Talk:Operation Argus

Probability of Vanguard 1 being used for the purpose

Just looking at the orbit, the instruments, the purpose of the instruments, the timing, and the controlling entity (NRL), I'm going to put forth the assertion that Vanguard 1 was launched to meet the initial requirements for Argus. Keep in mind that the solar-powered transmitter for electron count maintained until 1964, meaning that the effects of EMP and radiation belts were factored into it's design, and it is probable that exoatmospheric shots were timed to when Vanguard 1 would have been on the opposite side of the Earth (just guessing, but historical orbital info is available). Vanguard 1 was launched after the NRL go-ahead for Argus (TG88 was formed less than a month later), by NRL.

I think the probability would be good that Vanguard 1 was conceived as part of Argus, and should be pursued.

The timing of the launch seems to indicate that they wanted initial electron counts as well. When doing an experiment, it is always best to have control sample data. 216.36.82.9 (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Images of the Argus shots

I've looked pretty hard for images of the Argus shots and have been unable to find one. I'd very much like to have one if you can find it. aa v ^ 20:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've searched around quite a bit for them (so as to have something for the List of nuclear tests page), and have never been able to find any, only pictures of the missiles on the boats which may or may not have even participated. --Fastfission 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If I get a bug in my bonnet I may FOIA one, as I'm very interested. The stuff's been declassified. And it's not like they didn't take any pictures. Maybe the 400+ km shots were not entirely visible, but I suspect they saw something. aa v ^ 01:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

LRL

The article says that the tests were proposed by Nicholas Christofilos of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. Was this lab what is now known as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (which is where LRL redirects to currently), or what is now Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory? I know that LLNL was known as UCRL officially for many years because it was the "Livermore branch" of LBNL and often shows up in nuclear records as such. I only ask because we should have it redirect correctly if it was actually what we would now specify as Livermore. --Fastfission 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the redir is probably right. We might consider asking somebody who is familiar with the subsequent page to comment. Thanks, by the way, for your work on these articles. aa v ^ 01:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Christofilos was at the Berkeley lab.

70.177.168.171 14:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Usefulness?

Such radiation belts were viewed as having possible tactical use in war.

What, exactly, would this use be? I have seen this claim in several places, but to date I have not seen any explaination of what effect this would have. On source, a TV show apparently based on Dark Sun, suggested this would be used to disrupt Soviet warhead guidance, but I can't imagine how unless they used some sort of ground-based mid-course guidance. Does anyone know what they though the effects would be?

Maury 12:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It was thought that such a radiation field might damage the warhead electronics, preventing detonation.

70.177.168.171 14:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Country?

There's nothing in the introduction that says what country carried out this operation. I had to read two sections in to find explcit mention of the U.S. Navy. Would someone more knowledgeable about Argus like to clarify this in the opening paragraph? Cheers, Cephal-odd 04:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Superfluous link?

Why does this article link to the South Atlantic Anomaly? Is some nutbag claiming that these tests caused the SAA, which is physically impossible? Or is someone obliquely suggesting that the location of the tests was chosen to be in the SAA to avoid satellite detection? If so, that needs to be stated. --76.224.71.159 09:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Because that is where the test was held. Look up the "Christophilos Effect" AKA "Argus Effect". The location had nothing to do with avoiding sat detection (seeing that at that point, there were only five man-made objects in space). The location was picked because they thought it would be easier to test there, because the southern magnetic lines are so far north, it put the geomagnetic conjugate point right off the Canaries, where the other elements of TG88 were to verify the Aurora. My advice to you is to quit listening to Art Bell. 216.36.82.9 (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Leukemia

If nobody can provide a source for the leukemia claims, I am removing the assertion. I can't see how personnel onboard a steel-walled ship could be exposed to elevated radiation from a nuclear blast at that distance. Sounds like conspiratorial nonsense.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no "record" of such other than on private webpages making claims without actual references exactly as here. Is the author of the article section implying that there was an exposed core (alpha hazard if someone put the core in their mouth). I think the person has to be confused with the Plumbbob/Smoky shot in 1957, which initiated the DNA "Blue Books". There was a report on the 264 film badges that was lost though (DNA-6039F page 52, and Appendix B). I think it could be a case of scammers if the purported "controversy" is real, as only twenty TF-88 personnel on the Norton Sound had warhead access (20 film badges issued to "warhead handlers", and there were no documented fizzles or range safety destructs, and no leaks of such in the past 59 years, and all detonations were from 110 to almost 500 miles away. I am as liberal as you can get, and even I call bullshit on this claim.2600:100C:B00E:E7D5:9DD7:9A4D:A408:BD14 (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous jargon

"The time frame for Argus was substantially expedited " -- what on earth does that mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.160.165.186 (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that's not great writing, and upcoming bans hardly constitute 'political instability'. I've rewritten the sentence. Quite why it's in the lead rather than the body I don't know - I might move it too. Modest Genius ^talk 11:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The table on this page is generated by database

The table on this page and the contents of any nuclear tests infobox are generated from a database of nuclear testing which I have maintained and researched for a number of years. The table is automatically generated from that database by a Visual Basic script, and then has, periodically, been inserted into the page manually. I began doing this in October of 2013.

Recently a user complained (politely) to me about the practice. It seems to him that it removes control from all editors besides myself over the content. He believes it is tantamount to WP:OWNED of the pages affected. He also points out that there is no public mention of the fact anywhere on wikipedia, and that is true, through my own oversight, until now.

There was no intent that the pages affected should be owned by myself; in fact, one of my reasons for building these pages was to solicit (in the wikipedia way) criticism and corrections to the data, perhaps additional references that I had been unable to locate. I have regenerated the tables twice in the days since they were originally placed. Each time I did so, I performed a diff between the current version and the version that I put up in the previous cycle; all corrections were then either entered into the database or corrected in the programming, as appropriate. As may be guessed, the programming corrections were frequent to start out as suggestions about the table formatting were raised, and most incorporated. I have not made judgements on the "usefulness" of corrections; all have been incorporated, or I have communicated directly with the editor to settle the matter. In fact it was in pursuing such a correction that this matter came up.

I am posting this comment on the Talk page of every page containing content which is so generated. If you would like to comment on this matter, please go to the copy on Talk:List of nuclear tests so the discussion can be kept together. I will also be placing a maintained template on each Talk page (if anyone would like also to be named as a maintainer on one or all pages, you are welcome). I solicit all comments and suggestions.

SkoreKeep (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The table certainly contains a lot of extraneous notes and unused columns. Modest Genius ^talk 11:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, it does. My only excuse is that that is the format used on all similar tables in all Argus's brother nuclear series. Such data is known for some series, not known for others. If it's a bother, I suppose it can be edited. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear effects in upper atmosphere

Comes katiebuckler1 inserting "This would be formed because a portion of the energy released in splitting, or fissioning, uranium or plutonium atoms. The products of this splitting would include beta particles, which form the belt.".

No argument about the first sentence, though it is pretty obvious that is is an experiment in the effects of fissioning weapons in the upper atmosphere. Thee second sentence is wrong. Fissioning does not release many, if any, beta particles; that's a factor of nuclear decay and the weak force. The electrons in the upper come from ionization of the gasses there from solar radiation. What the bombs release is high energy waves which excite the charged particles. It looked at the reference and I don't think Christoforos says anywhere that beta particles have anything to do with the effect he's discussing. I'm certainly open to learning more about it, but I can't let that pass. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Operation Argus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130035125/http://www.dtra.mil/documents/ntpr/historical/1958%20-%20DNA%206039F%20-%20Operation%20ARGUS%20-%201958.pdf to http://www.dtra.mil/documents/ntpr/historical/1958%20-%20DNA%206039F%20-%20Operation%20ARGUS%20-%201958.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029194805/http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_02019401a_121.pdf to http://docs.nrdc.org/nuclear/files/nuc_02019401a_121.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061012160826/http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf to http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/publications/historical/DOENV_209_REV15.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)