Starship Asterisk*

Above Aurora Australis

Explanation: On May 29, looking southward from a vantage point about 350 kilometers above the southern Indian Ocean, astronauts onboard the International Space Station watched this enormous, green ribbon shimmering below. Known as aurora australis or southern lights, the shifting, luminous bands are commonly seen at high northern latitudes as well, there known as the aurora borealis or northern lights. North or south their cause is the same though, as energetic charged particles from the magnetosphere pile into the atmosphere near the Earth's poles. To produce the characteristic greenish glow, the energetic particles excite oxygen atoms at altitudes of 100 kilometers or more. Aurora on May 29 were likely triggered by the interaction of the magnetosphere with a coronal mass ejection erupting from the Sun on May 24.

<< Previous APOD

Discuss Any APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

Many aurorae are green. I suppose that the green hue that we see in this picture is typical of green aurorae (that is, I assume that basically all green aurorae have the same chemical origin and produce basically the same color emission). Does anyone know what the wavelength that the color of this green aurora would be?

Ann

I heard somewhere that northern and southern lights events occur simultaneously, is this true?

Ann wrote:Many aurorae are green. I suppose that the green hue that we see in this picture is typical of green aurorae (that is, I assume that basically all green aurorae have the same chemical origin and produce basically the same color emission). Does anyone know what the wavelength that the color of this green aurora would be?

The dominant green wavelength usually seen in auroras is the 557.7 nm forbidden line of neutral oxygen. This also produces the characteristic green glow of many meteors.

jman wrote:I heard somewhere that northern and southern lights events occur simultaneously, is this true?

Sort of. The condition of charged particles hitting the Earth generally produces auroras at both poles. But that is only the condition; individual auroral curtains or flows in one hemisphere don't map either spatially or temporally to ones in the other hemisphere.

OK. Are other aurora colours (pink/blue) attributed to other specific atmospheric compounds?

jman wrote:OK. Are other aurora colours (pink/blue) attributed to other specific atmospheric compounds?

All of them. Red is an oxygen line. There are some blue and purple colors associated with nitrogen. Of course, depending on conditions these will tend to mix, producing colors that are not spectrally pure. The colors produced depend on the energy of the particles as well as the height in the atmosphere where the light is produced.

I gotta do it:

Known as aurora australis or southern lights, the shifting, luminous bands are commonly seen at high northern latitudes as well, they're known as the aurora borealis or northern lights.

:fixed:

[I know, I know..... ]



But great image!

Ann wrote:Many aurorae are green. I suppose that the green hue that we see in this picture is typical of green aurorae (that is, I assume that basically all green aurorae have the same chemical origin and produce basically the same color emission). Does anyone know what the wavelength that the color of this green aurora would be?

Aurora, n.; pl. E. Auroras, L. (rarely used) Auroræ

http://www.irf.se/~ionogram/Kempedigital/digitizedData/FromMariasComputer060531/DIAS/TrainingKit/The%20Ionosphere%20an%20Introduction.htm wrote:
<<The colours of the aurora depend on the chemical composition of the atmosphere with altitude and the energy of the precipitating electrons. Higher energies mean a deeper penetration of the atmosphere with a corresponding change in composition. The typical colours of the aurora are:

• green (557.7 nm) and red (630 nm) from atomic oxygen (O) and
  blue (391.4 and 427.8 nm) from molecular nitrogen (N2).

Many other emissions also occur outside the visible wavelengths.

Indigo_Sunrise wrote:

Known as aurora australis or southern lights, the shifting, luminous bands are commonly seen at high northern latitudes as well, they're known as the aurora borealis or northern lights.

:fixed:
[I know, I know..... ]

There they're....

Wat to go Indigo; Hey that rhymes! I didn't even catch the error til you fixed it. nice job!
I love photos of aurora; I think they are so neat.

According to what has been posted so far there aparently are two types of oxygen. A neutral version for green color and an Atomic one for red color.
So whats the difference(besides wavelength)between them and are there any other types of oxygen??

beyond wrote:According to what has been posted so far there aparently are two types of oxygen. A neutral version for green color and an Atomic one for red color.
So whats the difference(besides wavelength)between them and are there any other types of oxygen??

Atomic Oxygen (O), Molecular Oxygen (O₂, what you breathe), Ozone (O₃). They are all Oxygen, just different allotropes.

orin stepanek wrote:Wat to go Indigo; Hey that rhymes! I didn't even catch the error til you fixed it. nice job!

If it was wrong in the first place ( ) then the solution should be:

• Known as aurora australis or southern lights, the shifting, luminous bands are commonly seen at high northern latitudes as well
  ; there they're known as the aurora borealis or northern lights.

But is not at all clear that this WAS necessarily wrong in the first place:

Known as aurora australis or southern lights, the shifting, luminous bands are commonly seen at high northern latitudes as well
, there known as the aurora borealis or northern lights.

neufer wrote:

orin stepanek wrote:Wat to go Indigo; Hey that rhymes! I didn't even catch the error til you fixed it. nice job!

If it was wrong in the first place ( ) then the solution should be:

• Known as aurora australis or southern lights, the shifting, luminous bands are commonly seen at high northern latitudes as well
  ; there they're known as the aurora borealis or northern lights.

But is not at all clear that this WAS necessarily wrong in the first place:

Known as aurora australis or southern lights, the shifting, luminous bands are commonly seen at high northern latitudes as well
, there known as the aurora borealis or northern lights.

As in over there in the North? That possible; but a bit of a confusing way to word it.

Wow! That is totally amazing! Man I wish I was up there to see it from that point of view!! Perfectly beautiful!



"When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers, The moon and the stars that you have prepared, What is mortal man that you keep him in mind, And the son of earthling man that you take care of him?"

Oooh, the language police are lurking. I'll be afraid to post anything. So they're.

orin stepanek wrote:
As in over there in the North? That possible; but a bit of a confusing way to word it.

Five days of travel were required for the charged particles from the sun hit the south of the land hemisferioo. The calm green is no indication of violence of its origins, much less on the risk of damage to satellites.Cinco días de viaje fueron necesarios para que las partículas cargadas del sol impactaran en el hemisferioo sur de la tierra. El plácido color verde nada indica de la violencia de su génesis, mucho menos sobre el riesgo de daño en los satélites.

orin stepanek wrote:

neufer wrote:

orin stepanek wrote:Wat to go Indigo; Hey that rhymes! I didn't even catch the error til you fixed it. nice job!

If it was wrong in the first place ( ) then the solution should be:

• Known as aurora australis or southern lights, the shifting, luminous bands are commonly seen at high northern latitudes as well
  ; there they're known as the aurora borealis or northern lights.

But is not at all clear that this WAS necessarily wrong in the first place:

Known as aurora australis or southern lights, the shifting, luminous bands are commonly seen at high northern latitudes as well
, there known as the aurora borealis or northern lights.

As in over there in the North? That possible; but a bit of a confusing way to word it.

Confusing, indeed.

Some people post just for the sake of posting, even if it's nonsensical ramblings........


And orin, you ARE the poet!

What stars are behind in the picture with Aurora?

I've noticed some regions appear to consistently produce more frequent (and better quality) aurora borealis than others. Surprisingly the most northern of areas weren't the best ones.
Is there any science to support or explain this - or am I just crazy?

jman wrote:I've noticed some regions appear to consistently produce more frequent (and better quality) aurora borealis than others. Surprisingly the most northern of areas weren't the best ones.
Is there any science to support or explain this - or am I just crazy?

Charged particles are funneled down by the Earth's magnetic field into a band around the magnetic poles. So auroras show up best over rings of area equator-ward of the magnetic poles. On either side of this ring auroras are less active. Also, the magnetic poles are not aligned with the axial poles, so that moves the areas of auroral activity away from true north or south, as well.

Some nice Aurura pictures here. http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... f=9&t=7436

neufer wrote:If it was wrong in the first place ( )
But is not at all clear that this WAS necessarily wrong in the first place:

orin stepanik wrote:As in over there in the North? That possible; but a bit of a confusing way to word it.

Indigo Sunrise wrote:Confusing, indeed.

Some people post just for the sake of posting, even if it's nonsensical ramblings........

Not confusing at all, nor nonsensical. I thought the same when I saw Indigo's first post. I might have used there they are, but technically there is correct and makes more sense in the sentence structure than they're.