On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 16:51:57 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 22:47:04 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:34:50 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 21:16:07 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:03:13 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
It is likely to be worse than either, because it is so
bright,
and
because it is bright across its entire path, not just in a
flare
zone.

No, it's not bright across its entire path. It has 72
reflective
triangular surfaces. Only half of then can be effective of
course
since the other half will be in shadow. And less than half of
those
will shine towards the Earth, the others will shine into space.
So
it
will generate some 15 flare zones, each giving flares
considerably
fainter than Iridium.


That assumes the satellite is not changing orientation. The
description I've read says it is deliberately placed in a
tumbling
orbit so everyone sees a sparkling path.

No it doesn't assume that. Flare zones can have irregular shapes,
and
they will as the ball tumbles.


Sure. But the whole point is that glints will be widely seen. Just
like you get with a disco ball. Not just a single flare from a small
area as with Iridiums.

Glints are preferable to continuous light, and this satellite will be
less disturbing than Echo II was. And are there any observers of
faint DSO's or some other objects so they want the darkest possible
skies who check for Iridium flares during their observing session and
move elsewhere if they would be unfortunate to encounter one?