Atmosphere as a function of Zenith angle?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the distance from a location to space as a function of the zenith angle, with a height of approximately 100 km at 0 degrees. Two main approaches are proposed: using a "flat Earth" approximation for a simpler trigonometric solution, and considering a spherical Earth for a more complex intersection of a line and a circle. The flat-Earth approximation simplifies the problem but leads to infinite values for angles approaching horizontal. The conversation highlights the challenges of balancing simplicity and accuracy in the calculations. Overall, both methods aim to provide a clearer understanding of the relationship between zenith angle and distance to space.
Ai52487963
Messages
111
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find x, the distance from your location to space, as a function of the zenith angle. The height at 0 degrees, H, is ~100km.

A picture helps more: http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3630/picture1orr.jpg



Homework Equations


?



The Attempt at a Solution


I've tried using the law of cosines to express the distance in terms of the Earth's radius and other known constants, but it seems like I'm over complicating the situation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You can probably assume a plane - 100km is small compared to the radius of the earth.
 
mgb_phys said:
You can probably assume a plane - 100km is small compared to the radius of the earth.

One http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ast3722/lectures/EffectOfAtmosphere/EffectAtmos.pdf" I founddoes a taylor expansion, but why would I want to do that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are 2 approaches to this problem that I can think of.

1. Using the "flat Earth" approximation, as mgb_phys suggested. In this case it's a straightforward trig problem.

2. Consider a spherical Earth. In this case you need to find the intersection of a line and a circle (the upper atmosphere's edge). More tedious than #1, but I think it's possible.

Note, for angles approaching horizontal, the flat-Earth approximation answer approaches infinity rather than a finite value.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top