You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


UNIVERSAL LIGHT AND BINARY LANGUAGE

( by; Brad Guth / IEIS updated: May 11, 2004 )

Sorry this page has also become so darn long, using far too many words, especially if you're not the least bit interested in the positive aspects of Venus. This might also be a wee bit premature for those of you as of yet unfamiliar with my discovery and ongoing research, that's why there's all the warm and fuzzy favor returning of all that flak, which I've been receiving all along from the NASA Borg hive. This is also a somewhat older page that's been further supplemented by "light-communications" and of "calling-Venus" and of a few other worthy pages.

In case you have not realized and/or understood the motivation or need for that of our viewing upon Venus (especially as of this past October/November 2002 and of the coming June 8th 2004), as to subsequently attempting as to transmit binary packets of almost anything; The entire focus of all this has been based upon a relatively old discovery of some rather significant numbers of most likely artificial attributes being uncovered, where actually those were clearly existing on the Venus surface, at a site (one of at least three) somewhat elevated (5+km) of what's clearly indicating to the trained eye upon a very well structured community, as configured (openly so) as to be utilizing the available terrain, it's elevated nature as for supporting a fairly complex community of hosting life (that's obviously other life NOT as we know it and, more so obviously NOT as if anyone associated with or inside of our NASA gives a damn about it, as too busy with all the Earthly carnage of delivering nearly senseless retaliations). In case all that's confusing; I don't agree with the manner and methods of squandering our Earthly resources nor talents upon inflicting such carnage and, subsequently provoking revenge, as that seems rather pointless and somewhat lethal.

What I do believe is this; I believe at 0.27 AU as Venus appears onto Earth, Venus (including it's thick clouded atmosphere) occupies roughly 0.019 degrees worth. That's even sufficiently big to the naked human eye, something like 3.25% the diameter of the moon. Obviously it too close to the sun for safe viewing by mere humans but, we have bought and paid for good technology as well as a couple of well suited satellites that entirely nullify those concerns. So, if someone should stipulate we don't have the appropriate technology as to view Venus, it's very simple, they're flat out lying and, that's called "spin" and/or "disinformation" that's more than obviously a level of dog-wagging as for performing "damage control" on behalf of Club or perhaps Cult NASA. In oither words, besides the obvious LOL factor, there's also the LLPON (liar Liar Pants On Fire) factor.

Appearing that large and more so as equally Earth representing itself onto Venus as roughly 0.02+ degrees (that's nearly 3.5% lunar diameter), it seems likely from the Venus perspective, where obviously I'm referring to viewing from their nighttime as residing in near total darkness as from most likely above those thick clouds as yet sufficiently illuminated or perhaps even irritated by the exceptionally bright solar reflection off Earth, that should anyone (especially by that Boeing/TRW laser cannon performance) be attempting any significant signaling towards Venus, that such capable efforts would become easily noticed, as possible even from below those semi UV transparent clouds, especially if we were hitting those with even a subdued 0.005 degree of even a Mega Watt class laser cannon, as their pitch black atmospheric space or CO2 ocean situated between those clouds and the Venus surface is absolutely crystal clear and, just about as black as any void can be with regard to the majority of the humanly visible spectrum, with damn little of whatever visible and of much lesser IR spectrums from Earth ever reaching their surface. UV on the other hand is all together a light of another color.

I'm not absolutely certain about this but, those UV(B) and UV(C) spectrums are somewhat like pointing a narrow focused Neutron bomb at another planet. I guess that's why I'm a whole lot more comfortable with applying UV-A or even near-UV (400~450 nm) as for being our initial efforts (something that a common pulsed driven xenon/mercury lamp is already quite well suited for and relatively clumping-moon-dirt cheap at that). BTW; that cheap clumping-moon-dirt has now become officially retro-reflective, as to justify all of those Apollo images including such an extend of illumination hot-spots, and subsequently weird shadow angles at that.

Just as another point of my learning reference: Since no one else was taking the point (not even the rear end of this lose laser cannon), I guess it's because I'm so village idiot smart that I've located a commercial xenon beam fixture, configured as for a narrow spot delivery as follows: a 20" 4 kw = 1.14^9 cd (gap of 6.5 mm), presumably this is accommodating something less then 1 degree. The lamp itself (if pulse driven) may represent 150 lumens per watt, all the rest is entirely dependent upon the mirror and of whatever lens.

I believe this sort of illumination delivery example would represent 287^3 cd/watt. Since these xenon lamp systems are roughly 75% energy efficient, that brings us down to 275^3 cd/total energy input. However, with an aluminum coated mirror we're right back up to 260^3 cd/total energy. Now if we pulse drive that lamp at 5X (limit at 10% duty cycle), we're going to see something in the range of 1^6 cd in total energy, as well as obtaining substantially more visible light plus, there's also a great deal more to being a (like 10+ fold spectrum spike) peak of near-UV as well as some enhanced spectrums of other UV (not to mention what a little mercury might improve upon). Now we're talking about certain spectrums reaching 40+^9 cd per commercially available xenon fixture and, that's being somewhat risky but still not anywhere laser dangerous.

With proper lamp preheating (warm-up) and power management, such fixtures could be binary packet driven and/or modulated with the existing (off the shelf) technology. An array of such fixtures could certainly provide something less then 1 degree of 100^9 cd (perfectly good for pointing at Venus without much chance of inducing any significant tracking stability nor jitter factor). Such a binary pulsed driven array of 388 kw, if limited to 10% duty cycle per hour, that's a mere 40 kw hourly energy expenditure.

Obviously a few 5 watt lasers (especially if providing lesser than 5 milliradian) or simply by way of one somewhat larger and high flying laser cannon could have easily done this job from existing inventory (everything being bought and paid for by taxpayers). Of course that would have meant that someone actually gives a tinkers damn and, I do believe I've more then proven those individuals simply do not exist, at least not if they're associated with or desire as being associated with anything NASA/NSA/DoD and, whom isn't these days.

As a reciprocal calling technology from Venus; This could be somewhat more demanding. However, because we're looking at their dark side, therefore not nearly as much artificial illumination effort should be required (I would believe not but 1% of what we'll need to transmit towards Venus). Even by way of a surface configured emitter, where an illuminated spot of near UV light showing itself upon those cloud tops would be easily detected by TRACE and almost too bright for Hubble. However, If push comes to shove, I've identified a number of relatively natural energy resources available to those of Venus, as for delivering easily 1000 times that amount and, as for the buoyancy of accommodating sufficiently massive and of altitude capable (above those nighttime clouds means 45+km) airship is I believe yet another done deal (don't need no stinking roads nor surfaced based astronomy [unless that's SAR format] when you've got 64+kg/m3 worth of buoyancy as well as essentially unlimited CO/O2 as for powering such airships as astronomy platforms). The Venus metro airship is not an illusion, it's applied science and of existing physics that even a village idiot would have mastered thousands of years ago, like when Venus was offering merely a moist and warm (pre toasty) planet.

Seeing is believing and, let there be binary light(we're talking of sending packets worth of smut if need be, whatever it takes as to getting a reply)

I've recently learned that a human eye can potentially record a single photon (well not actually because, that's the visual rod mechanism alone), however, typically that visual mechanism must receive 10 such photons per second or per 100 ms before you start seeing something. Thus a magnitude 5 nocturnal sort might require as little as 10 ms or as few as 6 photons per minute and, the magnitude 10 capable eye is not only UV/a sensitive photon receptor but should accept as few as 0.06 photons per minute or a mere 3.6 photons/hour. In reality, I'm not certain my eyesight could detect 100 photons/100ms, whereas a thousand is for certain but, that's for my inferior human eyesight and not that of any good nocturnal sort.

Back on Venus; Such an evolved nocturnal type would certainly have every motive and reason(s) as to acquiring a magnitude 5 visual capability (even Venus daylight is not but 10% the illumination as compared to Earth's daylight) thus, it's even conceivable that a magnitude 10 in nocturnal vision could have been developed (their nighttime being perhaps 1^-4 nit or 0.0001 cd/m2, that's certainly damn dark), in which case their surface requirements for sufficient illumination are going to be truly minimal, as where any 100 cd/m2 illumination level would essentially become clear as day when afforded the mere 100 times sensitivity from the perspective of a magnitude 5 nocturnal factor and, otherwise more like a full million cd/m2 impact as to a truly advanced nocturnal having that magnitude 10 advantage (here I'm assuming a secondary transparent eye lid/filter as for extending the optical range as well as for heat shield). Basically, for such a totally pitch black environment, as for those having that magnitude 5+ optical sensitivity advantage, I can visualize upon a typical table or area work lamp as delivering not more then 100 cd/m2, as even 10 cd/m2 ott to be bright (as a reference, I'm calling this 100 cd/m2 their normal bright light, which is roughly the same as one of our outlet receptacle mounted night lights).

http://www.superbrightleds.com/leds/w4_specs.htm This locates a white LED that offers 10 cd @15 degree divergence, consuming 68 mw. That's delivering 0.147 cd/mw or 147 CD/W as spread over a relatively broad 15 degree pattern, or of 33,000 cd/watt if such were focused down to 1 degree.

If we were to outfit that natural lizard body armor or body suit with 1000 of these LED suckers (as driven at 1 mw each), then we're certainly more then delivering upon that 10 cd/m2, in nearly all directions with a substantial amount of illumination to spare, all of that's from just one messily watt of biological-energy. However, in the toasty environment of Venus and within that mostly dry and dielectrically insulating CO2 surrounding environment (perhaps further H2/N2 insulated), those electrons should not be all that difficult to come by, especially for any 250+kg lizard folk. Actually, how about something more like a potential of delivering a full watt per 25 kg, as in this instance 10 watts would become the more likely the capability and, with that sort of body illumination we're seriously delivering a peak performance of 14700 cd/m2 (that's something like 5 cd/degree, perhaps twice that if such illuminations were concentrated in the forward looking quadrants).

Irregardless of their physical and intellectual attributes, for such life to be aroused by our efforts and, as to being stimulated or perhaps irritated enough as to devise any horrific illumination transmitter that was sufficiently focused as to deliver a million times brighter then that normal bright work light (something like 1^9 cd), as that might be asking a little too much for such sensitive eyes, sort of like creating a relatively significant beam of near atomic brilliance as far as their sensitive vision is concerned. That's obviously why, I was most interested in our space platform instruments such as TRACE, as perhaps as little as .1% or 1^6 cd could be easily detected. Obviously a mere 1 watt laser could also accomplish this job, as to/from a space platform and by those preferably situated sufficiently either above those clouds or navigating within one of many lesser density cloud zones could certainly accomplish the task.

From Earth's perspective, transmitting of near-UV and perhaps of other UV spectrums should be something that's worth the effort, as it's certainly safe and incredibly cheap to accomplish and, it's entirely possible that of whatever is surviving on Venus has simply been somewhat busy with maintaining and powering up those various energy conversions, as well as subsequently air conditioning their habitats (life's simply not worth living if your beer is hot), as such being perhaps just a wee bit involved with their basically staying alive, as to be otherwise playing around with whatever communication illuminations focused towards stupid Earth, especially if those efforts require the utilization and supplemental outfitting of their precious airship transports or cloud gathering and subsequent H2O distillation airships. I mean, there has to be limits, as high altitude flights go (especially above those acidic clouds) has to represent a rather significant energy demand as well as other risk factors (H2SO4 not being one of those concerns, as fairly common alloys and various ceramics are entirely immune to such and, it's simply not even hot in those upper clouds, downright cold above them).

(OSETI): The Columbus Optical SETI Observatory is the world's first observatory dedicated to visible optical SETI. Unfortunately, they don't seem to give a tinkers damn about anything that's within our reach, let alone our solar system, as thousands if not millions of light years seems to have been their minimum standard, either that or it's that OSETI simply will not involve themselves with anything that offers an ounce of humanitarian value, especially if it's not something that's lining their pocket book.

Astronomy for whomever is on Venus; I'm thinking that astronomy buffs on Venus may actually be somewhat of a luxury and little else, as what possible value could astronomy play in any role of their greenhouse survival. As their survival intellect might not have had the ulterior motivations nor spare resources and sheer time as for wasting their talents towards developing such recreational sports, let alone space travel. Of course, Venus certainly could have been attempting communications upon nearly every near juncture with the likes of Earth and, we're simply either too busy going about flying big airplanes into tall buildings or it's that we simply haven't been looking at Venus and having no intentions of ever doing such, mostly because we still don't give a tinkers damn about others. Just as well because, as for Earth becoming adequate for those accustomed to Venus, it'll hopefully be decades before Earth masses itself sufficient CO2 and subsequently develops our own toasty greenhouse environment (then lets see who's laughing out loud).

One fairly sure fire way as to getting their attention; this would be to utilize that 100 MW Boeing/TRW laser cannon (even if that's potentially a wee bit overkill at this range, it might be just the ticket for the 100+ million mile range), none the less at such truly capable energy delivery (especially if we modified for near-UV spectrum by spiking that laser gas matrix with a little mercury content). However, if we're not careful this could certainly become overly threatening and likely a cause for taking their planet to the fullest degree of DEFCON readiness (massive airships aloft and whatever hot and nasty weapons charged). Of course, it would have been somewhat nicer if anyone other than of our cloak and dagger NSA/DoD welcoming committee was their initial greeting (as otherwise they could certainly get the wrong impression about us right off the bat, just by looking at warlord Bush and, not that there aren't ample impressions of many other truly nasty sorts of things to go around, Cathar exterminations and all), as there's always a slim chance we can avoid being vaporized as in return for our inadvertently blinding so many of their nocturnal (UV sensitive) population.

According to my "totally mad scientist" plan of lose cannon attack; Eventually something is going to have to give, as efforts focused towards and hopefully establishing duplex packet communications with Venus is but a mere fraction of the cost as well as essentially zero risk as compared to whatever other is on those NASA/Andersen books. Obviously I have more than my fair share of far too many good ideas (plus a few too many bad ones) and, I believe many of those are sufficiently worthy commercial enterprise considerations, those perhaps capable of pulling our skewed economy not only entirely out of the dumper but, so freaking far on top that the world will have to sit back and watch as we proceed to knock everyone's socks off. If our NASA can't proceed, can't manage to divorce their NSA/DoD affiliations, then ESA should have the next crack at this before those Chinese or perhaps Russians do their thing.

Planetary communications with this almost too close of a neighbor is simply not rocket science unless we wanted to go there, it's not hardly even astronomy worthy because, with what I believe that naked nocturnal eye can see (tagged as belonging to those Islamic or perhaps Cathar lizard folk), is that they can damn well see us far better than we can see them because the sun isn't in their eyes, along with there having more than sufficient naked visual resolution without any stinking telescope and, as for amateurs on Earth don't really need all that much either, especially if what we're accomplishing is not of planetary nor even cloud cover details but of detecting those binary packets (light being the all around universal communications technology as well as universally known language of all recorded species, that which clearly cuts across all social/political barriers, religion as well).

I mean; How far back in time do I need to go, in order to clearly demonstrate and show that of none other form of communications is more universal than light and, what language (I'm not even regarding specific computer code) is any simpler than visually seeing and/or sending off a simple reply packet of "0" and "1", and so forth?

I recall mentioning SETI; Well folks, after asking them nicely to consider the possibilities, I've since discovered that this adventure is simply too close for their vastly superior intellect, as well as potentially damaging to their sensitive instruments and apparently way too far outside their tiny little box of "mainstream status quo", as well as being flat out way over their big heads as to even comprehend. Even though they apparently have access to lasers and a fairly good CCD photon detector outfitted telescope, they're all quite useless, simply because first of all (God forbid) this is not even their idea. I would imagine a few million bucks thrown their way might change their modus of operation, however, after the rejections of their crude illogic bashing I've received, my focus will not likely ever involve anything SETI. I mean, what's the freaking point of looking for other life (ET) that's thousands if not millions of lightyears off and thus not humanly obtainable? Who the hell has those sorts of resources, let alone the time as for that measure of pathetic "no possible win" agenda?

At this point, I wouldn't utilize a SETI report for toilet paper. However, If you should know of others interested in pursuing this opportunity, obviously capable of working outside that little smelly NASA box, I'll even supply the flak suits and make darn good and certain that those helping receive the fullest of credits for whatever they accomplish. I know there's more then enough to go around and, I'll certainly continue to provide other ideas and alternatives, just as long as I don't become sucked into any part of the same black hole vortex of "nondisclosure" cult that's been irresponsible for this belated discovery in the first place, not to mention the irresponsible activities ever since I announced upon this as of the first of 2001.

BTW: I just received this following item regarding mostly TRACE and then a little further info upon Hubble: (I can't help but wonder about just this sort of "spin and/or "damage control" reply).

"The only possible course of action is to reduce image exposure
time. This has been done in the past with Mercury in order to
try to measure the so-called 'opposition effect'. However
calculations based on those images suggest the Venus would
saturate the detector even at the very shortest exposure time
that we could possibly try, making the data worthless."

"Finally, even if useful data could be taken for Venus,
LASCO measures white-light in a broadband bandpass of 400-850 nm
and wouldn't say anything about emission in individual
wavelengths."

"I'm not in a position to say anything detailed about TRACE,
except a) they wouldn't be able to point that far away from
the sun and b) as a result of their orbit they are presently
being eclipsed (by the earth) for a large part of each day
and so are only running limited and routine operations. I'm
not in a position to say anything final about Hubble but I'd
expect they wouldn't consider pointing that close to the Sun.
Also, their operations are generally finalised a long time in
advance."

Perhaps my reply to such NASA associated experts or perhaps Borgs, as to regarding some further clarification that'll shed new light upon what I believe those nifty instruments such as TRACE can do, in spite of the misunderstandings or intentional disinformation being supported by so many others, where I seem to read from their own specifications that TRACE as well as for a number of alternatives are more than capable of accomplishing exactly what's needed, as I never specified upon any absolute requirement of a specific spectrum, just the opposit in fact. How exactly NASA/NSA/DoD has sort of tucked TRACE behind Earth is quit a neat trick, especially since TRACE is nowhere near EL2 and, since it's goal and/or mission was and presumably still is primarily to monitor the various solar flare and associated emissions (obviously can't do that so well if Earth's in the freaking way). Of course, if you're trying to avoid anything Venus, and you have that NASA/NSA/DoD gun to the back of your head, then of course TRACE and all the other instruments are going to be off line and/or out of specification for viewing the planet Venus under any circumstances.

Of course, TRACE (pre COLUMBIA disaster) is one of those satellites that could have been easily refueled, even refurbished and sent along it's way towards orbiting Venus, as preferably becoming situated at VL2 (I have a similar notion regarding ISS), whereas TRACE could still monitor the outer rim of the sun (perhaps as much as 10% solar exposure [+/- whatever depending upon it's being a little off station] and obviously being that much closer ott to worth something), otherwise monitoring upon the nighttime season of Venus. Trace has way more than the necessary optics plus the wide spectrum capability to scan for UV to IR spectrums as well as sufficient scanning speed and, as of the last I heard, it's still working fine and dandy (just not so fine and dandy upon anything Venus). Naturally, even good old TRACE isn't the ideal solution but, it's what we've had all along and it's still technically available.

I'm not the only one thinking that scuttling the shuttle program wasn't motivated by "damage control", as there's certainly hundreds of billions at stake, tens of thousands of jobs at stake, not to mention their never ending billions of those benefits that could be disrupted if not retroactively, where those tax dollars and talents could otherwise be absconded by NSA/DoD agendas in a flash. Some of the stealth methods of accomplishing a nasty task is simply to avoid doing what's otherwise required (in government it's called "under funding" and/or just from an overload of bureaucracies that don't communicate with each other, like NASA/NIMA, Boeing/TRW and NASA, or FBI/CIA or all of the above with whatever our NSA has in their perverted mind), thus the sorts of fiascos like the JFK demise, USS LIBERTY, 9/11, flight-800 and now our COLUMBIA will just happen, over and over, especially with regard to the touchy shuttle technology where there's lesser room for error, so that no one ever pulls the trigger, thus moral impunity and only more job security.

If all of this isn't enough to think about, there's certainly more as long as no one flushes the toilet.