Live data from Hacker News

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

livescience.com

31–40 of 120 posts

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

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many fantastic things you won't get to research or even see because you're working half your life for someone or something.

On the other hand, without all this working for others we wouldn't have a system which lets us spend that other half of our lives seeing the things we do get to see. It's a net win overall.

That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.

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

#32
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even things we do understand and that we have documented are underused. Let's take a few examples. I had Malaria 10 years ago. Well, did you know Atovaquone-Proguanil (e.g: Malarone) can not only prevent Malaria, but also __cure__ it, killing the plasmodium in the liver? Still, most people, including a lot of doctors, think you can't cure Malaria and you have to live with it for life. The first documented death relat…

> The first documented death related to asbestos was in 1906, yet it was only banned a century later Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; only a small list of products are banned by the EPA federally.[0] It was increasingly banned in Europe from the mid 1980s, and totally banned throughout the EU in 2005.[1] [0] https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos [1] https://cordis.europa.eu/news/…

Making the news once doesn't mean people know about it, unfortunately.

Otherwise people would not vote for crooked politicians after their first idiotic behavior.

Unless you educate again and again, generation after generation, abstract knowledge doesn't stick.

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

#33
> At about 200 miles (300 km) above Earth, the air inside Steve blazed about 5,500 degrees Fahrenheit (3,000 degrees Celsius) hotter than the air on each side, and moved about 500 times faster. This band of hot, surging gas was about 16 miles (25 km) wide.

My bet is that it's a trace of a weapon. Propulsion trail? High energy laser hotspot?

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

#34
post #16

I'm a bit surprised that no attempt was mentioned to determine which direction its coming from? A beam, 16 miles wide.. of course its trite, but could be exhaust from starships decelerating into the solar system, or residue from a solar flare perhaps?

In the article, there is a link to a timelapse video on vimeo [0]. The "Steve" phenomenon seems to extend on an east-west axis, assuming that the "normal" aurora borealis in the video is to the north.

Two days before (May 06, 2016) there was a geostationary satellite launch by SpaceX from Cape Canaveral (JCSAT-14 / JCSAT-2B, positioned now on 154°East) [1].

Could it be possible that "Steve" is just residual exhaust gas from the recent satellite launch which may behave similar to an actual aurora phenomenon when ionized?

[0] https://vimeo.com/166121341 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_spaceflight#May

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

#36
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, without all this working for others we wouldn't have a system which lets us spend that other half of our lives seeing the things we do get to see. It's a net win overall.

That's just speculation, what system are you imagining in place of 'wage labour'? chattel? I imagine UBI and an explosion in the sciences; When anyone with interest can afford to follow that interest.

No, it's not speculation. I have a cite: literally the entire progression of human history and societal development.

Steady (and in the last century, enormous) progression toward more leisure time, with more wealth and latitude at our disposal than ever before.

UBI is good. You're going to fund UBI by working for other people.

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

#37
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even things we do understand and that we have documented are underused. Let's take a few examples. I had Malaria 10 years ago. Well, did you know Atovaquone-Proguanil (e.g: Malarone) can not only prevent Malaria, but also __cure__ it, killing the plasmodium in the liver? Still, most people, including a lot of doctors, think you can't cure Malaria and you have to live with it for life. The first documented death relat…

> The first documented death related to asbestos was in 1906, yet it was only banned a century later Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; only a small list of products are banned by the EPA federally.[0] It was increasingly banned in Europe from the mid 1980s, and totally banned throughout the EU in 2005.[1] [0] https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos [1] https://cordis.europa.eu/news/…

>Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; only a small list of products are banned by the EPA federally.[0] It was increasingly banned in Europe from the mid 1980s, and totally banned throughout the EU in 2005.[1]

Like everything else, everything is deadly at large doses. Even water. Alcohol clearly causes stomach cancer too at large doses, yet alcohol is not banned, right? If we were to ban everything that leads to a certain point of toxicity, we would not be able to live with anything around us. Toxicity is factored by exposure, which is why "carcinogenic risk" is not a binary variable.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/s...

> Everyone is exposed to asbestos at some time during their life. Low levels of asbestos are present in the air, water, and soil. However, most people do not become ill from their exposure. People who become ill from asbestos are usually those who are exposed to it on a regular basis, most often in a job where they work directly with the material or through substantial environmental contact.

The ones who are at the most risk in regard to asbestos are workers in construction or demolition. And in most countries how they should work with asbestos is now clearly regulated (safety gear and procedures).

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

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has got me interested now. At the equator, on the surface of Earth, solar radiation is about 1kW per square meter. According to this¹ wikipedia article 55-60% of solar energy is lost on its way through the atmosphere. So would ~2kW / square meter at thermosphere height be enough to make you feel warm-hot despite the heat lost to evaporative cooling from sweating? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_sola…

Sweating would be a lot more effective in a near-vacuum, if we assume you'd wear one of those futuristic mechanical counterpressure space suite.

How come? I thought sweating worked by helping to lead the heat to the air

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

#39
post #37
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The first documented death related to asbestos was in 1906, yet it was only banned a century later Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; only a small list of products are banned by the EPA federally.[0] It was increasingly banned in Europe from the mid 1980s, and totally banned throughout the EU in 2005.[1] [0] https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos [1] https://cordis.europa.eu/news/…

>Incredibly it's still not generally banned in the USA; only a small list of products are banned by the EPA federally.[0] It was increasingly banned in Europe from the mid 1980s, and totally banned throughout the EU in 2005.[1] Like everything else, everything is deadly at large doses. Even water. Alcohol clearly causes stomach cancer too at large doses, yet alcohol is not banned, right? If we were to ban everything…

The ones at the most risk are those who also smoke tobacco. The difference in cancer rates between smokers and non-smokers with equal exposure is huge.

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

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but from the sun, not from the heat in the air molecules. And if you were not shielded from the near vacuum, you’d cool down from the evaporation of sweat on your skin.

This has got me interested now. At the equator, on the surface of Earth, solar radiation is about 1kW per square meter. According to this¹ wikipedia article 55-60% of solar energy is lost on its way through the atmosphere. So would ~2kW / square meter at thermosphere height be enough to make you feel warm-hot despite the heat lost to evaporative cooling from sweating? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_sola…

Either way, you'd be killed by vacuum exposure.
Post reply on HN