Parker Solar probe jumping through fire?
2
Is the principle of passing close the Sun with the Parker Solar probe the same as if you pass your hand over a candle flame fast enough you won't get burned?
the-sun parker-solar-probe thermodynamics
asked 4 hours ago
Muze
1,8291055
add a comment |
2
Is the principle of passing close the Sun with the Parker Solar probe the same as if you pass your hand over a candle flame fast enough you won't get burned?
the-sun parker-solar-probe thermodynamics
asked 4 hours ago
Muze
1,8291055
add a comment |
2
2
2
Is the principle of passing close the Sun with the Parker Solar probe the same as if you pass your hand over a candle flame fast enough you won't get burned?
the-sun parker-solar-probe thermodynamics
asked 4 hours ago
Muze
1,8291055
Is the principle of passing close the Sun with the Parker Solar probe the same as if you pass your hand over a candle flame fast enough you won't get burned?
the-sun parker-solar-probe thermodynamics
the-sun parker-solar-probe thermodynamics
asked 4 hours ago
Muze
1,8291055
asked 4 hours ago
Muze
1,8291055
asked 4 hours ago
Muze
1,8291055
asked 4 hours ago
Muze
1,8291055
asked 4 hours ago
Muze
1,8291055
1,8291055
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
3
No, it's much too slow for that. The Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes; your hand passing briefly through a flame does not.
answered 3 hours ago
pericynthion
8,3473149
The Parker Solar Probe is pretty fast but the Sun is huge.
– Uwe
3 hours ago
This answer is wrong as it stands. If the probe were to reach thermal equilibrium at perihelion, most of it would evaporate. It is the whole purpose of the heat shield to prevent equilibrium from happening. What's true is that this works not because of the quick movement but because of the low heat conductivity, but this is a more technical distinction.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
@leftaroundabout Well. the surface of the heatshield of the Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes. Would you agree to this modification?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
@Uwe yeah, that would be more accurate, but then it doesn't really answer the question: would the probe eventually reach equilibrium (and thus be destroyed) if it stayed longer at perihelion-distance? Or does the thermal radiation it emits to the back already compensate the heat flow through the shield and thus give a pseudo-equilibrium with steady-state heat flow through the shield? I don't think so (else why would it need water-cooling), but actually I'm not sure.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33199%2fparker-solar-probe-jumping-through-fire%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
3
No, it's much too slow for that. The Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes; your hand passing briefly through a flame does not.
answered 3 hours ago
pericynthion
8,3473149
The Parker Solar Probe is pretty fast but the Sun is huge.
– Uwe
3 hours ago
This answer is wrong as it stands. If the probe were to reach thermal equilibrium at perihelion, most of it would evaporate. It is the whole purpose of the heat shield to prevent equilibrium from happening. What's true is that this works not because of the quick movement but because of the low heat conductivity, but this is a more technical distinction.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
@leftaroundabout Well. the surface of the heatshield of the Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes. Would you agree to this modification?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
@Uwe yeah, that would be more accurate, but then it doesn't really answer the question: would the probe eventually reach equilibrium (and thus be destroyed) if it stayed longer at perihelion-distance? Or does the thermal radiation it emits to the back already compensate the heat flow through the shield and thus give a pseudo-equilibrium with steady-state heat flow through the shield? I don't think so (else why would it need water-cooling), but actually I'm not sure.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3
No, it's much too slow for that. The Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes; your hand passing briefly through a flame does not.
answered 3 hours ago
pericynthion
8,3473149
The Parker Solar Probe is pretty fast but the Sun is huge.
– Uwe
3 hours ago
This answer is wrong as it stands. If the probe were to reach thermal equilibrium at perihelion, most of it would evaporate. It is the whole purpose of the heat shield to prevent equilibrium from happening. What's true is that this works not because of the quick movement but because of the low heat conductivity, but this is a more technical distinction.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
@leftaroundabout Well. the surface of the heatshield of the Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes. Would you agree to this modification?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
@Uwe yeah, that would be more accurate, but then it doesn't really answer the question: would the probe eventually reach equilibrium (and thus be destroyed) if it stayed longer at perihelion-distance? Or does the thermal radiation it emits to the back already compensate the heat flow through the shield and thus give a pseudo-equilibrium with steady-state heat flow through the shield? I don't think so (else why would it need water-cooling), but actually I'm not sure.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3
3
3
No, it's much too slow for that. The Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes; your hand passing briefly through a flame does not.
answered 3 hours ago
pericynthion
8,3473149
No, it's much too slow for that. The Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes; your hand passing briefly through a flame does not.
answered 3 hours ago
pericynthion
8,3473149
answered 3 hours ago
pericynthion
8,3473149
answered 3 hours ago
pericynthion
8,3473149
answered 3 hours ago
pericynthion
8,3473149
8,3473149
The Parker Solar Probe is pretty fast but the Sun is huge.
– Uwe
3 hours ago
This answer is wrong as it stands. If the probe were to reach thermal equilibrium at perihelion, most of it would evaporate. It is the whole purpose of the heat shield to prevent equilibrium from happening. What's true is that this works not because of the quick movement but because of the low heat conductivity, but this is a more technical distinction.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
@leftaroundabout Well. the surface of the heatshield of the Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes. Would you agree to this modification?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
@Uwe yeah, that would be more accurate, but then it doesn't really answer the question: would the probe eventually reach equilibrium (and thus be destroyed) if it stayed longer at perihelion-distance? Or does the thermal radiation it emits to the back already compensate the heat flow through the shield and thus give a pseudo-equilibrium with steady-state heat flow through the shield? I don't think so (else why would it need water-cooling), but actually I'm not sure.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The Parker Solar Probe is pretty fast but the Sun is huge.
– Uwe
3 hours ago
This answer is wrong as it stands. If the probe were to reach thermal equilibrium at perihelion, most of it would evaporate. It is the whole purpose of the heat shield to prevent equilibrium from happening. What's true is that this works not because of the quick movement but because of the low heat conductivity, but this is a more technical distinction.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
@leftaroundabout Well. the surface of the heatshield of the Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes. Would you agree to this modification?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
@Uwe yeah, that would be more accurate, but then it doesn't really answer the question: would the probe eventually reach equilibrium (and thus be destroyed) if it stayed longer at perihelion-distance? Or does the thermal radiation it emits to the back already compensate the heat flow through the shield and thus give a pseudo-equilibrium with steady-state heat flow through the shield? I don't think so (else why would it need water-cooling), but actually I'm not sure.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
The Parker Solar Probe is pretty fast but the Sun is huge.
– Uwe
3 hours ago
The Parker Solar Probe is pretty fast but the Sun is huge.
– Uwe
3 hours ago
This answer is wrong as it stands. If the probe were to reach thermal equilibrium at perihelion, most of it would evaporate. It is the whole purpose of the heat shield to prevent equilibrium from happening. What's true is that this works not because of the quick movement but because of the low heat conductivity, but this is a more technical distinction.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
This answer is wrong as it stands. If the probe were to reach thermal equilibrium at perihelion, most of it would evaporate. It is the whole purpose of the heat shield to prevent equilibrium from happening. What's true is that this works not because of the quick movement but because of the low heat conductivity, but this is a more technical distinction.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
@leftaroundabout Well. the surface of the heatshield of the Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes. Would you agree to this modification?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
@leftaroundabout Well. the surface of the heatshield of the Parker Solar Probe reaches (or at least approaches) thermal equilibrium on its perihelion passes. Would you agree to this modification?
– Uwe
1 hour ago
@Uwe yeah, that would be more accurate, but then it doesn't really answer the question: would the probe eventually reach equilibrium (and thus be destroyed) if it stayed longer at perihelion-distance? Or does the thermal radiation it emits to the back already compensate the heat flow through the shield and thus give a pseudo-equilibrium with steady-state heat flow through the shield? I don't think so (else why would it need water-cooling), but actually I'm not sure.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
@Uwe yeah, that would be more accurate, but then it doesn't really answer the question: would the probe eventually reach equilibrium (and thus be destroyed) if it stayed longer at perihelion-distance? Or does the thermal radiation it emits to the back already compensate the heat flow through the shield and thus give a pseudo-equilibrium with steady-state heat flow through the shield? I don't think so (else why would it need water-cooling), but actually I'm not sure.
– leftaroundabout
1 hour ago
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33199%2fparker-solar-probe-jumping-through-fire%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
