A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 28th 18, 01:40 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.

A--hole New Zealander.

https://mashable.com/2018/01/25/rock...for-astronomy/

  #2  
Old January 28th 18, 09:49 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Anders Eklöf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.

RichA wrote:

A--hole New Zealander.

https://mashable.com/2018/01/25/rock...for-astronomy/


Couldn't be worse than Iridium flsshes.
This is one satellite, Iridium are 88.

It might ruin some astrophotos, but so does Iridium and aircraft.
Heavens-above.com has already added it to their satellite list.

I won't even be able to see it until March.
I can see Iridium flashes every (clear) night.



--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour
  #3  
Old January 28th 18, 05:03 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:49:01 +0100, (Anders
Eklöf) wrote:

RichA wrote:

A--hole New Zealander.

https://mashable.com/2018/01/25/rock...for-astronomy/

Couldn't be worse than Iridium flsshes.
This is one satellite, Iridium are 88.

It might ruin some astrophotos, but so does Iridium and aircraft.


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.

Fortunately it is a short lived satellite. It remains to be seen if
others follow given the declining price of putting stuff into orbit.
  #4  
Old January 28th 18, 08:39 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.

On Sunday, 28 January 2018 03:49:08 UTC-5, Anders Eklöf wrote:
RichA wrote:

A--hole New Zealander.

https://mashable.com/2018/01/25/rock...for-astronomy/


Couldn't be worse than Iridium flsshes.
This is one satellite, Iridium are 88.


How many reflective sides does an iridium have?
Reportedly, the reflections will only be mag 7 (if that is true) which will have no impact on observing but will be visible in photos.
  #5  
Old January 28th 18, 11:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Anders Eklöf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:49:01 +0100, (Anders
Eklöf) wrote:

RichA wrote:

A--hole New Zealander.

https://mashable.com/2018/01/25/rock...for-astronomy/

Couldn't be worse than Iridium flsshes.
This is one satellite, Iridium are 88.

It might ruin some astrophotos, but so does Iridium and aircraft.


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.


Do you have ANYTHING to back up that claim?
Like having seen it. Or calculations?

Get a clue.

it's about 1,5 meters in diameter, being smaller than an Iridium
satellite. It also has many more reflective sides than Iridium, making
it impossible to be even nearly as bright - even in the flare zones.
From what I have read I expect it to be hard to spot. Mag 4 at best.

--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour
  #6  
Old January 29th 18, 02:16 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 23:48:59 +0100, (Anders
Eklöf) wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 09:49:01 +0100,
(Anders
Eklöf) wrote:

RichA wrote:

A--hole New Zealander.

https://mashable.com/2018/01/25/rock...for-astronomy/

Couldn't be worse than Iridium flsshes.
This is one satellite, Iridium are 88.

It might ruin some astrophotos, but so does Iridium and aircraft.


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.


Do you have ANYTHING to back up that claim?
Like having seen it. Or calculations?

Get a clue.

it's about 1,5 meters in diameter, being smaller than an Iridium
satellite. It also has many more reflective sides than Iridium, making
it impossible to be even nearly as bright - even in the flare zones.
From what I have read I expect it to be hard to spot. Mag 4 at best.


I do not expect it to be as bright, as I commented on some other post
here recently. For the reason you state, which is that its planar
reflective surfaces are much smaller than the Iridium antenna panels.
Mag 4 seems much too dim an estimate. The maximum brightness of an
Iridium flare is around mag -8. This disco ball satellite appears to
have panels about 1/30 the area of an Iridium antenna. But probably
more reflective. So we are talking about a difference of 3-4
magnitudes. That would put its flares at -4 or brighter- extremely
obvious to the human eye and more than enough to trash most of the
science in any telescopic image. And unlike an Iridium flare, this is
a tumbling body, which means a much wider area is catching specular
reflections, and that over the entire path of the satellite across the
sky.
  #7  
Old January 29th 18, 08:41 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,001
Default ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.

On Monday, 29 January 2018 02:16:02 UTC+1, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I do not expect it to be as bright, as I commented on some other post
here recently. For the reason you state, which is that its planar
reflective surfaces are much smaller than the Iridium antenna panels.
Mag 4 seems much too dim an estimate. The maximum brightness of an
Iridium flare is around mag -8. This disco ball satellite appears to
have panels about 1/30 the area of an Iridium antenna. But probably
more reflective. So we are talking about a difference of 3-4
magnitudes. That would put its flares at -4 or brighter- extremely
obvious to the human eye and more than enough to trash most of the
science in any telescopic image. And unlike an Iridium flare, this is
a tumbling body, which means a much wider area is catching specular
reflections, and that over the entire path of the satellite across the
sky.


And, if it should prove "successfully" visible, how long before we can expect a vast, tumbling "copyrighted" sugar bomb and CO2 bottle in orbit? Commercial heavy lifters aren't going to notice a lightweight advertising symbol cadging a ride for less than a manager's annual bonus.

Origami would seem an appropriate "form" for all sorts of advertising crap being sent up there. These will dwarf this poor man's, tiny experimental disco ball.

Damn! I hadn't thought of light pollution. That would make orbital advertising much more difficult in their mega-city markets. Never mind, they will just have to scale up their flashing gizmos to make them easily visible to anyone who glances up from their 'phone. What about colossal flashing burgers in geostationary orbit? Easily affordable for global '**** shovellers.'
  #8  
Old January 29th 18, 09:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.

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.

One satellite which really was bright along its entire path was Echo
II which was in orbit from 1964 to 1969. It was a spherical balloon
41 meters in diameter covered with mylar. It did shine at mag -6 or
-7 when brightest, and it did shine continuously during the pass if
it was outside the Earth's shadow. I've never seen any other
satellite shine that brightly, except the peaks of the brightest
Iridium flares, and they are brief.
  #9  
Old January 30th 18, 12:34 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.

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.
  #10  
Old January 31st 18, 10:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default ANOTHER source of "astronomical" pollution.

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More stupid "tech" to produce light pollution RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 11 July 8th 17 03:35 AM
Source of Unbound "Nomad" Planets: Stellar "Ionization"? Robert L. Oldershaw Research 6 April 29th 12 08:14 AM
The sun energy source is not nuclear fusion but magnetic fields from the center of the Galaxy. - "sun.pdf" yEnc (1/6) dan Astro Pictures 0 December 10th 06 10:42 PM
Seek source of Dan Goldin quote,"I'm White House's man at NASA" Jim Oberg History 19 February 18th 06 08:43 PM
Seek source of Dan Goldin quote,"I'm White House's man at NASA" Jim Oberg Policy 15 February 18th 06 04:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.