The abundance of back-to-back solar events has led scientists to think the sun may have entered its explosive era of peak activity, known as solar maximum — which seems to be starting a year earlier than previous forecasts predicted. However, researchers will have to wait until the sun “calms down” to know for sure.
What we do know is that X-class flares are most common during solar maximum, which is part of the sun’s 11-year solar cycle. So far in 2024, seven X-class flares, including the latest one, have burst from the sun, which is already half the number that reached Earth in 2023, Live Science previously reported.
On a long enough timescale, we’re gonna be hit by a big one.
I remember like a decade ago they were saying it hits a developed area, it’ll blow out all the transformers, and on that scale no country could replace them all for a very long time.
I agree. There were articles and documentaries about 20 years ago that I remember featuring these sort of events. The continent affected would take 20-30 years to rebuild its electricity grid.
I’ll just never get over how “we” (science I guess) know that stuff like this isn’t a question of if, but when.
And we just don’t seem to get ready for it.
Like, Y2K we saw coming and everyone handled it in time. But if there’s no firm date on something, everyone with the power to do anything just ignores it.
As a society it just feels like we’re living paycheck to paycheck. Can’t worry about next year cuz rents due in two weeks shit.
In general, people are appallingly bad at weighing up long-term vs short-term stuff, both in terms of risks and benefits. It's even worse when, as you say, there's no definite deadline or it doesn't directly affect those who can do something about it.
What you didn’t see was the guy who made the problem in the 60s warn everyone about it from the 70s onward until his retirement in the 90s, then everyone say oh shit, he is right.
The Carrington event was a big one. It is estimated to have been an X40 flare. This article is about an X1.1 flare. Telegraph poles caught fire. The auroras were so bright people woke up and started making breakfast even though it was the middle of the night. They were visible as far south as central Mexico! If we got hit by a Carrington scale flare today we would be repairing the power grid for the next half century.
I believe it’s possible to avoid if the proper protocols are in place. Namely, the grid has to be turned off completely before the flare hits and then things will mostly be fine. Just wonder how well we can predict these events.
My understanding is that we actually don't have much of a warning (under an hour), since a CME has to reach the satellite at the Lagrange point between Earth and the Sun for us to know it's about to hit Earth. According to the article below, this includes power companies, but I remain skeptical that there's enough organisation in place to shut down the North American, European or Asian grids in 15 minutes.
The first link leads to an older article that does explain it. What they mean is that the planets’ orbits are in resonance, which means that their orbital periods are related by integer ratios. (For example one planet completing exactly three orbits in the time it takes another to complete two)
Had to read the article to find out that they mean 72 “years worth of orbits” happen in 1 earth day. Although unlikely I was hoping that it was orbiting so fast that 1 earth day there would pass 72 earth years to a stationary observer due to time dilation. Not sure how fast it would need to go for that to happen.
Since time and speed are relative, to have 1 Earth day on the star and see 72 years on Earth, it’d simply be a speed multiplier of 72*365.24= 26,296.28 times faster. Our solar system orbits the galactic center at 250km/s or 0.0008c, so ~26k times that puts it at nearly 22c relative to us. So no.
But quite frankly, there must be a way to be a slower observer. Earth’s orbital speed is about 30km/s (0.0001c) so that drops the product way down to 2.6c. And while the Parker Solar Probe holds the record for the fastest man made object at 0.0006c at its closest solar approach, it actually took a lot of energy to slow it down to get it to the sun and stall it’s orbit. Otherwise, it’d just orbit it the same as the Earth. It slides out to a Venusian distance from the sun at apogee and drops to 12km/s, halving the differential requirement to +1.2c. But if everything is relative, how do we even determine where 1c is and know it’s so definitively impossible to reach? I don’t know, I’m starting to have an existential crisis. Maybe time just keeps dilating and simple addition/subtraction doesn’t apply for appreciable values of c so you have to start multiplying in decimals.
Relativistic time dilation is nonlinear, so the time dilation “multiplier” approaches infinity as you approach the speed of light. So you will never need more than 1c to pass any finite amount of time for the observer while only passing a smaller amount of time for the moving object. Using a time dilation calculator, it looks like 1 day inside the moving object to 72 years for the stationary observer works out to roughly 99.9999999% the speed of light (9 nines total). Of course if you take into account earths movement as a “stationary” baseline then it’ll depend on whether you’re moving with or against the fast moving object.
It used to melt my brain too but there’s no need to know “absolutely stationary” since you’re comparing 2 objects. And due to the time dilation, the 1c limit is different depending on the observer, the time dilation will prevent anyone from observing >1c even if one person is going 0.9c relative to another person who is also going 0.9c relative to a stationary observer.
In an update posted on Sunday (Feb. 18), ESA said that the rentry ERS-2 is expected to take place on Wednesday (Feb. 21) at 10:19 a.m. ET (1519 GMT), plus or minus around 19 hours. This uncertainty is due to the “influence of unpredictable solar activity, which affects the density of Earth’s atmosphere” and can therefore change how much drag pulls on the satellite on its way down, ESA wrote.
Plus or minus 19hrs due to the sun’s effect on the density of the atmosphere. Mind blown.
I don’t know all of the details of this mission, but it seems like they’ve just lowered the lowest point in its orbit - called periapsis - until it sits low enough in the atmosphere to get enough drag that the orbit slowly decays over a decade.
The lowest part of the orbit would only drop a little bit, but the highest part of the orbit woukd reduce more with each orbit. If you do it slowly enough, the orbit would circularise and then it would begin to decay more evenly. As it falls deeper into the atmosphere the orbit would decay faster and faster until it can no longer sustain orbit, and then it falls deeper into the atmosphere and burns up in just a few minutes.
The reason for this I can only guess at - it wouldn’t take a whole lot more fuel to just deorbit all at once. My best guess is that it has something to do with reentering at the lowest possible speed. If you fall from a high orbit and reenter, you have a lot more speed and have to dissipate more energy all at once. It’s possible this increases the risk that the satellite will fail to deobrit, and break up and send pieces off in less predictable orbits. If it breaks up from a low circular orbit, there’s no chance of any parts escaping back into orbit.
space.com
Najnowsze