February 18, 2009
http://www.spaceweather.com/
Daily Sun: 18 Feb 09 The sun is blank--no sunspots. Sunspot number: 0
Far side of the Sun: This holographic image reveals no sunspots on the far
side of the sun.

The face of the Sun is without blemish:
http://www.spaceweather.com/images20...4bv9jdh8 rie1

Please visit:
http://blog.nj.com/southjersey_impac...SolarCycle.jpg

The right panel shows the face of the Sun as it looked on a good day during
the late Modern Warm Period. Sunspots are the apparent size of craters on
the moon. The left panel shows a spotless Sun as seen today.

Please write to Al Gore so that Al knows that the Sun is not living up to
his religious expectations. Al Gore is a divinity school dropout. George
Carlin had a better grasp of the true nature of God's creation, than does Al
Gore.

Please visit:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsl...es/sun-etc.jpg
which shows the relative sizes of the Sun and planets. Compared to the Sun,
Jupiter is the size of a pea, earth is the size of a grain of sand.

Two satellites collide, Two nuclear missiles submarines collide, CIA is
'Quiescent'

Satellites Colliding in Space
February 16, 2009

One always thinks of space as a large open area, with plenty of space in all
directions. You combine this space with the concept of satellites being well
regulated and following controlled orbits, and then it is difficult to
believe that satellites under the control of such countries such as the
United States and Russia could actually collide, and yet that is exactly
what seems to have happened:

The collision between a U.S. and a Russian satellite over Siberia may have
been accidental and the first of its kind, but experts say more crashes will
inevitably occur and could have geopolitical consequences. "This is an event
that really makes us realize that things are not so straightforward as we
originally thought," said Francisco Diego, a senior research fellow in
physics and astronomy at University College London.

The collision, between a spacecraft operated by U.S. communications group
Iridium Satellite LLC and a Russian Cosmos-2251 military satellite, happened
485 miles above the Russian Arctic on Tuesday afternoon. The crash sent at
least 600 pieces of debris off into space, officials said, increasing the
risk that other satellites, including the vast International Space Station,
which orbits 220 miles up, could be struck and damaged.

This crash may have been accidental, but what is to prevent countries from
investing in such technologies? For example, a couple of such crashes have
the effect of impacting the GPS and communication technologies that are used
by the US military to great affect. Already, the US is looking at even
guiding bombs through the use of GPS and satellite, which makes the
demolition of satellites an important aspect in war.

British, French Missile Submarines Collide
Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2009

A French submarine carrying nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles collided
earlier this month with a similar British submarine, officials said
yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 9).

The accident, first reported by the London Sun, caused no injuries and "no
compromise to nuclear safety," both nations said in statements.

France said it was initially unaware that its vessel Le Triomphant had
collided with another submarine in the Feb. 3 incident, the New York Times
reported. The French Defense Ministry said Feb. 6 that the submarine had
"collided with an immersed object" (John Burns, New York Times, Feb. 17).

"These submarines are undetectable, they make less noise than a shrimp,"
French Defense Minister Herve Morin said today.

"As soon as the incident occurred, the submarine's commander surfaced and
said 'I have hit something. I think it was a container so I am heading back
to Brest," the submarine's base, Morin said. "Our submarine went back to
Brest, the British submarine [HMS Vanguard] continued its patrol, and it's
when we reported the incident that the British, who had just learned from
their commander that there had been a problem, contacted us."

"The British came to inspect our submarine and they concluded that something
happened between them," Morin said (Agence France-Presse I/Spacewar.com, ).

The vessels were ""were conducting routine national patrols in the Atlantic
Ocean" until they "came into contact at very low speed," top British navy
officer Adm. Johnathan Band added.

News of the incident prompted activists to urge both sides to work toward
nuclear disarmament, the Times reported. The accident "could have released
vast amounts of radiation and scattered scores of nuclear warheads across
the seabeds," Kate Hudson, head of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

The three NATO powers that possess nuclear-armed submarines -- France, the
United Kingdom and the United States -- should consider informing each other
of their vessels' whereabouts, military analysts said.

Still, the nations are unlikely to share such sensitive information, said
Lee Willett, an expert at London's Royal Services Institute.

"These are the strategic crown jewels of the nation, Willett told AFP. "The
whole purpose of a sea-based nuclear deterrent is to hide somewhere far out
of sight. They are the ultimate tools of national survival in the event of
war. Therefore, it's the very last thing you would share with anybody"
(Burns, Times).

France's longtime refusal to participate in the NATO military command played
no role in causing the accident, AFP reported.

Morin suggested the sides share information on the general patrol zones of
their nuclear-armed submarines. France already provides the patrol zones of
its attack submarines to allies, according to French naval officials (Agence
France-Presse II/Spacewar.com, Feb. 17).

The collision was "more embarrassing than worrying," one naval specialist
said.

The vessels were built to withstand "an incredible amount of punishment,"
former British navy officer Mike Critchley said. "If and when these
accidents do happen, you're prepared for them."

British funding reductions might have led to the Vanguard's operators having
inadequate experience for their mission, said Critchley.

"The training is extensive, but whether the people who are in command of
these major assets have considerable experience at sea is questionable
because the Navy has been seriously cut back in recent years," he said. "So
the progression from a junior officer to a senior officer includes far more
shore time than sea time" (Sam Marsden, Press Association/London
Independent, Feb. 16).