Live data from Hacker News

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

livescience.com

101–110 of 120 posts

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

#101

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…

Either way, you'd be killed by vacuum exposure.

Indeed, unless you'd have that fancy space suit which is semipermeable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit

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

#102
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe try to rework this sentence The current state of our market system requires massive bailouts and massive funding into research and development, massive subsidies (e.g. arms), and an overworked and underpaid workforce to limp along and pay out a healthy dividend to the richest(few) investors. >source on this? Just look at any multi billion dollar company; whats the difference between shareholder payout and work…

If somebody else is making 100x off of just your work you need to quit yesterday and find somebody to pay you 2x what you are currently making. They will be more than happy to do so as they will still be making a 50x profit on you. Either that or you have absolutely no clue as to how much value you actually create for your company. Nobody generates 100x profit, not even slaves.

thank you for your advice, i think you missed my point though.

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

#103
post #79
post #71

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.” ― Carl Sagan

Counterpoint: "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terr…

We'll need to debug ourselves. If what's left can still be called human is anyone's guess.

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

#104
post #18

This reminded me of the beam of light in "The City and the Stars" by Arthur C. Clarke - what turned out to be a weapon that fired giant mass heated to plasma state at high velocity.

also in Clarke's 'Earthlight' - the fortified mine Project Thor uses ultra-high pressure slugs of metal as a beam weapon

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

#106
post #41

Could this be cumulative exhaust from satellite transfers?

I wonder, the article says it's been visible for decades by photographers. We could correlate the time the photos are taken with rocket launches. Also, there is no wikipedia page about this phenomena yet.

Rather than being an individual launch, I'm wondering if the exhaust from transfers (from LEO to other orbits) leave gases in their own orbit, and if a particular transfer is happening a lot, the gasses would accumulate in their own distinct orbit.

Context: I worked on a satellite that observed interesting phenomenon that appeared in low-visible-light around the Earth, and one of the things we picked up as noise was the gas from a spy satellite doing a transfer near the Earth-Sun line of sight.

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

#107
post #30
post #23

Alright, so for decades Steve was called aurora as well, possibly for ages by natives observing it; yet now scientists decided to slap another sticker on it as the original scientific aurora explanation doesn't fit this class of what was traditionally called aurora as well; and we ended up with 'Steve'...

Pretty sure the name is from the movie Over the Hedge [1]. [1] https://youtu.be/amwaFNZYUUY

Yes, enjoy the joke, then give it a real name when you know what it is.

Steve? was Notch's name for the default Minecraft player skin. There may be earlier references as well.

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

#108
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…

A list of known and probable carcinogens: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/kno...

Posted while smoking my pipe and watching the sunset. Considering a ham sandwich, too.

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

#109
post #23

Alright, so for decades Steve was called aurora as well, possibly for ages by natives observing it; yet now scientists decided to slap another sticker on it as the original scientific aurora explanation doesn't fit this class of what was traditionally called aurora as well; and we ended up with 'Steve'...

It's reminiscent of the second moon they named "George" in Dhalgren.

And Carl the Fog

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

#110

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…

One might sweat a couple of liters/hr, and thus might manage 2 kW. But that's not needed. Between bright hot Sun, too hot, and dark cold deep-space sky, too cold, Earth spins, mixing too hot, and too cold, into not too bad. And so can you - the "barbeque roll" thermal management strategy for satellites. And if you're head-on to the Sun, or in shadow (holding an umbrella)... I don't recall whether radiative loss is sufficient to shed basal metabolic rate without sweating or not. If not, you might build yourself some elephant ears, and sleep with them edge-on to the Sun (and Earth). But EVA suits use water sublimation cooling - because people do EVA to strenuously exercise, even in the bright sun.

Science education content, down to kindergarten, mentions Sun heating Earth. But pervasively fails to mention deep-space sky cooling Earth. So a lot of explanatory leverage is left on the table - "Why are nights cold? Especially with clear sky? Especially in the desert? Why are mountains snow-capped? Why is winter colder?" etc. I wish I knew of a forum/community in which to discuss and create such improved content, but I've been failing to find one. :(

Post reply on HN