a typical 11-year sunspot cycle, the sun hurls about 100 severe CME's and about four extreme CME's into the solar system, only a fraction of which usually hit the Earth. Such CME's are most likely to occur during peaks in sunspot activity, and are less likely to occur during periods of low sunspot activity.
"But," warns Gibson, "CME's still occur during periods of low sunspot activity; but they are just fewer and further between than during active sunspot periods. And so it is still very possible for a fierce geomagnetic storm to occur during a solar minimum."
Because scientists vigilantly watch for CME's through high-tech telescopes and because it usually takes two or three days for most of a CME's impacts to reach the Earth, scientists can anticipate geomagnetic storms once Earth-directed CME's start. Nevertheless, scientists cannot yet forecast when CME's will start.
With funding from the National Science Foundation, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research are currently using various methods to improve their understanding of CME's and their ability to forecast them. Among these methods are computer simulations (see image) of CME's that describe their physical properties based on conditions on the Sun and Earth and the laws of magnetism, electricity, gravity and thermodynamics.
Some simulations are based on hypothetical data that is designed to reflect typical solar events. But other simulations are based on specific data collected on a particular day and are designed to recreate actual CME's. Data incorporated into such simulations may include, for example, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun during the CME; the mass, composition, size and electrical charge of the CME; and conditions immediately around the Earth upon the CME's arrival. By comparing their simulation with direct observations of the real-life CME it was designed to recreate, scientists can evaluate their simulation’s accuracy and improve it.
To see an animated simulation of a CME, visit: http://www.vets.ucar.edu/vg/SME/index.shtml
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. See the Research in Action archive.
http://www.livescience.com/researchinaction/archive.php
- Lily Whiteman, NSF
http://www.livescience.com/researchinac ... 00211.html
The Map Is Not The Territory, The Word Is Not The Object....
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
- Chronicnerd
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:15 am
Fri May 14, 2010 9:43 am » by Chronicnerd
Ok,
So I am still looking into CME numbers (geesh math is hard), however... I uh... I uhmmm...
Stumbled across something...
So, I was looking at someone who had posted some "clairvoyant's" prediction for like a 9.2 earthquake sometime today... and I was like "wrrhah?" (scoobie face)
So...I went wandering over to one of the sources I typically go to for Solar information, http://www.spaceweather.com, and was like...
....crickets....
I seemed to remember reading not too many days ago that there was going to be something happening...but it was like *no big deal* so I passed it up... and so I started looking through the history all the way back to May 7th... and was like...ok...no way... nothing incoming... so if this "psychic" person is right (and he is predicting it is because of Nibiru)...then we will see geomagnetic fluctuations with no incoming proton shower/emfs...
So... I went to NASA's site to check out what was what... and didn't really see *anything* that stood out, especially since I am beginning to *sort of* understand all of the graphs and loads of data...
*BUT*...just to be sure I figured I would take a gander at some of the *predictions*... and paged through some of the *short term* predictions...and didn't really see anything that stood out... so I was *ALMOST* about to move on to other things...and just by chance I noticed this *yearly* forecast for our sun...for like you know... the next decade...
My jaw literally dropped... like I am still pulling carpet out of my teeth... I looked at Nasa's prediction for...oh...you know... the period around 2012?
( I placed in bold the region of interest)
============================================================
redicted_Sunspot_Numbers_and_Radio_Flux: Predict.txt
:Created: 2010 May 04 1800 UTC
# Prepared by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC).
# Please send comments and suggestions to swpc.webmaster@noaa.gov
#
# Sunspot Number: S.I.D.C. Brussels International Sunspot Number.
# 10.7cm Radio Flux value: Penticton, B.C. Canada.
# Predicted values are based on the consensus of the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel.
#
# See the README3 file for further information.
#
# Missing or not applicable data: -1
#
# Predicted Sunspot Number And Radio Flux Values
# With Expected Ranges
#
# -----Sunspot Number------ ----10.7 cm Radio Flux----
# YR MO PREDICTED HIGH LOW PREDICTED HIGH LOW
#--------------------------------------------------------------
2009 11 8.3 9.3 7.3 74.9 75.9 73.9
2009 12 10.4 12.4 8.4 76.1 77.1 75.1
2010 01 12.6 15.6 9.6 77.6 79.6 75.6
2010 02 15.2 20.2 10.2 79.4 82.4 76.4
2010 03 18.0 23.0 13.0 81.3 85.3 77.3
2010 04 20.9 26.9 14.9 83.2 87.2 79.2
2010 05 23.9 30.9 16.9 85.1 90.1 80.1
2010 06 27.0 34.0 20.0 87.1 93.1 81.1
2010 07 29.9 37.9 21.9 89.0 96.0 82.0
2010 08 32.7 41.7 23.7 90.8 98.8 82.8
2010 09 35.6 44.6 26.6 92.6 100.6 84.6
2010 10 39.2 49.2 29.2 95.1 104.1 86.1
2010 11 42.5 52.5 32.5 97.7 106.7 88.7
2010 12 45.3 55.3 35.3 100.3 109.3 91.3
2011 01 48.0 58.0 38.0 102.8 111.8 93.8
2011 02 50.7 60.7 40.7 105.2 114.2 96.2
2011 03 53.3 63.3 43.3 107.7 116.7 98.7
2011 04 55.9 65.9 45.9 110.0 119.0 101.0
2011 05 58.5 68.5 48.5 112.4 121.4 103.4
2011 06 60.9 70.9 50.9 114.6 123.6 105.6
2011 07 63.3 73.3 53.3 116.8 125.8 107.8
2011 08 65.7 75.7 55.7 119.0 128.0 110.0
2011 09 67.9 77.9 57.9 121.0 130.0 112.0
2011 10 70.0 80.0 60.0 123.0 132.0 114.0
2011 11 72.1 82.1 62.1 124.9 133.9 115.9
2011 12 74.0 84.0 64.0 126.7 135.7 117.7
2012 01 75.9 85.9 65.9 128.4 137.4 119.4
2012 02 77.6 87.6 67.6 130.0 139.0 121.0
2012 03 79.3 89.3 69.3 131.5 140.5 122.5
2012 04 80.8 90.8 70.8 132.9 141.9 123.9
2012 05 82.2 92.2 72.2 134.1 143.1 125.1
2012 06 83.5 93.5 73.5 135.3 144.3 126.3
2012 07 84.6 94.6 74.6 136.4 145.4 127.4
2012 08 85.7 95.7 75.7 137.4 146.4 128.4
2012 09 86.6 96.6 76.6 138.2 147.2 129.2
2012 10 87.5 97.5 77.5 139.0 148.0 130.0
2012 11 88.2 98.2 78.2 139.6 148.6 130.6
2012 12 88.7 98.7 78.7 140.2 149.2 131.2
2013 01 89.2 99.2 79.2 140.6 149.6 131.6
2013 02 89.6 99.6 79.6 140.9 149.9 131.9
2013 03 89.8 99.8 79.8 141.1 150.1 132.1
2013 04 89.9 99.9 79.9 141.3 150.3 132.3
2013 05 90.0 100.0 80.0 141.3 150.3 132.3
2013 06 89.9 99.9 79.9 141.2 150.2 132.2
2013 07 89.7 99.7 79.7 141.0 150.0 132.0
2013 08 89.4 99.4 79.4 140.7 149.7 131.7
2013 09 89.0 99.0 79.0 140.4 149.4 131.4
2013 10 88.5 98.5 78.5 139.9 148.9 130.9
2013 11 87.9 97.9 77.9 139.4 148.4 130.4
2013 12 87.2 97.2 77.2 138.8 147.8 129.8
2014 01 86.4 96.4 76.4 138.1 147.1 129.1
2014 02 85.6 95.6 75.6 137.3 146.3 128.3
2014 03 84.7 94.7 74.7 136.4 145.4 127.4
2014 04 83.7 93.7 73.7 135.5 144.5 126.5
2014 05 82.6 92.6 72.6 134.5 143.5 125.5
2014 06 81.4 91.4 71.4 133.5 142.5 124.5
2014 07 80.2 90.2 70.2 132.3 141.3 123.3
2014 08 78.9 88.9 68.9 131.2 140.2 122.2
2014 09 77.6 87.6 67.6 129.9 138.9 120.9
2014 10 76.2 86.2 66.2 128.7 137.7 119.7
2014 11 74.8 84.8 64.8 127.4 136.4 118.4
2014 12 73.3 83.3 63.3 126.0 135.0 117.0
2015 01 71.8 81.8 61.8 124.6 133.6 115.6
2015 02 70.2 80.2 60.2 123.2 132.2 114.2
2015 03 68.7 78.7 58.7 121.7 130.7 112.7
2015 04 67.0 77.0 57.0 120.2 129.2 111.2
2015 05 65.4 75.4 55.4 118.7 127.7 109.7
============================================================
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Predict.txt
Uhmmm... ok... so what *exactly* does all of these numbers mean?
Not sure... gotta sleep... if anyone can find previous radio flux values, say around 2000-2001 (when we had some heavy duty solar flares) it would be interesting to compare values...
Either case, the numbers appears to go up...quite a bit...during the tail end of 2012 and through the first six months of 2013...
Ok..so I found a good reference point... and seeing that Michio kaku had stated Nasa's numbers were way off... and seeing we beat the predicted values...earlier this year...by a large amount... we can look at the range of error and the average rate of change coupled with their *wide* margin for error... and looking at this graph...
Uh... we hit the 230's with some of the larger flares of this year... the numbers above...ehhh....uh...
Are way off... but if the rate of increase is the same...yet the "error" Michio was talking about hasn't really been "changed" with some of the predictions....(otherwise...how can we have predicted low 90's for this year and hit the 230's?)
Anyone know of a good, deep, cave lined with copper?
So I am still looking into CME numbers (geesh math is hard), however... I uh... I uhmmm...
Stumbled across something...
So, I was looking at someone who had posted some "clairvoyant's" prediction for like a 9.2 earthquake sometime today... and I was like "wrrhah?" (scoobie face)
So...I went wandering over to one of the sources I typically go to for Solar information, http://www.spaceweather.com, and was like...
....crickets....
I seemed to remember reading not too many days ago that there was going to be something happening...but it was like *no big deal* so I passed it up... and so I started looking through the history all the way back to May 7th... and was like...ok...no way... nothing incoming... so if this "psychic" person is right (and he is predicting it is because of Nibiru)...then we will see geomagnetic fluctuations with no incoming proton shower/emfs...
So... I went to NASA's site to check out what was what... and didn't really see *anything* that stood out, especially since I am beginning to *sort of* understand all of the graphs and loads of data...
*BUT*...just to be sure I figured I would take a gander at some of the *predictions*... and paged through some of the *short term* predictions...and didn't really see anything that stood out... so I was *ALMOST* about to move on to other things...and just by chance I noticed this *yearly* forecast for our sun...for like you know... the next decade...
My jaw literally dropped... like I am still pulling carpet out of my teeth... I looked at Nasa's prediction for...oh...you know... the period around 2012?
( I placed in bold the region of interest)
============================================================
redicted_Sunspot_Numbers_and_Radio_Flux: Predict.txt:Created: 2010 May 04 1800 UTC
# Prepared by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC).
# Please send comments and suggestions to swpc.webmaster@noaa.gov
#
# Sunspot Number: S.I.D.C. Brussels International Sunspot Number.
# 10.7cm Radio Flux value: Penticton, B.C. Canada.
# Predicted values are based on the consensus of the Solar Cycle 24 Prediction Panel.
#
# See the README3 file for further information.
#
# Missing or not applicable data: -1
#
# Predicted Sunspot Number And Radio Flux Values
# With Expected Ranges
#
# -----Sunspot Number------ ----10.7 cm Radio Flux----
# YR MO PREDICTED HIGH LOW PREDICTED HIGH LOW
#--------------------------------------------------------------
2009 11 8.3 9.3 7.3 74.9 75.9 73.9
2009 12 10.4 12.4 8.4 76.1 77.1 75.1
2010 01 12.6 15.6 9.6 77.6 79.6 75.6
2010 02 15.2 20.2 10.2 79.4 82.4 76.4
2010 03 18.0 23.0 13.0 81.3 85.3 77.3
2010 04 20.9 26.9 14.9 83.2 87.2 79.2
2010 05 23.9 30.9 16.9 85.1 90.1 80.1
2010 06 27.0 34.0 20.0 87.1 93.1 81.1
2010 07 29.9 37.9 21.9 89.0 96.0 82.0
2010 08 32.7 41.7 23.7 90.8 98.8 82.8
2010 09 35.6 44.6 26.6 92.6 100.6 84.6
2010 10 39.2 49.2 29.2 95.1 104.1 86.1
2010 11 42.5 52.5 32.5 97.7 106.7 88.7
2010 12 45.3 55.3 35.3 100.3 109.3 91.3
2011 01 48.0 58.0 38.0 102.8 111.8 93.8
2011 02 50.7 60.7 40.7 105.2 114.2 96.2
2011 03 53.3 63.3 43.3 107.7 116.7 98.7
2011 04 55.9 65.9 45.9 110.0 119.0 101.0
2011 05 58.5 68.5 48.5 112.4 121.4 103.4
2011 06 60.9 70.9 50.9 114.6 123.6 105.6
2011 07 63.3 73.3 53.3 116.8 125.8 107.8
2011 08 65.7 75.7 55.7 119.0 128.0 110.0
2011 09 67.9 77.9 57.9 121.0 130.0 112.0
2011 10 70.0 80.0 60.0 123.0 132.0 114.0
2011 11 72.1 82.1 62.1 124.9 133.9 115.9
2011 12 74.0 84.0 64.0 126.7 135.7 117.7
2012 01 75.9 85.9 65.9 128.4 137.4 119.4
2012 02 77.6 87.6 67.6 130.0 139.0 121.0
2012 03 79.3 89.3 69.3 131.5 140.5 122.5
2012 04 80.8 90.8 70.8 132.9 141.9 123.9
2012 05 82.2 92.2 72.2 134.1 143.1 125.1
2012 06 83.5 93.5 73.5 135.3 144.3 126.3
2012 07 84.6 94.6 74.6 136.4 145.4 127.4
2012 08 85.7 95.7 75.7 137.4 146.4 128.4
2012 09 86.6 96.6 76.6 138.2 147.2 129.2
2012 10 87.5 97.5 77.5 139.0 148.0 130.0
2012 11 88.2 98.2 78.2 139.6 148.6 130.6
2012 12 88.7 98.7 78.7 140.2 149.2 131.2
2013 01 89.2 99.2 79.2 140.6 149.6 131.6
2013 02 89.6 99.6 79.6 140.9 149.9 131.9
2013 03 89.8 99.8 79.8 141.1 150.1 132.1
2013 04 89.9 99.9 79.9 141.3 150.3 132.3
2013 05 90.0 100.0 80.0 141.3 150.3 132.3
2013 06 89.9 99.9 79.9 141.2 150.2 132.2
2013 07 89.7 99.7 79.7 141.0 150.0 132.0
2013 08 89.4 99.4 79.4 140.7 149.7 131.7
2013 09 89.0 99.0 79.0 140.4 149.4 131.4
2013 10 88.5 98.5 78.5 139.9 148.9 130.9
2013 11 87.9 97.9 77.9 139.4 148.4 130.4
2013 12 87.2 97.2 77.2 138.8 147.8 129.8
2014 01 86.4 96.4 76.4 138.1 147.1 129.1
2014 02 85.6 95.6 75.6 137.3 146.3 128.3
2014 03 84.7 94.7 74.7 136.4 145.4 127.4
2014 04 83.7 93.7 73.7 135.5 144.5 126.5
2014 05 82.6 92.6 72.6 134.5 143.5 125.5
2014 06 81.4 91.4 71.4 133.5 142.5 124.5
2014 07 80.2 90.2 70.2 132.3 141.3 123.3
2014 08 78.9 88.9 68.9 131.2 140.2 122.2
2014 09 77.6 87.6 67.6 129.9 138.9 120.9
2014 10 76.2 86.2 66.2 128.7 137.7 119.7
2014 11 74.8 84.8 64.8 127.4 136.4 118.4
2014 12 73.3 83.3 63.3 126.0 135.0 117.0
2015 01 71.8 81.8 61.8 124.6 133.6 115.6
2015 02 70.2 80.2 60.2 123.2 132.2 114.2
2015 03 68.7 78.7 58.7 121.7 130.7 112.7
2015 04 67.0 77.0 57.0 120.2 129.2 111.2
2015 05 65.4 75.4 55.4 118.7 127.7 109.7
============================================================
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/weekly/Predict.txt
Uhmmm... ok... so what *exactly* does all of these numbers mean?
Not sure... gotta sleep... if anyone can find previous radio flux values, say around 2000-2001 (when we had some heavy duty solar flares) it would be interesting to compare values...
Either case, the numbers appears to go up...quite a bit...during the tail end of 2012 and through the first six months of 2013...
Ok..so I found a good reference point... and seeing that Michio kaku had stated Nasa's numbers were way off... and seeing we beat the predicted values...earlier this year...by a large amount... we can look at the range of error and the average rate of change coupled with their *wide* margin for error... and looking at this graph...
Uh... we hit the 230's with some of the larger flares of this year... the numbers above...ehhh....uh...
Are way off... but if the rate of increase is the same...yet the "error" Michio was talking about hasn't really been "changed" with some of the predictions....(otherwise...how can we have predicted low 90's for this year and hit the 230's?)
Anyone know of a good, deep, cave lined with copper?
Last edited by Chronicnerd on Fri May 14, 2010 9:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fri May 14, 2010 9:57 am » by Ph0enix
@ chronic nerd, you're skipping something. again, i'm not saying its definately gonna happen. who knows. but i have noticed that whenever the sun goes ape sh*t as it did on the 7th, we get a major earthquake within 10 days. these "clairvoyants" might be on to something. thing is, they said it before the 7th. so if they're right, its intersting. thats the only point of my post. if they're right and they say its because of nibiru, that to be gives nibiru a little more validity too. thats why in the title i put "we will see."
jetxvii wrote:I am speechless...... I had no Idea it was this big.
I have no words
- Chronicnerd
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:15 am
Fri May 14, 2010 10:03 am » by Chronicnerd
Dude..it is all good...I don't mean to sound like a jerk... I am just a little skeptical with "psychics" as several came forward predicting that aliens will land or the like and nothing happened...
The point of my post man... look at the graph Flux chart for this year...LOOK at the values... then LOOK at the margin for error between the values and the predicted values... then LOOK at 2012...and think about how we have already hit radio flux values of 230 and that was with a predicted 90 range...and in 2012 they predicted 150...
So... that is roughly a 2.5x possible range of upward error... so 2.5 times 150... 383!
The point of my post man... look at the graph Flux chart for this year...LOOK at the values... then LOOK at the margin for error between the values and the predicted values... then LOOK at 2012...and think about how we have already hit radio flux values of 230 and that was with a predicted 90 range...and in 2012 they predicted 150...
So... that is roughly a 2.5x possible range of upward error... so 2.5 times 150... 383!
Fri May 14, 2010 10:07 am » by Ph0enix
chronicnerd wrote:Dude..it is all good...I don't mean to sound like a jerk... I am just a little skeptical with "psychics" as several came forward predicting that aliens will land or the like and nothing happened...
The point of my post man... look at the graph Flux chart for this year...LOOK at the values... then LOOK at the margin for error between the values and the predicted values... then LOOK at 2012...and think about how we have already hit radio flux values of 230 and that was with a predicted 90 range...and in 2012 they predicted 150...
So... that is roughly a 2.5x possible range of upward error... so 2.5 times 150... 383!
so you like charts? go compare your charts to the i-chings videos. you might not sleep for a while if you're really into charts and correlations.
jetxvii wrote:I am speechless...... I had no Idea it was this big.
I have no words
Fri May 14, 2010 10:08 am » by Kingz
@Chronic... 
looks like you might have found something interesting
I searched a little while and looked through it, perhaps these things can help..
Issue A&A
Volume 373, Number 2, July II 2001
Page(s) 536 - 541
Section Galactic structure and dynamics
DOI 10.1051/0004-6361:20010306
A&A 373, 536-541 (2001)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010306
Radio observations of new galactic bulge planetary nebulae
G. C. Van de Steene1, 2 and G. H. Jacoby3, 4
1 Royal Observatory of Belgium, Ringlaan 3, 1180 Brussels, Belgium
2 Research School for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Private Bag P.O., Weston Creek, ACT 2611, Australia
3 National Optical Astronomical Observatories, PO Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726, USA
4 WIYN Observatory, PO Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726, USA
(Received 21 December 2000 / Accepted 27 February 2001)
Abstract
We observed 64 newly identified galactic bulge planetary nebulae in the radio continuum at 3 and 6 cm with the Australia Telescope Compact Array. We present their radio images, positions, flux densities, and angular sizes. The survey appears to have detected a larger ratio of more extended planetary nebulae with low surface brightness than in previous surveys. We calculated their distances according to Van de Steene & Zijlstra (1995). We find that most of the new sample is located on the near side around the galactic center and closer in than the previously known bulge PNe. Based on H$\alpha$ images and spectroscopic data, we calculated the total H$\alpha$ flux. We compare this flux value with the radio flux density and derive the extinction. We confirm that the distribution of the extinction values around the galactic center rises toward the center, as expected.
Offprint request: G. C. Van de Steene, gsteene@oma.be
SIMBAD Objects
Tables at the CDS
© ESO 2001
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=a ... right.html
Issue A&A
Volume 410, Number 2, November I 2003
Page(s) 691 - 693
Section Diffuse matter in space
DOI 10.1051/0004-6361:20031295
A&A 410, 691-693 (2003)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031295
Solar cycle activity: A preliminary prediction for cycle #24
S. Sello
Mathematical and Physical Models, Enel Research, via Andrea Pisano 120, 56122 Pisa, Italy
(Received 16 June 2003 / Accepted 30 July 2003)
Abstract
Solar activity forecasting is an important topic for numerous scientific and technological areas, such as space operations, electric power transmission lines and earth environment impact. Nevertheless, the well-known difficulty is how to accurately predict, on the basis of various recorded solar activity indices, the complete evolution of future solar cycles, due to highly complex dynamical processed involved, mainly related to interaction of different components of internal magnetic fields. There are mainly two distinct classes of solar cycle prediction methods: the precursor-like ones and the mathematical-numerical ones. The main characteristic of precursor techniques, both purely solar and geomagnetic, is their physical basis. The non-precursor methods use different mathematical properties of the known temporal evolution of solar activity indices to extract information useful for predicting future activity. For the current solar cycle #23 we obtained quite good performances from both some precursor and purely numerical methods, such as the so-called solar precursor and nonlinear ones. To further check the performances of these prediction techniques, we compared the early predictions for the next solar cycle #24. Preliminary results support the coherence of the prediction methods considered and confirm the actual trend of a reducing solar activity.
© ESO 2003
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=a ... right.html
The more proper stuff, if someone is up for it..?
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Title: A Catalogue of Damped Lyman Alpha Absorption Systems and Radio Flux Densities of the Background Quasars
Authors: Curran, S. J., Webb, J. K., Murphy, M. T., Bandiera, R., Corbelli, E., & Flambaum, V. V., ,
Journal: Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 455-474.
Bibliographic Code: 2002PASA...19..455C
THE REST OF THE CHAPTER HERE:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 5.000.html
Solar cycle activity: A preliminary prediction for cycle #24
A&A 410, 691-693 (2003)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031295
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=a ... a4106.html
Or how about this guy.. he proves it wrong..:
14 PAGE PAPER ON IT:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 033016.pdf
I don't know much about it, but as yourself I thought it was pretty weird that al the activity has dropped for a few days in a row..
might be nothing, worth checking into though...
looks like you might have found something interesting I searched a little while and looked through it, perhaps these things can help..
Issue A&A
Volume 373, Number 2, July II 2001
Page(s) 536 - 541
Section Galactic structure and dynamics
DOI 10.1051/0004-6361:20010306
A&A 373, 536-541 (2001)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010306
Radio observations of new galactic bulge planetary nebulae
G. C. Van de Steene1, 2 and G. H. Jacoby3, 4
1 Royal Observatory of Belgium, Ringlaan 3, 1180 Brussels, Belgium
2 Research School for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Private Bag P.O., Weston Creek, ACT 2611, Australia
3 National Optical Astronomical Observatories, PO Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726, USA
4 WIYN Observatory, PO Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726, USA
(Received 21 December 2000 / Accepted 27 February 2001)
Abstract
We observed 64 newly identified galactic bulge planetary nebulae in the radio continuum at 3 and 6 cm with the Australia Telescope Compact Array. We present their radio images, positions, flux densities, and angular sizes. The survey appears to have detected a larger ratio of more extended planetary nebulae with low surface brightness than in previous surveys. We calculated their distances according to Van de Steene & Zijlstra (1995). We find that most of the new sample is located on the near side around the galactic center and closer in than the previously known bulge PNe. Based on H$\alpha$ images and spectroscopic data, we calculated the total H$\alpha$ flux. We compare this flux value with the radio flux density and derive the extinction. We confirm that the distribution of the extinction values around the galactic center rises toward the center, as expected.
Offprint request: G. C. Van de Steene, gsteene@oma.be
SIMBAD Objects
Tables at the CDS
© ESO 2001
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=a ... right.html
Issue A&A
Volume 410, Number 2, November I 2003
Page(s) 691 - 693
Section Diffuse matter in space
DOI 10.1051/0004-6361:20031295
A&A 410, 691-693 (2003)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031295
Solar cycle activity: A preliminary prediction for cycle #24
S. Sello
Mathematical and Physical Models, Enel Research, via Andrea Pisano 120, 56122 Pisa, Italy
(Received 16 June 2003 / Accepted 30 July 2003)
Abstract
Solar activity forecasting is an important topic for numerous scientific and technological areas, such as space operations, electric power transmission lines and earth environment impact. Nevertheless, the well-known difficulty is how to accurately predict, on the basis of various recorded solar activity indices, the complete evolution of future solar cycles, due to highly complex dynamical processed involved, mainly related to interaction of different components of internal magnetic fields. There are mainly two distinct classes of solar cycle prediction methods: the precursor-like ones and the mathematical-numerical ones. The main characteristic of precursor techniques, both purely solar and geomagnetic, is their physical basis. The non-precursor methods use different mathematical properties of the known temporal evolution of solar activity indices to extract information useful for predicting future activity. For the current solar cycle #23 we obtained quite good performances from both some precursor and purely numerical methods, such as the so-called solar precursor and nonlinear ones. To further check the performances of these prediction techniques, we compared the early predictions for the next solar cycle #24. Preliminary results support the coherence of the prediction methods considered and confirm the actual trend of a reducing solar activity.
© ESO 2003
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=a ... right.html
The more proper stuff, if someone is up for it..?
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Title: A Catalogue of Damped Lyman Alpha Absorption Systems and Radio Flux Densities of the Background Quasars
Authors: Curran, S. J., Webb, J. K., Murphy, M. T., Bandiera, R., Corbelli, E., & Flambaum, V. V., ,
Journal: Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 455-474.
Bibliographic Code: 2002PASA...19..455C
THE REST OF THE CHAPTER HERE:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 5.000.html
Solar cycle activity: A preliminary prediction for cycle #24
A&A 410, 691-693 (2003)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031295
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=a ... a4106.html
Or how about this guy.. he proves it wrong..:
14 PAGE PAPER ON IT:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 033016.pdf
I don't know much about it, but as yourself I thought it was pretty weird that al the activity has dropped for a few days in a row..
might be nothing, worth checking into though...
The Map Is Not The Territory, The Word Is Not The Object....
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Sat May 15, 2010 5:40 pm » by Kingz
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS:
Normally it is in the left area, sometimes in yellow...but first time I see it in red!
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/dst_index/page1.html
Normally it is in the left area, sometimes in yellow...but first time I see it in red!
http://sprg.ssl.berkeley.edu/dst_index/page1.html
The Map Is Not The Territory, The Word Is Not The Object....
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
Sat May 15, 2010 8:13 pm » by Kingz
chronicnerd wrote:Dude..it is all good...I don't mean to sound like a jerk... I am just a little skeptical with "psychics" as several came forward predicting that aliens will land or the like and nothing happened...
The point of my post man... look at the graph Flux chart for this year...LOOK at the values... then LOOK at the margin for error between the values and the predicted values... then LOOK at 2012...and think about how we have already hit radio flux values of 230 and that was with a predicted 90 range...and in 2012 they predicted 150...
So... that is roughly a 2.5x possible range of upward error... so 2.5 times 150... 383!
COULD THIS HELP...?
The Ten Centimetre Solar Radio Flux
The radio emission from the sun at a wavelength of 10.7 centimetres (often called "the 10 cm flux") has been found to correlate well with the sunspot number. Sunspot number is defined from counts of the number of individual sunspots as well as the number of sunspot groups and must be reduced to a standard scale taking into account the differences in equipment and techniques between observatories. On the other hand, the radio flux at 10.7 centimetres can be measured relatively easily and quickly and has replaced the sunspot number as an index of solar activity for many purposes.
The 10 cm flux can be used as a daily index or averaged over longer periods to trace out the trends in solar activity. Typically the 10 cm flux is averaged over a month or a year although sometimes a 90 day average is made.
Even though 10 cm flux and sunspot number both indicate activity they have quite different scales. This is evident in the figure where the 10 cm flux never drops below a value of approximately 67 even during solar minimum when the sunspot number is very close to zero.
The figure is a plot of the monthly-averaged sunspot number against the monthly-averaged 10 centimetre solar flux for data between 1947 and 1990. The correlation between these quantities is evident but there is still considerable scatter even for monthly-averaged values.
The following equations is useful for converting between 10 cm flux (F) and sunspot number (R). The equation are valid on a statistical (i.e. average) basis.
F = 67.0 + 0.572 R + (0.0575 R)** 2 - (0.0209 R)**3
R = 1.61 FD - (0.0733 FD)** 2 + (0.0240 FD)**3
where, FD = F - 67.0, and ** means "raised to power of".
http://www.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/2/5
The Map Is Not The Territory, The Word Is Not The Object....
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
- Chronicnerd
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:15 am
Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:20 pm » by Chronicnerd
kingz wrote:@Chronic...
I searched a little while and looked through it, perhaps these things can help..
Issue A&A
Volume 373, Number 2, July II 2001
Page(s) 536 - 541
Section Galactic structure and dynamics
DOI 10.1051/0004-6361:20010306
A&A 373, 536-541 (2001)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010306
Radio observations of new galactic bulge planetary nebulae
G. C. Van de Steene1, 2 and G. H. Jacoby3, 4
1 Royal Observatory of Belgium, Ringlaan 3, 1180 Brussels, Belgium
2 Research School for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Private Bag P.O., Weston Creek, ACT 2611, Australia
3 National Optical Astronomical Observatories, PO Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726, USA
4 WIYN Observatory, PO Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726, USA
(Received 21 December 2000 / Accepted 27 February 2001)
Abstract
We observed 64 newly identified galactic bulge planetary nebulae in the radio continuum at 3 and 6 cm with the Australia Telescope Compact Array. We present their radio images, positions, flux densities, and angular sizes. The survey appears to have detected a larger ratio of more extended planetary nebulae with low surface brightness than in previous surveys. We calculated their distances according to Van de Steene & Zijlstra (1995). We find that most of the new sample is located on the near side around the galactic center and closer in than the previously known bulge PNe. Based on H$\alpha$ images and spectroscopic data, we calculated the total H$\alpha$ flux. We compare this flux value with the radio flux density and derive the extinction. We confirm that the distribution of the extinction values around the galactic center rises toward the center, as expected.
Offprint request: G. C. Van de Steene, gsteene@oma.be
SIMBAD Objects
Tables at the CDS
© ESO 2001
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=a ... right.html
Issue A&A
Volume 410, Number 2, November I 2003
Page(s) 691 - 693
Section Diffuse matter in space
DOI 10.1051/0004-6361:20031295
A&A 410, 691-693 (2003)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031295
Solar cycle activity: A preliminary prediction for cycle #24
S. Sello
Mathematical and Physical Models, Enel Research, via Andrea Pisano 120, 56122 Pisa, Italy
(Received 16 June 2003 / Accepted 30 July 2003)
Abstract
Solar activity forecasting is an important topic for numerous scientific and technological areas, such as space operations, electric power transmission lines and earth environment impact. Nevertheless, the well-known difficulty is how to accurately predict, on the basis of various recorded solar activity indices, the complete evolution of future solar cycles, due to highly complex dynamical processed involved, mainly related to interaction of different components of internal magnetic fields. There are mainly two distinct classes of solar cycle prediction methods: the precursor-like ones and the mathematical-numerical ones. The main characteristic of precursor techniques, both purely solar and geomagnetic, is their physical basis. The non-precursor methods use different mathematical properties of the known temporal evolution of solar activity indices to extract information useful for predicting future activity. For the current solar cycle #23 we obtained quite good performances from both some precursor and purely numerical methods, such as the so-called solar precursor and nonlinear ones. To further check the performances of these prediction techniques, we compared the early predictions for the next solar cycle #24. Preliminary results support the coherence of the prediction methods considered and confirm the actual trend of a reducing solar activity.
© ESO 2003
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=a ... right.html
The more proper stuff, if someone is up for it..?
SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Title: A Catalogue of Damped Lyman Alpha Absorption Systems and Radio Flux Densities of the Background Quasars
Authors: Curran, S. J., Webb, J. K., Murphy, M. T., Bandiera, R., Corbelli, E., & Flambaum, V. V., ,
Journal: Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp. 455-474.
Bibliographic Code: 2002PASA...19..455C
THE REST OF THE CHAPTER HERE:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 5.000.html
Solar cycle activity: A preliminary prediction for cycle #24
A&A 410, 691-693 (2003)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031295
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=a ... a4106.html
Or how about this guy.. he proves it wrong..:
14 PAGE PAPER ON IT:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 033016.pdf
I don't know much about it, but as yourself I thought it was pretty weird that al the activity has dropped for a few days in a row..
might be nothing, worth checking into though...
Just a follow up on Solar Cycle 24 and the Solar Dynamo:
http://www.landscheidt.info/images/sc24_predictions.pdf
The convergence of the climatology predictions to Rz,ave is not surprising, but the large discrepancy
in the dynamo models shows that those models do not as yet possess a predictive
capability. The precursor category must be further broken out into solar and geomagnetic to
produce equivalent classes, illustrating the poor overlap of the two techniques. Precursors
were a major contributor to the consensus prediction of Solar Cycle 23 (Joselyn et al., 1997)
and their growing discrepancy is worrisome for future work. As a consequence of this divergence,
the solar and geomagnetic precursors should be considered as separate categories.
As well there is always NASA to refer back to:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/
These results are just the latest signs pointing to a big Cycle 24. Most compelling of all, believes Hathaway, is the work of Mausumi Dikpati and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. "They have combined observations of the sun’s 'Great Conveyor Belt' with a sophisticated computer model of the sun’s inner dynamo to produce a physics-based prediction of the next solar cycle." In short, it's going to be intense.
Then, of course, we have this:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/29sep_cosmicrays/
"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. "The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions."
Which then brings me to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/robonaut.html
So...we started out saying Solar Cycle 24 was going to be "nothing"...
Then we missed some of the predictions and started to have debate amongst the "folks who do this kind of stuff for a living"...
(good link for many articles and the history of how all this evolved: http://www.december212012.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7528)
Then they say that the radiation levels are higher than they have been for 50 years...
So... I have been pondering this image:
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
As I sat and thought about this... I wondered the following:
First Solar Cycle 24 was predicted to be "less than 23" and "heading towards a solar cycle minimum.
Then they start debating on who's method of prediction is right...
Then they start actually collecting data and miss their predictions...in a big way...
Then they see some abnormally high radiation levels...not on our planet...but outside our planet...as in " re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take"...which tells me not "Earth Climate Related" (or perhaps it could be...different topic...but has to do with the magnetic field 'flipping' come 2012 and how the magnetic field must become weaker in one spot to become stronger in another)...
Then they casually announce a "robot" being built to "help out"...which if we refer back to the "re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take" concept and then toss in the X37 project... their actions don't speak "Solar Minimum"...but their actions do speak "preparing for unusually high levels of radiation when outside the Ionosphere...enough to make a remote operated Robot and a remote operated Shuttle" (which would explain why they don't plan on a new shuttle until 2014.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-08-11/tech/nasa.orion_1_ferry-astronauts-shuttle-nasa-officials-plan?_s=PM:TECH
Which should look something like this:
Image from this article:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/1534782
So, here is what we know:
1.) About 5+ years ago they started a campaign that talked very much like the whole "Global Warming" thing...as in...Solar Cycle 23 was the maximum and Solar Cycle 24 will be the "entrance into the solar minimum".
2.) About 3+ years ago there started to be "arguments" amongst the peers that contradicted the earlier claims and the models just didn't all "play nice together".
3.) Then about 1-2 years ago they started making claims like "Nasa Stunned" or "Sun's activity baffles scientists"...as the radiation levels started raising.
4.) Then about a year ago Michio Kaku started appearing on Fox News and other prime time networks saying that "Nasa's predictions were off...they had a large error in their calculations" and proceeds to send out a warning to the general public regarding the "new calculations" and how it very well could become a "world wide Katrina".
5.)During this time our government starts building "robots" that can be controlled from within a shuttle and/or from ground that could service satellites (see information above)
6.) During this time our government starts testing the X37 "unmanned" space craft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
7.)Finally, the next "manned" space flight is slated to 'probably' happen sometime in 2014...which is...two years *after* 2012 (obviously...but think about that for a second).
So, if there is nothing to worry about...and particularly...nothing to worry about between say...now and 2014...
Then why all of the trouble to build "unmanned" space shuttles and remotely operated robots to service the satellites?
Why right at this point in time?
Why spend money/time on an unmanned space shuttle as well as money and time on remotely operated "robots" when you could spend that time and energy building another space shuttle?
If you already have plans on launching a "new space shuttle" in 2014 (less than 3.1 years from now...as well consider this...the robot and x37 research/funding combined is estimated to be enough money to build two or more of the new space shuttles)...so if you are planning on launching a manned mission in 2014...which means you don't plan on making the whole "automated"/"unmanned" thing the "new way" and/or "standard" for space flight...then why waste all of that money on unmanned remotely operated "robots and shuttles" if you plan on replacing those in 3.1 years (+/-) with real people and the new space shuttle?
I guess what I am saying is: If there is "nothing to worry about" and solar cycle 24 is going to be "our entrance into the solar minimum" and will be "less active than cycle 23"... why go to all of these measures if you could just keep sending people up into space?
edit: as in spend the time and $$ they spent on the Robot and X37 on finishing the new shuttle so it would be ready by say...2011...obviously too late at this point... but the concept I am trying to convey is...they could have "increased" the time to completion by increasing the budget for that project which probably would have saved a billion or two dollars that we wouldn't need to come up with...especially since they already knew we were in a economic "crisis"...unless you *HAD* to build the Robot and X37 to handle any damaged satellites when "abnormally high levels of radiation" damage orbiting satellites!
Something isn't right here... anyone else seeing this?
40 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- NEW SOLAR SHIELD for Incoming Storms WTG NASA!!
by savwafair2012 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:44 pm - 9 Replies
- 912 Views
- Last post by rich316
Wed Nov 10, 2010 12:28 pm
- NEW SOLAR SHIELD for Incoming Storms WTG NASA!!
-
- Magnetosphere it's being bombarded by strong solar wind
by savwafair2012 » Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:39 pm - 3 Replies
- 239 Views
- Last post by theklown
Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:10 pm
- Magnetosphere it's being bombarded by strong solar wind
-
- How Earth’s Magnetosphere Protects us from The Solar WInd
by nickelson » Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:45 am - 1 Replies
- 548 Views
- Last post by tertiusgaudens
Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:50 am
- How Earth’s Magnetosphere Protects us from The Solar WInd
-
- September 26th-28th Solar Watch **Warning**
by chronicnerd » Fri Sep 16, 2011 7:02 pm - 8 Replies
- 1249 Views
- Last post by savwafair2012
Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:31 pm
- September 26th-28th Solar Watch **Warning**
-
- Geomagnetic storm
by capnmac » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:43 am - 8 Replies
- 1229 Views
- Last post by ziggy
Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:49 pm
- Geomagnetic storm