|
Post by dmundt on Aug 26, 2008 16:27:20 GMT -4
I can attest to having seen with my own eyes the Apollo-Soyuz spacecraft as they passed overhead. I was 11 that summer and Mom and Dad told us that we might be able to see it. We stayed up and right on schedule, a big, bright non-blinking object went overhead from southwest to northeast, if I recall correctly. It was clearly visible -- and a somewhat smaller object than would have been a S-IVB/Command module stack.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Aug 26, 2008 20:49:16 GMT -4
I am fairly sure I saw a satalite once or twice. I thought it was a 'wishing star' at first, but it crossed the whole span of the sky from where I was standing, just like in October Sky. No one believed me, but it was a deeply meaningful experiance.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 26, 2008 21:44:46 GMT -4
I've probably seen a hundred satellites. The brightest were the Space Shuttle and Mir. I saw they shortly after they undocked and separated. They flew almost directly overhead with one following immediately after the other. Anyone looking at the time couldn't have missed them, and this was right in the middle of a city with light polluted skies.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 26, 2008 21:57:41 GMT -4
I've seen the ISS a few times (at least once with a Shuttle docked to it) and a NOAA satellite.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 26, 2008 22:35:30 GMT -4
I've seen Hubble, ISS, Shuttles, a large number of Iridium passes (including daytime flares), gobs of other satellites, and the last visible pass of Skylab over North America, hours before if rained debris down on the Outback. I've always enjoyed seeing satellites.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Aug 27, 2008 12:12:17 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by seemoe on Nov 10, 2008 6:55:56 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Nov 11, 2008 13:28:24 GMT -4
Grrr. This neighborhood is so light-polluted, it take an Iridium Flare to get above the threshold of visibility most nights. Although on better nights, I have seen the ISS.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 29, 2011 16:00:52 GMT -4
How bright would an Apollo CSM be in LEO? Has anybody done the math?
|
|
|
Post by chew on Jan 30, 2011 0:01:18 GMT -4
Using this equation here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude#Solar_System_bodies_.28H.29and using the Moon's absolute magnitude (+0.25) and average albedo and adjusting for size and tweaking the albedo of the Hubble to match the predictions of apparent magnitude from Heavens-Above and using that tweaked albedo for the CSM I come up with an apparent magnitude of -1.3 for the CSM passing overhead at 100 miles. Sirius shines at -1.46.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 31, 2011 6:09:08 GMT -4
I come up with an apparent magnitude of -1.3 for the CSM passing overhead at 100 miles. That sounds about right. Caveat: this would happen only when the satellite is in sunlight and the observer is in darkness. This happens for LEO objects only just before sunrise and just after sunset. For medium inclination orbits, i.e., most US manned missions, the orientation of the orbital plane relative to the terminator limits these visible twilight passes to observers near a certain latitude. If the mission is a long one, this relationship will change slowly with time and give other observers a chance but for most short missions only a fraction of the earth's population would ever have a chance to make a visual sighting.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jan 31, 2011 8:47:10 GMT -4
On the Star Trek forums, one guy there tries to push the UFO=alien spacecraft idea by citing who he calls scientists. BTW as a rule of thumb, any unnamed scientist is probably invented.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jan 31, 2011 12:11:52 GMT -4
Dr. Leopold Strabismus?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Feb 2, 2011 15:57:31 GMT -4
On the Star Trek forums, one guy there tries to push the UFO=alien spacecraft idea by citing who he calls scientists. BTW as a rule of thumb, any unnamed scientist is probably invented. And any named scientist was probably quoted out of context. Quote mining has become a standard practice among creationists, conspiracy theorists and other crackpots. Since they lack credibility themselves, they try to steal it from reputable scientists by implying that he or she supports their position. They never ask the scientist straight out if he agrees with them. They know what that answer would be. Instead they ask indirect questions (or use existing answers to indirect questions) and use them out of context. I think it's reprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 2, 2011 16:04:35 GMT -4
And if two different scientists give conflicting answers then the CT will pick the one that comes closest to supporting them and then call the other scientist a liar.
|
|