Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m36209$kk3$1@dont-
email.me:

No, I don't think any part of the ISS is in "constant shadow". I
believe it rotates as it orbits the earth, and different parts of it are
in the shade at different times. I could be wrong, though - I've never
been there


Fair enough. I know that Apollo used to do the 'barbeque roll', but as far as
I know there's less need of it on the ISS for whatever reason. Maybe they use
the solar panels for shade part of the time, there's a lot of those... Or
maybe it's in Earth's shadow often enough to get by... Or maybe it rolls
constantly and I just had no idea.

About particles, I don't know what sort of quantities there could be, or
energies involved, but I'll settle for the realisation that an amount capable
of causing heating would be long past rendering an antenna too noisy to use,
probably. I suspect heating by remnant of mass coronal ejection might be the
least of its worries.

On 11/2/2014 3:08 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m36209$kk3$1@dont-
email.me:

No, I don't think any part of the ISS is in "constant shadow". I
believe it rotates as it orbits the earth, and different parts of it are
in the shade at different times. I could be wrong, though - I've never
been there


Fair enough. I know that Apollo used to do the 'barbeque roll', but as far as
I know there's less need of it on the ISS for whatever reason. Maybe they use
the solar panels for shade part of the time, there's a lot of those... Or
maybe it's in Earth's shadow often enough to get by... Or maybe it rolls
constantly and I just had no idea.

About particles, I don't know what sort of quantities there could be, or
energies involved, but I'll settle for the realisation that an amount capable
of causing heating would be long past rendering an antenna too noisy to use,
probably. I suspect heating by remnant of mass coronal ejection might be the
least of its worries.


Not many particles in a vacuum

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m36b58$oee$1@dont-
email.me:

Not many particles in a vacuum


Well, I can't argue. I just think that in some big reach of space where
there is no sudden boundary between high material density, and high
rarifaction, that occasionally some surprising exceptions to expected local
conditions might occur. (And there was a time when 'space weather' was an
unhead of concept).

On 11/2/2014 3:08 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m36209$kk3$1@dont-
email.me:

No, I don't think any part of the ISS is in "constant shadow". I
believe it rotates as it orbits the earth, and different parts of it are
in the shade at different times. I could be wrong, though - I've never
been there


Fair enough. I know that Apollo used to do the 'barbeque roll', but as far as
I know there's less need of it on the ISS for whatever reason. Maybe they use
the solar panels for shade part of the time, there's a lot of those... Or
maybe it's in Earth's shadow often enough to get by... Or maybe it rolls
constantly and I just had no idea.

I think the barbeque effect is because the capsule does not spread the
heat very evenly. The temperature of space (including the sun's
radiation) at earth's orbit is about the temperature of the surface of
the earth. Here is the page where I found this.

http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad5.html
*****
For the special case of a perfectly black, highly conductive sphere in
the Solar System a distance R from the Sun, absorbing solar radiation
from one side, but radiating in all directions equally, it turns out
that the temperature drops with distance from the Sun as the square root
of 1/R:

T = 277 K (1 AU/R)½
*****

Assuming this equation is correct, the temperature of the object
described is just 4 °C at Earth's orbit. Of course the earth is warmer
because it is warmed from the inside as well as from the sun.

Somewhere around 13 AUs the temperature reaches 77 °K, the boiling point
of N2, which is much cooler than the critical temperature of a number of
superconductors.

--

Rick

rickman wrote in :

I think the barbeque effect is because the capsule does not spread the
heat very evenly. The temperature of space (including the sun's
radiation) at earth's orbit is about the temperature of the surface of
the earth.

That fits. I think they were just averaging it on that basic principle. (And
specifically, protecting the oxygen tanks above pretty much all else, if I
remember the books right, I read a few at one point, over ten years ago).

rickman wrote in :

Somewhere around 13 AUs the temperature reaches 77 °K, the boiling point
of N2, which is much cooler than the critical temperature of a number of
superconductors.


Ok, but that goes with what I was saying about variable margins. Until there
is much going on out that far, there will likely be a development more
locally, of higher temperature materials that are useful enough somehow to
justify putting them there. I don't doubt that shading them will help but
that is more weight to haul out there too, so experiment will likely be
needed to find compromises. The modelling might be harder than just doing
it, starting small.

On 11/2/2014 5:49 PM, rickman wrote:
On 11/2/2014 3:08 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m36209$kk3$1@dont-
email.me:

No, I don't think any part of the ISS is in "constant shadow". I
believe it rotates as it orbits the earth, and different parts of it are
in the shade at different times. I could be wrong, though - I've never
been there


Fair enough. I know that Apollo used to do the 'barbeque roll', but as
far as
I know there's less need of it on the ISS for whatever reason. Maybe
they use
the solar panels for shade part of the time, there's a lot of those... Or
maybe it's in Earth's shadow often enough to get by... Or maybe it rolls
constantly and I just had no idea.

I think the barbeque effect is because the capsule does not spread the
heat very evenly. The temperature of space (including the sun's
radiation) at earth's orbit is about the temperature of the surface of
the earth. Here is the page where I found this.

http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad5.html
*****
For the special case of a perfectly black, highly conductive sphere in
the Solar System a distance R from the Sun, absorbing solar radiation
from one side, but radiating in all directions equally, it turns out
that the temperature drops with distance from the Sun as the square root
of 1/R:

T = 277 K (1 AU/R)½
*****

Assuming this equation is correct, the temperature of the object
described is just 4 °C at Earth's orbit. Of course the earth is warmer
because it is warmed from the inside as well as from the sun.


That's part of it. But it's also because the Earth doesn't radiate all
that well, either. It holds a fair amount of the heat that strikes it.
Air is a great insulator

Somewhere around 13 AUs the temperature reaches 77 °K, the boiling point
of N2, which is much cooler than the critical temperature of a number of
superconductors.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m36d06$ui2$1@dont-
email.me:

Assuming this equation is correct, the temperature of the object
described is just 4 °C at Earth's orbit. Of course the earth is warmer
because it is warmed from the inside as well as from the sun.


That's part of it. But it's also because the Earth doesn't radiate all
that well, either. It holds a fair amount of the heat that strikes it.
Air is a great insulator


Also, greenhouse efeect, skewing the ratio of heat gained vs heat lost... The
UK just had a half-week of mid summer temps at Halloween. Never mind 'weather
vs climate', these recordsd are being broken all the time now.

On 11/2/2014 6:02 PM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m36d06$ui2$1@dont-
email.me:

Assuming this equation is correct, the temperature of the object
described is just 4 °C at Earth's orbit. Of course the earth is warmer
because it is warmed from the inside as well as from the sun.


That's part of it. But it's also because the Earth doesn't radiate all
that well, either. It holds a fair amount of the heat that strikes it.
Air is a great insulator


Also, greenhouse efeect, skewing the ratio of heat gained vs heat lost... The
UK just had a half-week of mid summer temps at Halloween. Never mind 'weather

Recorded temperatures have always set new records. Just considering one
location, there are 365 days in a year and so 730 high and low records
to test. We have been recording temperatures for roughly 200 years.
What are the chances we *won't* set a new record for one of those dates
in a given year?

--

Rick

rickman wrote in :

Recorded temperatures have always set new records. Just considering one
location, there are 365 days in a year and so 730 high and low records
to test. We have been recording temperatures for roughly 200 years.
What are the chances we *won't* set a new record for one of those dates
in a given year?


True, it's no great deal intself. And given the Maunder Minimum soem big
excursions can be expected, especially as the sun isn't following its usual
11-year pattern. On the other hand I remember people asking me in 1983 about
glonal warming, and me insisting that it did not just mean warmer, but
wetter, stormier, as well. There's no doubt that compared to thiry years ago
this has happened across most of thwe world. For a real balance of 'records',
we need to know how often the record for quietest, or closest approach to
average, conditions occured, and I have never heard the like. Generally,
if news is not exciting, it is not considered as news. Also, even when we had
unusual cold recently, it is arguable that climate conditions don't cause a
strong enough gradient to keep a strong division of temperature with
lattitude, and similar things can be said about the wandering of the jet
stream. Too many things look new, an the rate of broken records is increasing
when it ought to be decreasing if things were generally stable.