![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It is supposed to pass the Earth in the evening at a distance of 58 000
km. How much uncertainty about its orbit is left? How bright is it? My approximate calculations show it should be visible to naked eye, but perhaps not conspicuously brilliant. Any comments? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
ups.com... It is supposed to pass the Earth in the evening at a distance of 58 000 km. How much uncertainty about its orbit is left? How bright is it? My approximate calculations show it should be visible to naked eye, but perhaps not conspicuously brilliant. Any comments? Out of curiosity, once the mass was sighted and rated as getting uncomfortably close, how many astrologers and prophets began predicting a massive meteor strike on a vague timeline? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:12:11 -0600, "Everett Hickey"
wrote: wrote in message oups.com... It is supposed to pass the Earth in the evening at a distance of 58 000 km. How much uncertainty about its orbit is left? How bright is it? My approximate calculations show it should be visible to naked eye, but perhaps not conspicuously brilliant. Any comments? Out of curiosity, once the mass was sighted and rated as getting uncomfortably close, how many astrologers and prophets began predicting a massive meteor strike on a vague timeline? All of them. -- Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult: http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Wally AngleseaË™ wrote:
I think it's supposed to be 5th mag. You will need a dark sky. It's also a relatively small point, as opposed to a comet, and you will *HAVE* to know what you are looking at, compared to the background stars. If it passes at a distance of 58000 km it's more likely to be taken for a satellite than a background star. Thus, you still have to know what you're looking at ... -- I recommend Macs to my friends, and Intel machines to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Anders Ekl=C3=B6f wrote: Wally Anglesea=CB=99 wrote: I think it's supposed to be 5th mag. You will need a dark sky. It's also a relatively small point, as opposed to a comet, and you will *HAVE* to know what you are looking at, compared to the background stars. If it passes at a distance of 58000 km it's more likely to be taken for a satellite than a background star. Thus, you still have to know what you're looking at ... It is supposed to pass at something like 6-8 km/s. That would mean, like, an arc minute in 2-3 seconds and 20-30 arc minutes per minute. Does this make it conspicuous against the fixed stars? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
It is supposed to pass at something like 6-8 km/s. That would mean, like, an arc minute in 2-3 seconds and 20-30 arc minutes per minute. Does this make it conspicuous against the fixed stars? In binoculars, yes. It would cross the moon in about a minute. To the naked eye a 5th mag speck is never conspicious .... -- I recommend Macs to my friends, and Intel machines to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - December 23, 2004 | [email protected] | Misc | 0 | December 23rd 04 04:03 PM |
Space Calendar - December 23, 2004 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 23rd 04 04:03 PM |
Space Calendar - July 28, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 28th 04 05:18 PM |
Space Calendar - June 25, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 25th 04 04:37 PM |
Space Calendar - June 25, 2004 | Ron | Misc | 0 | June 25th 04 04:37 PM |