1

We know that the temperature in space (which has vacuum) is low. If I go to space will I feel sweaty and hot or chilly? I think I will feel sweaty and hot because the radiation (UV, IR, etc) of the sun is hitting me directly. This question is just theoretical so assume I go to vacuum without a space suit.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Bhavesh
  • 1,905
  • 3
  • 25
  • 40
  • 1
    please anyone tell me why are the people giving me a downvote please :( Every question today i asked is getting a downvote within seconds. :( – Bhavesh Apr 17 '15 at 14:55
  • 2
  • 4
    Not my downvote, but you are asking questions that could be answered with a bit of Googling or in this case searching this site. This site is intended for working physicists, and we expect members to have done some prior research before posting a question. – John Rennie Apr 17 '15 at 14:57
  • Check out this NASA page http://iss.jaxa.jp/kids/en/space/401.html – pentane Apr 17 '15 at 14:58
  • @JohnRennie i did a research but did not find a answer as per my requirement. Also my question is different so please don't mark it as duplicate. And if you know the answer please answer. – Bhavesh Apr 17 '15 at 14:58
  • The sun is hot, but it's only shining at you from one direction. One side of you will be toasty, and the other side very cold because it's facing the cold, cold universe. If you were to rotate at a reasonable rate (so your surface temperature is roughly balanced) you can use Stefan-Boltzmann to calculate your mean temperature. And you will find it's pretty chilly. Do you need to be shown how to do that? – Floris Apr 17 '15 at 15:01
  • @Floris if possible you can show it. – Bhavesh Apr 17 '15 at 15:03
  • @JohnRennie i read it but in my question i am asking about the objects at space. – Bhavesh Apr 17 '15 at 15:06
  • @Bhavesh The moon is an inanimate object in space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon ; scale it down . Organic matter will have extra problems as water will be sublimating out both from the sun side and the shadow side . If something alive survives long enough to feel it will be boiling on the sun side ( not just sweating) and freezing on the shadow. – anna v Apr 17 '15 at 15:11
  • 1
    Well, you certainly won't feel sweaty because any sweat or surface liquids will evaporate almost immediately. You'd probably also die really quick, so you probably wouldn't have much time to notice feeling hot or cold. But space is hot. Satellites are usually faced with the problem of being too hot and needing to find a way to keep cool. – Jim Apr 17 '15 at 15:16
  • 1
    @ACuriousJim Space isn't hot, or cold, or anything. Things that fall in vacuum long enough will reach an equilibrium with the radiation environment--they eventually find some average temperature where they radiate (black body) as much energy as they absorb. For a spacecraft orbiting the Earth, that temperature can be pretty high because of $1400 W/m^2$ of Solar radiation. The equilibrium temperature of some hypothetical rock hanging out where the only incoming radiation is the CMB and the faint light of distant galaxies would be somewhat cooler. – Solomon Slow Apr 17 '15 at 17:33
  • @jameslarge Yes, I'm well aware that a rock out in the middle of nowhere would probably equilibrate around 3K. However, the mention of the Sun implies the OP is concerned with space nearby to us. Without wanting to write a novel, I merely responded to the OP in language they had established. When I said space is hot, it is reasonable to interpret my meaning as "space feels hot". Trust me, as a cosmologist and a space engineer, I know what space is like. But thank you for maintaining the technical accuracy of the site – Jim Apr 17 '15 at 18:23
  • @ACuriousJim, Touche! If only physicists read this site, then I wouldn't care about technical accuracy (I wouldn't even be here.) The language of the OP suggests someone with a sci-fi-movie level of understanding who is trying to learn more. That's who most deserves to hear an accurate answer---maybe a incomplete answer, maybe a simplified answer, but not an answer that's been dumbed down to match the language of the question. – Solomon Slow Apr 17 '15 at 21:38
  • @jameslarge The OP is a 13 year old boy according to profile – anna v Apr 18 '15 at 03:58

1 Answers1

5

If we assume you are a sphere in space, at the same distance from the sun as Earth, then we can calculate the heat absorbed - and we can calculate how hot you need to be so heat in = heat out (assuming uniform surface temperature, and radiative heat transfer only).

For this, we need the Stefan-Boltzmann expression for total emission at a given temperature:

$$E = \epsilon \sigma T^4$$

Where $\epsilon$ is the emissivity (which we will set to 1 - it doesn't affect the answer) and $\sigma$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, $5.67\cdot 10^{-8} W/m^2/K^4$.

When we want to know how much heat goes from one body (the sun) to another (the sphere), we actually need to take into account both emissivities -the sun's (how much power is it emitting) and the sphere's (how much of that power is it absorbing). For the emission, we only need to know the emissivity of the sphere. If we set the emissivity of the sun = 1, then we can ignore the emissivity of the sphere completely (if we can assume it is constant with temperature - that is not the case and will change the real result).

Your sphere "sees" the sun (5778K) over a small solid angle $\Omega$, and the cold universe (2.3K) over the rest. We need to determine the temperature where equilibrium occurs. This will happen when

$$\epsilon_{sun}\epsilon_{sphere}\sigma T_{sun}^4 \Omega=\epsilon_{sphere}\sigma T_{sphere}^4 4\pi$$

This simplifies to

$$T_{sphere} = T_{sun}\sqrt[4]{\frac{\epsilon_{sun}\Omega}{4\pi}}$$

From earth, the sun's diameter is about half a degree across, so $\Omega$ is about $6.8\cdot10^{-5}$ steradians (see derivation here)

Plugging in the numbers, we obtain the temperature of the sphere as

$$T_{sphere}=279 K$$

As I said - pretty cold.

On Earth we are warmer because of the effect of the atmosphere and the heat from the Earth itself. The moon, lacking the benefits of the Earth, is a lot colder on average. Note that the moon's actual mean temperature is lower because it rotates slowly - and the side that is hotter will lose heat much more quickly. The above calculation is therefore an upper limit - and in reality you will be colder than that.

I ignored the fact that the cosmic background is 2.3 K and not 0 - it makes no difference to the answer.

Note also that if you used actual values for emissivity of human skin at different wavelengths, the answer will change. This was nicely explored by ACuriousJim in his comment, which I reproduce here because it is an important point (and comments can disappear over time):

I went ahead and looked up the absorptivity values of human skin in the visible spectrum and plugged those into calculations. For white people, you'd find an equilibrium of 235K and 259K for black people. Other races are in between that range. $α_W$=0.5, $α_B$=0.74, $ϵ_{all}$=0.99.

Floris
  • 118,905
  • 1
    @ACuriousJim - If I add $\epsilon$ on both sides on my equation (heat in = heat out) it just cancels. Obviously if it's a function of wavelength it matters - that is the premise of the greenhouse effect which I am ignoring. Note that for "heat in" you really need the emissivity product of sun and sphere. As you say, we put sun = 1 – Floris Apr 17 '15 at 15:21
  • @ACuriousJim - I don't doubt your expertise but that does not agree with what I thought I knew. Can you please expand - maybe edit my answer to make it more factually correct? Note that I do make the assumption that the surface temperature is constant - when it is not, I suspect the variability between hot and cold side will be greater, and so the actual temperature will be a function of emissivity. I just don't see how that is the case for the assumption of uniform temperature (relatively rapid motion). – Floris Apr 17 '15 at 15:29
  • 1
    Ah, I didn't make the assumption of constant surface temperature. In that case, if absorptivity and emissivity are equal, then you are right. (also, it emits at the full $4\pi$ solid angle, not $4\pi-\Omega$). However, I think what is also forgotten is that the absorptivity is at visible wavelengths but emissivity is in IR. Those two are not equal for human analogs – Jim Apr 17 '15 at 15:36
  • 1
    Depending on clothing and skin colour, absorptivity can range from low to high, but the emissivity of human skin in IR is always around 0.99 (it's high because we generate more heat than we absorb, so we have to radiate more away) – Jim Apr 17 '15 at 15:39
  • @ACuriousJim - I have made some tweaks to my answer based on your inputs - thanks for your help. Let me know if this reads better now. – Floris Apr 17 '15 at 15:44
  • 1
    Yeah, it reads better. I went ahead and looked up the absorptivity values of human skin in the visible spectrum and plugged those into calculations. For white people, you'd find an equilibrium of 235K and 259K for black people. Other races are in between that range. $\alpha_W=0.5$, $\alpha_B=0.74$, $\epsilon_{all}=0.99$. If you want to keep it assuming equal absorption and emission, that's fine. Just let people know that's what you're doing. I'll give my +1 on it though – Jim Apr 17 '15 at 15:50