Physicist James Van Allen Dies at 91

Physicist James Van Allen Dies at 91

By TODD DVORAK

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2292011

IOWA CITY, Iowa Aug 9, 2006 (AP)- Physicist James A. Van Allen, a
leader in space exploration who discovered the radiation belts
surrounding the Earth that now bear his name, died Wednesday. He was
91.

The University of Iowa, where he taught for years, announced the death
in a statement on its Web site.

In a career that stretched over more than a half-century, Van Allen
designed scientific instruments for dozens of research flights, first
with small rockets and balloons, and eventually with space probes that
traveled to distant planets and beyond.

Van Allen gained global attention in the late 1950s when instruments he
designed and placed aboard the first U.S. satellite, Explorer I,
discovered the bands of intense radiation that surround the earth, now
known as the Van Allen Belts.

The bands spawned a whole new field of research known as magnetospheric
physics, an area of study that now involves more than 1,000
investigators in more than 20 countries.

The discovery also propelled the United States in its space exploration
race with the Soviet Union and prompted Time magazine to put Van Allen
on the cover of its May 4, 1959, issue.

The folksy, pipe-smoking scientist, called "Van" by friends, retired
from full-time teaching in 1985. But he continued to write, oversee
research, counsel students and monitor data gathered by satellites. He
worked in a large, cluttered corner office on the seventh floor of the
physics and astronomy building that bears his name.

"Jim Van Allen was a good friend of our family. His loss saddens
Christie and me," Gov. Tom Vilsack said. "His passing is a sad day for
science in America and the world.

Though he was an early advocate of a concerted national space program,
Van Allen was a strong critic of most manned space projects, once
dismissing the U.S. proposal for a manned space station "speculative
and ... poorly founded."

Explorer 1, which weighed just 31 pounds, was launched Jan. 31, 1958,
during an emotional time just after the Sputnik launches by the Soviet
Union created new Cold War fears. The instruments that Van Allen
developed for the mission were tiny Geiger counters to measure
radiation.

Near the 35th anniversary of the launch, Van Allen recalled in an
Associated Press interview how scientists waited tensely for
confirmation the satellite was in orbit.

When the signal finally came, "it was exhilarating. ... That was the
big break, knowing it had made it around the earth, that it was
actually in orbit."

The success of the flight created nationwide celebration. Equally
exciting for the scientists was the discovery of the radiation belts, a
discovery that happened slowly over the next weeks and months as they
pieced together data coming from the satellite.

"We had discovered a whole new phenomenon which had not been known or
predicted before," Van Allen said. "We were really on top of the world,
professionally speaking." Later in 1958, another scientist proposed
naming the belts for Van Allen.

His later projects included the Pioneer 10 and 11 flights, which
studied the radiation belts of Jupiter in 1973 and 1974 and the
radiation belts of Saturn in 1979.

Van Allen continued to monitor data from the Pioneer 10 spacecraft for
decades as it became the most remote manmade object, billions of miles
away.

Closer to Earth, satellites had revolutionized communications, military
surveillance and environmental monitoring. Asked in 1993 whether he
envisioned the era of satellite communications, he said: "I guess the
honest answer is not really, but I'm not astonished. That sort of thing
was kicking around."

In 1987, President Reagan presented Van Allen with the National Medal
of Science, the nation's highest honor for scientific achievement.

Two years later, Van Allen received the Crafoord Prize, awarded by the
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm each year since 1982 for
scientific research in areas not recognized by the Nobel Prizes.

Besides the discovery of the Van Allen belts, the academy cited him for
providing the first instruments carried near another planet, those
taken on the 1962 Venus mission by Mariner 2, and for his work training
other space researchers.

"I love to work and I love this subject," he said in 1993. As for
quitting, he said, "not as long as I'm able I won't."

Van Allen was born Sept. 7, 1914, in Mount Pleasant, Iowa. As an
undergraduate at Iowa Wesleyan College, he helped prepare research
instruments for the Byrd Antarctic Expedition. He got his master's and
Ph.D. from the University of Iowa.

After serving in the Naval Reserve during World War II, he was a
researcher at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, supervising tests
of captured German V-2 rockets and developing similar rockets to probe
the upper atmosphere.

One of the highlights of this early research was the 1953 discovery of
electrons believed to be the driving force behind the northern and
southern lights.

Through his career, he continued to advocate unmanned satellites, once
telling a panel that manned space programs have been beset by cost
overruns but unmanned rockets "have delivered on their promises and
have gone far beyond them."

In testimony before a House subcommittee in 1985, Van Allen said that
President Reagan's endorsement of a $20 billion manned space station
project was "so speculative and so poorly founded that no one of lesser
stature would have dared mention it to an informed audience."

In 2004, he spoke out again, arguing against Bush administration plans
for a space station on the moon and a manned mission to Mars.

"I'm one of the most durable and fervent advocates of space
exploration, but my take is that we could do it robotically at far less
cost and far greater quantity and quality of results," he said.

Van Allen was named to the National Academy of Sciences in 1959. He
also was a consultant to the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
Assessment, NASA and the Space Studies Board of the National Academy of
Sciences.

"Rusty" wrote:

While not detracting from his scientific achievements, or his great work, just what was his
opposition to manned spaceflight? Was it that it took money and people away from his
beloved robotic probes, notwithstanding that it was images of Astronauts doing things in
space that attracted public attention, and Congressional funding for the entire space
program? Did he ever realize that sooner or later, where the robots go, people follow?
ISTR a post a while back that Van Allen even opposed putting cameras on probes such as
Pioneer 10/11, the Voyagers, and Cassini, feeling that cameras would get in the way of
"more productive science." I wonder if he realized that it was those pictures that got the
public interested in space exploration and also attention in D.C. Or was he just too
stubborn?

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Matt Wiser" wrote:

While not detracting from his scientific achievements, or his great work, just what was his
opposition to manned spaceflight?

Most of the "great debate" over manned-vs-unmanned is a reflection of
launch costs: it's really "how many relatively heavy, more expensive
missions vs. how many lighter, relatively less expensive ones?"

I like to compare it to manned vs unmanned exploration of the deep
ocean. That's an interesting issue within that oceanographic
community, but nobody mistakes it for a great debate over the Meaning
and Value of the Questing Human Spirit -- because, broadly speaking,
we can afford either one, on a time/money scale reasonable enough that
people don't burn up decades waiting and getting frustrated.

When payload costs come down enough that the same is true for space,
people will look back at Van Allen -- and at those who go ballistic at
the mention of his name -- and wonder WTF they were on about.

"Rusty" wrote in message
oups.com...
Physicist James Van Allen Dies at 91

By TODD DVORAK

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2292011




In testimony before a House subcommittee in 1985, Van Allen said that
President Reagan's endorsement of a $20 billion manned space station
project was "so speculative and so poorly founded that no one of lesser
stature would have dared mention it to an informed audience."

In 2004, he spoke out again, arguing against Bush administration plans
for a space station on the moon and a manned mission to Mars.

"I'm one of the most durable and fervent advocates of space
exploration, but my take is that we could do it robotically at far less
cost and far greater quantity and quality of results," he said.



Imo, President Bush and his 'vision for space exploration' is......


"so speculative and so poorly founded that no one of lesser
stature would have dared mention it to an informed audience."


I would dare to say that deep down, when no one is looking, almost
all of us know this to be true.

s

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
...
"Rusty" wrote:

While not detracting from his scientific achievements, or his great work,
just what was his
opposition to manned spaceflight? Was it that it took money and people
away from his
beloved robotic probes, notwithstanding that it was images of Astronauts
doing things in
space that attracted public attention, and Congressional funding for the
entire space
program? Did he ever realize that sooner or later, where the robots go,
people follow?

Since I am a U of Iowa graduate -- and did have a number of opportunities to
talk to Dr. Van Allen in the 1980s and on my recruiting visits at the
university in the 1990s -- I will tell you my personal experience -
regarding these questions.

This issue tends to get "spun" as "manned versus unmanned" -- but this is an
over simplification of both his views and the discussions.

Dr. Van Allen had a valid economic argument about $$ spent versus scientific
knowledge returned -- in business -- he would be termed a "value investment"
advisor (not unlike Warren Buffet).
It takes considerable mass (and $$) just to keep the astronaut alive within
a spacecraft or on the Moon (environmental and consumables) -- robotic
explorers do not have to "carry" this additional mass.

Through his education, research and discoveries -- he was very aware of the
hazards of outer space to living organisms -- outside the Earth's protective
magnetic field.

In many ways, he had the courage to take this view -- even though it was not
always popular at NASA (depending upon administrator at time) -- and was
quietly appreciated for being said.

ISTR a post a while back that Van Allen even opposed putting cameras on
probes such as
Pioneer 10/11, the Voyagers, and Cassini, feeling that cameras would get
in the way of
"more productive science." I wonder if he realized that it was those
pictures that got the
public interested in space exploration and also attention in D.C. Or was
he just too
stubborn?

I do not know of the "post" that you refer -- but it does not match comments
I heard - first hand.

Dr. Van Allen was an early advocate for the Grand Tour -- at a time when
NASA had little interest (this fact tends to get lost -- for the exact
"public interest" you quote -- but it is in the literature and documents).
National Geographic ran a story and photos in 1970 - after the first 2 moon
landings (and Apollo 13 in April 1970)

Dr. Van Allen was a principal scientist for the Pioneer 10/11 missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Grand_Tour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_11

If anything -- he was very frustrated in the post-Apollo / post-Viking era
(1974 - 1991) at NASA when it is now apparent that NASA "lost its way" after
Apollo program.
The single-minded focus on the Shuttle postponed (delayed for at least 10
years) a number of worthy projects (that all eventually suffered from these
delays).

An Out-Of-The-Ecliptic mission (OOE) ( International Solar Polar Mission )
was first proposed in 1970s by Van Allen's group -- after the successful
Jupiter gravity assists with Pioneer 11. That cancelled / never realized
Pioneer "H" mission (1974) spacecraft now hangs in the NASM - in Washington,
DC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_H

Although ESA did launch Ulysses for the OOE -- NASA backed out of its
promised "sister craft" contribution for the mission in 1981 !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_probe

10 year delay of the Galileo probe (a personal frustration)
Dr. Louis Frank (his former student) served as planetary science
investigator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_probe
http://www-pi.physics.uiowa.edu/www/pls/

Initial Hubble mirror fabrication mistakes (flawed mirror - due to lack of
optics testing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_telescope

g. beat

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:21:21 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Imo, President Bush and his 'vision for space exploration' is......


"so speculative and so poorly founded that no one of lesser
stature would have dared mention it to an informed audience."


I would dare to say that deep down, when no one is looking, almost
all of us know this to be true.

I don't. I think that the current implementation is (like the rest of
NASA's manned spaceflight program) a slow-motion train wreck, but
there's nothing wrong with the vision itself.

Imo, President Bush and his 'vision for space exploration' is......


"so speculative and so poorly founded that no one of lesser
stature would have dared mention it to an informed audience."


I would dare to say that deep down, when no one is looking, almost
all of us know this to be true.

Until now, I always misread that statement as "so poorly FUNDED". Which
is certainly true. But calling it "poorly founded" nothing more than a
subjective opinion.

Van Halen actually died in 1986 when David Lee Roth left the band. Oops
sorry I couldn't resist!

Actually, the world has lost a great scientist. And this is coming from
a supporter human spaceflight.



Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:21:21 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Imo, President Bush and his 'vision for space exploration' is......


"so speculative and so poorly founded that no one of lesser
stature would have dared mention it to an informed audience."


I would dare to say that deep down, when no one is looking, almost
all of us know this to be true.

I don't. I think that the current implementation is (like the rest of
NASA's manned spaceflight program) a slow-motion train wreck, but
there's nothing wrong with the vision itself.


And I think the 'train wreck' is a result of lousy goals set by
the politicians. The use of the ISS clearly wasn't well thought
out in advance. And to spend the next several decades and
all the money to put a few people on Mars seems even
less thought out.

The next generation of rovers will give us everything in the
next few years we need to know to answer our questions
about Mars life. If we can't figure it out in the next five
years or so, it's not because we need people on the surface.
It'll be because we're not smart enough.

And there's a direct relationship between the /tangible benefits/
for the public and the level of support when talking about
.....discretionary projects.

This vision is designed to be a luxury.

But if one were to design a goal for Nasa that would
........save the world? The difference in funding and
long term bipartisan support would be dramatic.

It's the difference between failing and succeeding.
The number of connections between the goal and
the largest tangible benefits to the most possible
....that is.

This goal minimizes those connections.
A goal revolving about energy and hence global
warming would maximize them.

Space Solar Power, regardless of it's difficulty and
countless lesser solutions, holds within it all the
connections needed to make Nasa soar again.

And our future.


s

I'm sorry folks, but that life of such supposed all-knowing expertise
and otherwise good fortune as to having tagged our magnetosphere and of
the horrific radiation within, was of no great loss to modern science
nor humanity, whereas James Van Allen was yet another entirely bought
and paid for soul, as well as being a typical born-again minion/puppet,
as having been entirely orchestrated (AKA made for TV) infomercial that
required the name of a real person in order to accommodate whatever the
mainstream status quo and their ruse of the century had established
within their mindset, which obviously included his part in the ongoing
effort of sustaining our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) until hell
freezes over or them NASA/Apollo cows come home. Another portion of the
truth has once again gone into yet another grave, just the way
MI/NSA~NASA likes it.

Our naked and physically dark moon is simply unavoidably at least ten
fold if not 100+ fold worse off than any GSO environment that's smack in
some of the worse TBI Van Allen badlands that our magnetosphere has to
offer. James Van Allen was never of any help, nor can the physics or
hard-science be extracted from anything associated with his name.

Just try as you may at getting specific Van Allen bet density or
attenuation numbers, especially as to most any given spectrum of lethal
solar/cosmic radiation that's getting through those Van Allen belts.
Good luck.

For something that's supposedly so life essential, as in representing
itself as to sustaining of Earth's protective atmosphere and otherwise
further shielding us from some of the worse kinds of DNA trauma, we
actually know next to nothing about our badly failing magnetosphere and
of those Van Allen belts within. Why is that?

According to every available solar system simulator (of which our NASA
and of those sucking up to their infomercial butt, whereas their having
the very best of such simulators to work with), missions A-11, A-14 and
A-16 each had unobstructed views of Venus as being above that physically
dark lunar horizon, and otherwise having at least once been situated as
though right next to and/or just below mother Earth, whereas even though
appearing as the much smaller item than Earth, it was in fact
unavoidably a brighter than Earth item that would have been rather
easily recorded as within an official EVA Kodak moment, especially of
any unfiltered Kodak moments as recorded upon the likes of their
Ektachrome film that was if anything rather sensitive to the bluish,
violet, near-UV and even a touch of having recorded into UV-a, as
photographing spectrums of light which the 0.75~0.80 reflective albedo
of Venus more than represented. Therefore, if anything that's true and
of fully replicated science about the photographic process and of
following the regular laws of physics, it is that Venus would have
photographed as even brighter yet than merely viewed by the human eye.

Yet never once from the lunar surface or as from orbit had there ever
been any sign of Venus, or for that matter of anything other than Earth.
Therefore our NASA/Apollo wizards are in fact born-again liars, as in
big time liars and so much worse. Van Allen was a team player, and
that's about all he ever was.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG