1966
DOI: 10.1016/0032-0633(66)90128-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exospheric conditions, to a height of 3500 km, derived from satellite accelerations in 1964

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

1966
1966
1970
1970

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A more realistic temperature at the base of the exosphere near solar minimum is probably •800øK [cf. Keating and Prior, 1967;Fea, 1966], which would be reflected in lower concentrations predicted by the above model exosphere and, by invoking a linear interpolation of Johnson's [1961] results, position the concentration profile for ballistic orbits only in good agreement with our present results (see Figure 6). The calculated concentration profile for atomic hydrogen with both ballistic and captive elliptical .orbits differs, even with this lower temperature, significantly when compared with our present results.…”
Section: This Energy Range Is Limited By the Possibility That Coulombsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…A more realistic temperature at the base of the exosphere near solar minimum is probably •800øK [cf. Keating and Prior, 1967;Fea, 1966], which would be reflected in lower concentrations predicted by the above model exosphere and, by invoking a linear interpolation of Johnson's [1961] results, position the concentration profile for ballistic orbits only in good agreement with our present results (see Figure 6). The calculated concentration profile for atomic hydrogen with both ballistic and captive elliptical .orbits differs, even with this lower temperature, significantly when compared with our present results.…”
Section: This Energy Range Is Limited By the Possibility That Coulombsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…Table I Table 1) demonstrates that Coulomb scattering is not a c.ompetitive loss mechanism. Similarly the relative ineffectiveness of ionization may be evaluated by comparison of the measured ionization cross sections for protons incident upon hydr.ogen atoms (p q-H-• 2p q-e) or 1.5 X 10 -•and 5 X 10 -= em '• at 40 and 7 key, respectively, with the corresponding experimental values for the cross sections for charge exchange in this collision (p + H • H + p) of 3.0 X 10 -• and 1.2 X 10 -•* em • at the above energies, respectively [Fire et al, 1960]. Hence, since the loss of incident proton kinetic energy is only of the order of the ionization potential of atomic hydrogen per ionizing collision, loss of proton kinetic energy by ionization of at<)mie hydrogen over the above energy range is a relatively unimportant loss mechanism within the outer radiation zone at altitudes •>1000 km.…”
Section: First Measurements Of the Low-energy Protonmentioning
confidence: 64%
See 2 more Smart Citations