Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:06:41.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dust Storms in Space?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

Robert G. Roosen
Affiliation:
Goddard Space Flight Center, NASAGreenbelt, Maryland
Otto E. Berg
Affiliation:
Goddard Space Flight Center, NASAGreenbelt, Maryland
Neil H. Farlow
Affiliation:
Ames Research Center, NASAMoffett Field, California

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Silverberg (1970) has explained the “dust storms” observed by the early satellite-borne microphone detectors by postulating that the orbital planes of short-period, low-inclination comets are filled with micrometeoroids. We report here on three separate approaches to test the validity of this hypothesis.

  1. (1) Optical scans of the Gegenschein brightness can yield no useful information on the nearly isotropic sheets of dust predicted by Silverberg.

  2. (2) An attempt to directly collect dust particles during a predicted high flux period by means of a sounding rocket yielded negative results.

  3. (3) Over three years of particle impact data from extremely sensitive detectors flown aboard Pioneers 8 and 9 show no observable dust storms.

Hence Silverberg’s hypothesis appears untenable.

However, we should not rule out the possibility that observable showers of very small particles can be blown directly off the nuclei of some comets passing between the Earth and the Sun.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © NASA 1971

References

Berg, O. E., and Gerloff, U., 1970. Orbital elements of micrometeorites derived from Pioneer 8 measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 75, 69326939.Google Scholar
Berg, O. E., and Gerloff, U., 1971. More than two years of micrometeorite data from two Pioneer satellites, Space Research XI, 225235.Google Scholar
Dubin, M., and Mccracken, C. W., 1962. Measurements of distribution of interplanetary dust, Astron. J., 67, 248256. Also NASA RP 103.Google Scholar
Farlow, N. H., and Ferry, G. V., 1972. Cosmic dust in the mesosphere, Space Research XII, 369380.Google Scholar
Ferry, G. V., and Farlow, N. H., 1972. Upper atmospheric dust concentrations in polar regions, Space Research XII, 381390.Google Scholar
Kent, G. S., Sandfobd, M. C. W., and Keenliside, W., 1971. Laser radar observations of dust from Comet Bennett, J. Atmos. Terr. Phys., 33, 12571262.Google Scholar
McCracken, C. W., Alexander, W. M., and Dubin, M., 1967. Direct measurements of the mass distribution and time variations in the flux of small dust particles, in Meteor Orbits and Dust, edited by Hawkins, G. S., NASA SP-135, 259270. Also Smithson. Contrib. Astrophys., 11, 259270.Google Scholar
Mazets, E. P., 1971. Cosmic dust and meteor showers, Space Research, XI, 363369.Google Scholar
Millman, P. M., 1970. Meteor showers and interplanetary dust. Space Research, X, 260265.Google Scholar
Nazarova, T. N., 1968. Solid component of interplanetary matter from vehicle observations, Space Sci. Rev., 8, 455466.Google Scholar
Porter, J. G., 1952. Comets and meteor streams, J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 123 pp.Google Scholar
Poultney, S. K., 1970. Circular letter to observers.Google Scholar
Poultney, S. K., 1972. Laser radar studies of upper atmosphere dust layers and the relation of temporary increases in dust to cometary micrometeoroid streams, Space Research XII, 403421.Google Scholar
Roosen, R. G., 1969. The Gegenschein, Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Texas.Google Scholar
Roosen, R. G., 1970. The Gegenschein and interplanetary dust outside the Earth’s orbit, Icarus, 13, 184201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverberg, E. C., 1970. Interplanetary dust streams. Observation by satellites and lidar, dissertation, Univ. Maryland, Dept. of Phys. and Astron., Tech. Rept. 70-066.Google Scholar
Silverberg, E., and Poultney, S. K., 1969. Cometary interpretation of the micrometeorite enhancements observed by satellites, Univ. Maryland, Dept. of Phys. and Astronomy, Tech. Rept. 69-965.Google Scholar