Live data from Hacker News

Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

livescience.com

1–10 of 120 posts

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#4
post #3

Did anyone get a spectrograph? Slim chance given the circumstances but that'd be really near to look at the spectral lines!

I don't see an optical spectrum anywhere, the linked paper (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/3/eaaq0030) contains a host of other cool data that was collected. Fig. 3 in particular has indications that this phenomenon happens at some kind of domain boundary, given how many of the shown quantities change in this relatively narrow band.

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#8

"the air inside Steve blazed about 5,500 degrees Fahrenheit (3,000 degrees Celsius)" 3000 degrees?!:o Is that temperature a typo?

Yes, that's correct. At 300km, Steve would be situated within the thermosphere [1]

> The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosphere

Edit: typo

Re: Eerie Skyglow Called 'Steve' Isn't an Aurora, Is 'Completely Unknown' to Science

#10
> "To photographers and stargazers in northern climes, Steve has been a familiar night phenomenon for decades. But the mysterious ribbons of light only entered the scientific literature for the first time earlier this year"

It's so exciting to realize how little we really know. Think about how many fantastic unexplained things there must be in the universe if we haven't even finished understanding the ones right under our noses. There's so much complexity that we can easily create things that are too complicated for one person, or even many, to fully understand.

Post reply on HN