NASA Science News for Feb. 24, 2012

NASA Science News for Feb. 24, 2012

En route to the Red Planet, Mars rover Curiosity has experienced the strongest solar radiation storm since 2005. Researchers say this is part of Curiosity's job as a 'stunt double' for human astronauts.

FULL STORY: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...b_stuntdouble/

On Feb 24, 8:21*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
NASA Science News for Feb. 24, 2012

En route to the Red Planet, Mars rover Curiosity has experienced the strongest solar radiation storm since 2005. Researchers say this is part of Curiosity's job as a 'stunt double' for human astronauts.

FULL STORY:http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...12/24feb_stunt...

It must have been a really nasty dosage inside of that spacecraft,
because they were afraid to even mention any hard numbers as clearly
specified as having been recorded by the onboard instruments
specifically designed for that task.

Perhaps you can find out for us, exactly what those nasty secondary/
recoil radiation dosage readings of various X-rays were as per cm3/
sec.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 24, 8:21*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
NASA Science News for Feb. 24, 2012

En route to the Red Planet, Mars rover Curiosity has experienced the strongest solar radiation storm since 2005. Researchers say this is part of Curiosity's job as a 'stunt double' for human astronauts.

FULL STORY:http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...12/24feb_stunt...

"Unlike previous Mars rovers, Curiosity is equipped with a Radiation
Assessment Detector. The instrument, nicknamed “RAD,” counts cosmic
rays, neutrons, protons and other particles over a wide range of
biologically-interesting energies. RAD’s prime mission is to
investigate the radiation environment on the surface of Mars, but
researchers have turned it on early so that it can also probe the
radiation environment on the way to Mars as well."

It must have been a really nasty dosage inside of that spacecraft,
because they were afraid to even mention any hard numbers as clearly
specified as having been recorded by their onboard RAD instrument
specifically designed for that task.

Perhaps you can find out for us, exactly what those nasty secondary/
recoil radiation dosage readings of various X-rays were as per cm3/
sec.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:04:22 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

It must have been a really nasty dosage inside of that spacecraft,
because they were afraid to even mention any hard numbers as clearly
specified as having been recorded by the onboard instruments
specifically designed for that task.

The information comes from general public press releases. The "hard
numbers" would be meaningless to most people, and it's hardly
surprising to not find them presented in this context.

The raw data itself might be available, but is also likely to be
embargoed for a short time to allow the principle investigators at
SWRI or elsewhere the opportunity to publish. That is pretty standard
practice.

On Feb 24, 11:40*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:04:22 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
It must have been a really nasty dosage inside of that spacecraft,
because they were afraid to even mention any hard numbers as clearly
specified as having been recorded by the onboard instruments
specifically designed for that task.

The information comes from general public press releases. The "hard
numbers" would be meaningless to most people, and it's hardly
surprising to not find them presented in this context.

The raw data itself might be available, but is also likely to be
embargoed for a short time to allow the principle investigators at
SWRI or elsewhere the opportunity to publish. That is pretty standard
practice.

Go F yourself.

It's all public funded science, including those principle
investigators at SWRI, and we have a right to know each and every
channel of those RAD numbers.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


It's ZNRs like yourself that shouldn't be allowed to interact with the
public.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:47:48 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

Go F yourself.

Charming.

It's all public funded science, including those principle
investigators at SWRI, and we have a right to know each and every
channel of those RAD numbers.

But we have no right to instant access. The investigators have a lot
invested in the research themselves, regardless of funding (which in
this case is not just American, but European as well). It is
completely standard, and completely fair, to allow those who designed
and operate the instruments the first shot at publication. It's not
like delaying the release of the data by up to a year has any
practical significance in most cases.

On Feb 25, 12:45*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:47:48 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
Go F yourself.

Charming.
It was meant to be highly disparaging.


It's all public funded science, including those principle
investigators at SWRI, and we have a right to know each and every
channel of those RAD numbers.

But we have no right to instant access.
We're not talking instant access, although how would allowing us equal
access hurt?

The investigators have a lot
invested in the research themselves, regardless of funding (which in
this case is not just American, but European as well). It is
completely standard, and completely fair, to allow those who designed
and operate the instruments the first shot at publication. It's not
like delaying the release of the data by up to a year has any
practical significance in most cases.

You know that it's common practice by those of your kind to exclude or
obfuscate any and all science that makes their science seem less
valuable or forbid in error.

Once the raw science data has been edited to suit, and/or the bad
stuff tossed out, makes it impossible for independent interpretations
to ever happen. Given a year or more delay simply adds insult to
injury, as well as giving additional time behind closed doors to
further modify and/or exclude whatever they're trying to hide from us.

Among many agencies, our ATF, FDA and SEC allows bad results to be
excluded all the time, even though it's their official job to do the
opposite. Our NASA certainly hasn't been forthcoming when stuff is
delayed, gets way over spendy and/or fails to perform. This policy of
highly selective obfuscation that's public funded and obviously
tolerated needs to stop.

9/11 happened because the public wasn't informed of our policy and
methods applied during the cold-war era, that was every bit as bogus
and/or phony as Muslim WMD.

Our SEC has failed us multiple times, and they still think it's
funny. The system that you clearly love actually sucks so bad that it
should had a black hole names after it.

Our government does more lying to us than anything else, and obviously
you think there's nothing wrong with that. Of course our government
and their dozens of agencies manage to bury or lose track of 99 out of
a hundred screw-ups, and obviously you're good with that as well.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:44:00 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

But we have no right to instant access.

We're not talking instant access, although how would allowing us equal
access hurt?

We ARE talking about instant access. Immediate access as you desire
hurts the investigators, and hurts all of society by discouraging
investigators from being involved with the projects at all. They've
made a deal with the funding agencies: in exchange for their
expertise, they have a period of exclusive access to the data. That's
eminently fair.

Outside the short embargo period, the data is equally accessible to
all.

On Feb 25, 8:11*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:44:00 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
But we have no right to instant access.
We're not talking instant access, although how would allowing us equal
access hurt?

We ARE talking about instant access. Immediate access as you desire
hurts the investigators, and hurts all of society by discouraging
investigators from being involved with the projects at all. They've
made a deal with the funding agencies: in exchange for their
expertise, they have a period of exclusive access to the data. That's
eminently fair.

Outside the short embargo period, the data is equally accessible to
all.

A few days or couple weeks isn't a problem with me. However months
and especially any year delay is leaving those LLPOF closed doors
secured a bit too long. It's all public funded in one way or another,
and it's costing us in ways other than our hard earned loot, but then
you don't care about that either.

Apparently you like the failed or dysfunctional system just the way it
is, with insiders getting first, second and third crack at everything,
as well as their losing or modifying as much of the raw science as
they like. Most of their publishing (especially K-12 textbooks) is
also public funded, whereas the rest of us get banished or otherwise
forbidden. Gee whiz, it sounds highly problematic, and history has
proven that I'm right more often than your insider protectionism has
to offer.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:59:50 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

Outside the short embargo period, the data is equally accessible to
all.

A few days or couple weeks isn't a problem with me. However months
and especially any year delay is leaving those LLPOF closed doors
secured a bit too long.

A year is pretty typical. It takes a long time to analyze data and
produce a paper.

Scientists don't work for the money. They don't work for power. If
they did, they'd be running the world, since on the whole they are
vastly smarter than your typical lawyer or banker, and even more so
than politicians.

Scientists work for the thrill of discovery, and the glory of being
the first to report something new about nature. Without that
incentive, they'd be doing something else. What you are missing is
that they didn't win some lottery to be "insiders". They proposed the
instruments and experiments. They were heavily involved in the
instrument and mission design. They are partners, and they deserve
exclusive access to the data for a reasonable period.

Here's what I suggest for you. Get yourself some antipsychotic
medication. Then, go to school and learn some science. Start
researching some aspect of space science. When you've published enough
original work to be respected, propose an instrument for a space
mission. Jump through all the economic and political hoops involved.
When you are approved, spend 5-10 years designing the instrument and
the experiments you will conduct. When the data finally starts
flowing, you might feel differently about just handing it out to
anybody- so that your scientific competitors take advantage of it
without ever having contributed to your program, and the Usenet
wingnuts can simply challenge its veracity because it is inconsistent
with their delusions.