X-GM-THRID: 1212409830910288796 X-Gmail-Labels: rsgb lf X-Gmail-Received: 94f50b17a77a8b25eca50fe41664accde8409896 Delivered-To: daveyxm@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.249.16 with SMTP id w16cs289762qbh; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.90.4 with SMTP id s4mr1821585nfl; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id c28si2268877nfb.2006.08.23.04.31.21; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:31:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (gmail.com: 193.82.116.20 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org) Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1GFqsg-0002WX-Je for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:26:46 +0100 Received: from [193.82.59.130] (helo=relay2.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1GFqsf-0002VI-Dn for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:26:45 +0100 Received: from relay.dera.gov.uk ([192.5.29.49] helo=relay.dstl.gov.uk) by relay2.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.51) id 1GFqsb-0006zw-2E for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:26:45 +0100 Received: (qmail 21051 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2006 12:26:03 +0100 Received: from warlock.dstl.gov.uk (192.5.29.10) by relay.dera.gov.uk with SMTP; 23 Aug 2006 12:26:03 +0100 Message-ID: <7D653C9C42F5D411A27C00508BF8803D06BF2FD0@mail.dstl.gov.uk> From: Talbot Andrew To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 12:26:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) X-Spam-Report: autolearn=disabled,AWL=-1.037,FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05,HTML_40_50=0.086,HTML_MESSAGE=0.001 Subject: RE: LF: Re: Alarming message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C6C6A6.E8F75292" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE, HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4457 This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6C6A6.E8F75292 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I thought things were getting a bit esoteric for this reflector. Came into the discussion part way through after reading a huge backlog of email after a holiday .... and you know how things are :-) Didn't see the original reference. Andy G4JNT _____ From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Hugh_m0wye Sent: 23 August 2006 12:05 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Re: Alarming message Hi Andy, I don't quite know where EMP crept into the discussion. Dick's original E-mail to this reflector was about a paper on Radiation Belt Remediation. http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/research/space/ag-24-2025.pdf This was suggesting using large amounts of VLF to "drain" the artifical radiation belts produced by a High Altitude Nuclear Explosion. The paper was suggesting that the radiation belts would damage low earth orbit satelites - based on the observations of such damage found in the 1960s. I quote ... "The effect of the Starfish Prime HANE on the radiation belts was observed by multiple spacecraft. However, the intense artificial belts injected by the HANE damaged 3 of the 5 satellites operating at the time. Within a small number of days, data transmissions from the Ariel, Transit IVB and TRAAC satellites became intermittent or ceased altogether (Massey, 1964), primarily due to degrading solar cells. Other effects were also noted even in this early case; the transistors flown in the first active communications satellite, Telstar, failed due to radiation exposure, even though the satellite was launched after the Starfish Prime HANE." I was suggesting that modern semiconductor devices and circuit design might be more immune to this kind of radiation damage, so the need for "remediation" might not be as great as was suggested in the paper. 73 Hugh M0WYE ----- Original Message ----- From: Talbot Andrew To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:14 AM Subject: RE: LF: Re: Alarming message My understanding of EMP Nuclear bombs - gained from documentation from the 1960s/70s, was that these were exo-atmospheric bursts designed to generate huge impulses at the ground due to Compton scattering of electrons blasted down from the upper atmosphere. Tests ( on BikiniAtol ?) caused severe disruption to electronic equipment hundreds to thousands of km away, and are even reputed to have knocked out streetlights at those sorts of distances. I don't see how satellites well above the atmosphere could be disrupted by such an event. Direct satelite damage was very difficult to produce then due to the difficulties of getting close enough - even a 1MT bomb probably has to be within less than a kilometre of a satellite for its direct radiation to be high enough to damage the electronics (no blast damage in space !) Satellites are designed to withstand high radiation levels from the sun. Rember the huge programme of Star Wars started in the '80's. Nowadays such close positioning would be easier, of course. So it looks as if satcoms would survive, whereas HF and ground based electronics would not. SRI, fellow amateurs hoping for a return to HF! All info gained from open literature ;-) Andy G4JNT _____ From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Andre Kesteloot Sent: 22 August 2006 16:14 To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Subject: Re: LF: Re: Alarming message Hugh_m0wye wrote: 3. The supposed disruption to satelites caused by a HANE seems to be based on what happened to Telstar and similar vintage space-craft. Surely satelite design has progressed since then, with better shielding and "radiation hardened" devices being used. If satelites are more robust then much of the reason for using RBR evaporates. It could be that the concerns may be over the possibility of a North Korean missile sent in space to create an EMP and wiping out satellite communications There is a difference between space equipment being "radiation-hardened" against the radiations normally found in space, and the neutrons. etc, that could be created by a nuclear device exploded in space. 73 Andr� N4ICK "The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent correspondence" "is private and is intended solely for the intended recipient(s)." "For those other than the recipient any disclosure, copying, distribution, " "or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on such information is" "prohibited and may be unlawful." "This e-mail is intended for the recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or rely upon this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by replying to this e-mail." "Recipients should note that all e-mail traffic on MOD systems is subject to monitoring and auditing." ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6C6A6.E8F75292 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I=20 thought things were getting a bit esoteric for this reflector.  = ; Came=20 into the discussion part way through after reading a huge backlog of emai= l after=20 a holiday .... and you know how things are :-)

Didn't=20 see the original reference.

Andy  G4JNT

 


From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.= org=20 [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of=20 Hugh_m0wye
Sent: 23 August 2006 12:05
To:=20 rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Alarming=20 message

Hi Andy,

I don't quite know where EM= P crept into=20 the discussion.

Dick's original E-mail to t= his reflector=20 was about a paper on Radiation Belt Remediation.

htt= p://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/research/space/ag-24-2025.pdf

This was suggesting using l= arge amounts=20 of VLF to "drain" the artifical radiation belts produced by a High=20 Altitude Nuclear Explosion.

The paper was suggesting th= at the=20 radiation belts would damage low earth orbit satelites - based on the=20 observations of such damage found in the 1960s. I quote ...

"The effect of the Starfish Prime HANE on the radiation b= elts was=20 observed by multiple spacecraft. However, the intense artificial belts in= jected=20 by the HANE damaged 3 of the 5 satellites operating at the time. Within a= =20small=20 number of days, data transmissions from the Ariel, Transit IVB and TRAAC = satellites became intermittent or ceased altogether (Massey, 1964), prima= rily=20 due to degrading solar cells. Other effects were also noted even in this = early=20 case; the transistors flown in the first active communications satellite,= =20 Telstar, failed due to radiation exposure, even though the satellite was = launched after the Starfish Prime HANE."

I was suggesting that moder= n=20 semiconductor devices and circuit design might be more immune to this kin= d of=20 radiation damage, so the need for "remediation" might not be as great as = was=20 suggested in the paper.

73

Hugh M0WYE

=20
=  
=20
=  
=20
----- Original Message -----
=20 From:=20 =20 Talbot Andrew =20 =20
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 20= 06 10:14=20 =20 AM
=20
Subject: RE: LF: Re: Alarming = =20 message
=20

=20
My understanding of EMP Nuclear bombs - gain= ed from=20 =20 documentation from the 1960s/70s, was that these were exo-atmospheric= =20bursts=20 =20 designed to generate huge impulses at the ground due to Compton scatt= ering of=20 =20 electrons blasted down from the upper atmosphere.
= =20
 
=20
Tests  ( on BikiniAtol ?) caused severe= =20disruption=20 =20 to electronic equipment hundreds to thousands of km away, and are eve= n reputed=20 =20 to have knocked out streetlights at those sorts of=20 =20 distances.
=20
 
=20
I don't see how satellites well above the at= mosphere=20 =20 could be disrupted by such an event.  Direct satelite damage was= =20very=20 =20 difficult to produce then due to the difficulties of getting close en= ough -=20 =20 even a 1MT bomb probably has to be within less than a kilometre of a = satellite=20 =20 for its direct radiation to be high enough to damage the electronics = (no blast=20 =20 damage in space !)  Satellites are designed to withstand high ra= diation=20 =20 levels from the sun.   Rember the huge programme of St= ar Wars=20 =20 started in the '80's.  Nowadays such close positioning woul= d be=20 =20 easier, of course.
=20
 
=20
So it looks as if satcoms would survive, whe= reas HF and=20 =20 ground based electronics would not.   SRI, fellow amateurs = hoping=20 =20 for a return to HF!
=20
 
=20
All info gained from open literature=20 =20 ;-)
=20
 
=20
Andy  G4JNT
=20

 


=20
=20
=20 From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksh= eep.org=20 =20 [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of Andre= =20 =20 Kesteloot
Sent: 22 August 2006 16:14
To:=20 =20 rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
Subject: Re: LF: Re: Alarming = =20 message

=20
Hugh_m0wye wrote:=20 =20
=20 =20 =20
=20


=20

3. The=20 =20 supposed disruption to satelites caused by a HANE seems to be based= =20on what=20 =20 happened to Telstar and similar vintage space-craft. Surely satelit= e design=20 =20 has progressed since then, with better shielding and "radiation har= dened"=20 =20 devices being used. If satelites are more robust then much of the r= eason for=20 =20 using RBR evaporates.

It= =20could be=20 =20 that the concerns may be over the possibility of a North Korean missi= le sent=20 =20 in space to create an EMP and wiping out satellite communications
= There is=20 =20 a difference between space equipment being "radiation-hardened" again= st the=20 =20 radiations normally found in space, and the neutrons. etc, that could= =20be=20 =20 created by a nuclear device exploded in space.

73
Andr=E9&n= bsp;=20 =20 N4ICK
=20
"The Information contained in this E-Mail and any subsequent=20 =20 correspondence"
"is private and is intended solely for the intende= d=20 =20 recipient(s)."
"For those other than the recipient any disclosure,= =20copying,=20 =20 distribution, "
"or any action taken or omitted to be taken in rel= iance on=20 =20 such information is"
"prohibited and may be=20 unlawful."
"The Information contained in this E-Mail and any=20 subsequent correspondence"
"is private and is intended solely for the = intended recipient(s)."
"For those other than the recipient any disclo= sure,=20 copying, distribution, "
"or any action taken or omitted to be taken i= n=20 reliance on such information is"
"prohibited and may be=20 unlawful."
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6C6A6.E8F75292--