|
Post by celticwarrior on Jul 11, 2012 18:35:32 GMT -7
Apparently in the early sixties, when the US and USSR were still doing high altitude nuke tests, the US did a test called Starfish Prime, which created a high altitude EMP purposely to see what its effects would be on the tech of the time. Just released information about the test shows that it not only knocked out electronics on the ground, but affected the newly launched communications satellite Telstar 1. It apparently knocked it offline, but some function was recovered, enough for it to do its original job. However, its lifespan was dramatically shortened by the effects of the blast. news.yahoo.com/u-accidentally-nuked-own-communications-satellite-161700637.htmlFor those of you who aren't familiar with the Starfish project, here is an overview: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_StarfishThis information will certainly affect the thinking for anyone prepping for EMPs here on Earth, since this means that a high altitude blast of sufficient strength could blind weather and GPS sats, disrupt satellite based communications, and maybe even cause problems on military satellites which, while supposedly made to be EMP hardened, might still be affected in some way.
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Jul 11, 2012 19:41:12 GMT -7
Telstar died from tree effects. It was the first hard evidence of transient radiation electonic effects. The results of starfish prime, were released a while back. The K project results were far worse. I believe what is new about that story is the government fessing up to what actually happened, even though the info was already out long before. That info shows the emp committee report to be what it actually is.. a warm fuzzy bs sugar coating to protect politicians.
|
|
|
Post by celticwarrior on Jul 11, 2012 19:53:17 GMT -7
I've read all sorts of things on Starfish and its related tests, and while the data was always pretty forthcoming about terrestrial effects, I don't recall ever seeing anything about it directly affecting any of the manmade objects in orbit at the time. I found it interesting that after the test, they had a failure and had to reset the satellite to get functionality back, and even then it was a distinctly shortened lifespan. I guess we are lucky to have gotten any use from it at all, given the circumstances. If indeed, the problem was external to the test phenomena, then we are still left with wondering what (if any) effects a high altitude blast of 10 MT or higher would have on spacecraft and communications?
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Jul 12, 2012 2:44:23 GMT -7
I've seen a considerable amount of information on it prior to that story. Sometimes I forget where it was I read it though. The first I read of it was at ORNL, of all places, in the early nineties. In another thread I posted a link to another study performed for ORNL related to the K project. They have had many others but that was the first I had seen (2010) for that particular one. I would have to disagree that the data was always forthcoming. I can remember one specific conversation I had with a gentlemen at JPL regarding this very subject. To paraphrase, it was his opinion that most of what is officially released is crap. I have to agree with that assessment. After hearing his explanation as to why that is, I have to agree with that as well. The bottom line is, most don't want to read anything more than an executive summary. They do not care about the 'bug dust' details, and to add insult to injury, the majority simply turn off their minds when they hear something they don't want to hear. In particular something that would upset their specific fix on the world. The EMP commission was one such report. If you read into the vagaries of the report, you will read that they know there is more to it than is mentioned, but because they are unable to test as needed to define and quantify it, they simply don't know other than the empirical evidence that suggest the condition is far far more dangerous than is let on. If you recall a discussion in another forum which will go un-named, their study of vehicles was severely skewed, in which they effectively cherry picked the cars to be tested. It makes me wonder how many people picked up on the implication of that? In order to cherry pick for specific results, they also had to know which ones were far more likely to fail. How would they know? The only possible way to know is if that particular round of experimentation was carried out on far more vehicles than were officially reported. That leads to questions about the number of vehicles for each category. The sample base officially reported would have been shot down as woefully insufficient in any other valid study. Could it be they cherry picked the results from a much larger sample base? I find it hard to believe that didn't happen. I've read all sorts of things on Starfish and its related tests, and while the data was always pretty forthcoming about terrestrial effects, I don't recall ever seeing anything about it directly affecting any of the manmade objects in orbit at the time. I found it interesting that after the test, they had a failure and had to reset the satellite to get functionality back, and even then it was a distinctly shortened lifespan. I guess we are lucky to have gotten any use from it at all, given the circumstances. If indeed, the problem was external to the test phenomena, then we are still left with wondering what (if any) effects a high altitude blast of 10 MT or higher would have on spacecraft and communications?
|
|
|
Post by celticwarrior on Jul 12, 2012 9:50:48 GMT -7
I believe that if they were cherry picking, then a) they already knew the results in advance, possibly from earlier secret testing and b) that they were using it as propoganda to strike fear into the enemy, who would now believe that if there was a nuclear war, then their own electronics and surveillance might be damaged during the first outbreak, and leave them blind and defenseless. A valid concern, since all that would have to happen is for one or more of the warheads to detonate in the upper atmosphere prematurely and blank out the entire hemisphere. That would be a bad situation if you are in the early stages of a nuclear conflict. Belief in such things could easily cause a huge shift in arms race policies and first strike considerations.
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Jul 12, 2012 9:58:14 GMT -7
I believe that if they were cherry picking, then a) they already knew the results in advance, possibly from earlier secret testing Which is what I was stating. Who here actually believes the Government waited until after 2000 to find out if they are vulnerable to EMP? edit; I could have been clearer upon rereading it, but the intent remains the same and b) that they were using it as propoganda to strike fear into the enemy, who would now believe that if there was a nuclear war, then their own electronics and surveillance might be damaged during the first outbreak, and leave them blind and defenseless. A valid concern, since all that would have to happen is for one or more of the warheads to detonate in the upper atmosphere prematurely and blank out the entire hemisphere. That would be a bad situation if you are in the early stages of a nuclear conflict. Belief in such things could easily cause a huge shift in arms race policies and first strike considerations. That last bit has already happened.
|
|
|
Post by celticwarrior on Jul 12, 2012 10:12:12 GMT -7
All of it already happened...1962. I didn't think that the government was blind to the facts of EMPs until 2000, what I said was that they had likely done earlier tests during the above ground non-atmospheric testing that showed them what systems were susceptable and which were not, but did not let on to that fact when they proposed the parameters of the Starfish EMP tests. By the way, isn't saying TREE effect sort of like saying ATM machine?
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Jul 12, 2012 11:36:06 GMT -7
All of it already happened...1962. I didn't think that the government was blind to the facts of EMPs until 2000, what I said was that they had likely done earlier tests during the above ground non-atmospheric testing that showed them what systems were susceptable and which were not, but did not let on to that fact when they proposed the parameters of the Starfish EMP tests. By the way, isn't saying TREE effect sort of like saying ATM machine? I would agree with that. They also knew a lot more about the soviet test than they let on to. As for a tree effect, the anacronym took on a life of its own years ago, it's often stated in the same manner within the DOE/Aerospace communities, but I agree, it's about the same.
|
|
|
Post by solargeek1 on Feb 16, 2019 16:59:08 GMT -7
I miss our conversations like this. And I miss Celticwarrior.
|
|