Talk:Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Possible Copyvio[edit]

This content appears to be coppied from http://cyclo.mit.edu/~bmonreal/whatisams.html but the site is down so I can't check the copyright info. Here is Google's cache if anyone is interested in investigating. --Apyule 09:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Here is the archive.org cache too. --Apyule 09:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Information on mountpoint and other technical data of AMS-02 http://ams-02project.jsc.nasa.gov/Documents/SDP/Section%205-4.pdf --TheDJ (talkcontribs) 15:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I just added a note that a lot of this text is taken from the NASA page. That needs to be stated! 018 (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Ultrahigh energy cosmic rays[edit]

I removed a reference to AMS detecting ultrahigh energy cosmic rays, which it cannot (its acceptance is far too small by factors of millions or more). The original comment was most likely talking about high-energy gamma rays (1-300 GeV for AMS). UHECRs are particles with energies of EeV or more, and are impossible to detect directly due to their low flux (1/square km/century and lower). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.20.177 (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit of error[edit]

I found an error stating that the flight was indeed a go. I changed the wording to indicate it may noy happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.175.126 (talk) 01:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How it works[edit]

Nice to have details about what it does, but it would be nice also to know how it works. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We're working on it! Watch this space... Aldebaran66 (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Image of prelaunch processing of AMS-01.[edit]

Might be useful?

Thought this might come in handy. Colds7ream (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Scientific goals too confident?[edit]

AMS will provide a definitive answer on the existence of this extraordinary matter. -- Isn't this a little bit too confident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.251.198.125 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim from the NASA fact sheet has been toned down. How they can be sure of a definitive answer if nothing is detected by this experiment? "Absence of proof" is not necessarily "proof of absence". Aldebaran66 (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

New schedule & magnet?[edit]

I see we are now rescheduled for launch in November (with luck), with the permanent magnet. I am refraining from editing out the obsolete and now incorrect bits, because I think other editors have worked on this material and are better qualified, but I thought this might be a good moment to open a discussion of plans for updating and improving the article. I also would be happy to see more detailed information on how the AMS works, and what it can do. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The wording reads like puffery. They've spend $1.5 Billion on this project and the cryogenic system that was supposed to be critical for mission success has been removed.

Extended mission section[edit]

I'm not really sure what to do with the "Extended mission" section. It's obviously out of date, so I've at least marked it as such, for what little good that does. I considered removing it completely, but I wanted to start this talk page discussion first. Thoughts?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

AMS-02 ready for the ISS....just a thought that I have had about this great experiment![edit]

Hello people.

I am not a man of physics(but a bit into it!), but it keeps me interested to think about new projects and scientific things of the new century! so please, keep me informed about the docking of the AMS-02 to the ISS.

My thought:

Is it really pre-tested for safety of the ISS, how such a big magnetic-field of the AMS-02 reacts to our earths-magnetic-field ? -> how big is the magnetic-field, which already is generated by the ISS without the AMS-02???

I follow the last 2 years, whats going on , with catastrophy's -volcanoEruption 2 big earthquakes....and maybe everytime around this catastrophic happenings I realize, that at CERN, the superfluidhelium-cooling is on, and test are done..probably the whole system of cern, put the full power into the test-tube-magnet-fields. did we cause eventually some irreparable changes in earth-tektonic-magnetic behaviour. Or was the quake of Japan just normal, or maybe because of the big sun-flares last summer.

-> its just a thought...but I think it could be elementary...chaos-theory should be in point of view, too.

maybe my thought is stupid, but i am just curious about -answers...


magnetism, gravitation, rotation even the ecliptic structure of our milky way, maybe could be harmed.

At least I wanna say, that the ISS is the most wonderful thing the humankind generated! I wanna have this station for long time running....I am thinking, that there should be 2 smaller stations more(like appartments for the geo-nauts!) out there rounding earth in orbit...-as long, as all the satellites which are already curving there allow this...

And maybe there comes a time, when we can put up a small Armada of orbital-gliders, settled with LaserBeam-cannons, to protect all build up there, and maybe more on ground earth-in fact some Asteroid moves into earth-collision-way.

kind to get information about all tests.

AMS 1 was there with the same magnet. hopefully this magnet damages nothing on the ISS. (Stefan_Ulrich) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.150.218 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What results[edit]

Can we have something about the data recording, analysis and reporting ? What publications or posters so far ? When are various results expected ? - Rod57 (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Paper due March 2013. - Rod57 (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The paper is out. PRL 110, 141102 (2013). Summary at APS. Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to say what the results in that last paragraph are,and what they mean? Who won??? S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

The last two paragraphs of the AMS-02 section give conflicting reasons for the choice of the permanent magnet. Was the heat anomaly the prime factor, the extended lifetime, or both? » Swpbτ ¢ 20:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Megabits per second[edit]

http://www.ams02.org/2011/06/happily-collecting-data-from-the-cern-pocc/ claims 10 MBit/s. We claim 2 MBit/s. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Year of first proposal.[edit]

I've just found a document on the NTRS dated June 27, 1978 discussing the possibility of putting a Magnetic Spectrometer on a space shuttle. It might be worth incorporating this information into the main article.

The document is entitled Experiment Definition and Integration Study for the Accommodation of Magnetic Spectrometer Payload on Spacelab/Shuttle Missions, Final Report and can be accessed directly [1]

Graham1973 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 19:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 07:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)