Satellites : general discussion and musings

[Alfie]

I am finding this such a fascinating topic, so much so I've just applied to join the Nottingham Astronomical Society http://nottinghamastro.wordpress.com/

Meetings take place first Thursday of every month. So first meeting a month today.

I thought about buying a telescope but I need to gain some knowledge first.

If you are wondering why I'm so interested, its because like many others I have looked at the sky and assumed these orbiting (no idea what to call them now) lights were satellites - but I can't now. We as man/womankind have never been out of the atmosphere in my humble opinion, and I need to have a proper look for myself if that makes sense. This subject has really caught my imagination.

Earlier in this thread there was a challenge to find a credible picture of a satellite taken from a telescope on earth, I have failed after searching for several hours.

Anyhow, just thought I'd let you guys know.

[brianv]

I am finding this such a fascinating topic, so much so I've just applied to join the Nottingham Astronomical Society http://nottinghamastro.wordpress.com/

Meetings take place first Thursday of every month. So first meeting a month today.

I thought about buying a telescope but I need to gain some knowledge first.

If you are wondering why I'm so interested, its because like many others I have looked at the sky and assumed these orbiting (no idea what to call them now) lights were satellites - but I can't now. We as man/womankind have never been out of the atmosphere in my humble opinion, and I need to have a proper look for myself if that makes sense. This subject has really caught my imagination.

Earlier in this thread there was a challenge to find a credible picture of a satellite taken from a telescope on earth, I have failed after searching for several hours.

Anyhow, just thought I'd let you guys know.

Well you can use their telescope Alfie, it's open to all members according to their page. You in Nottingham? Lucky beggar, is the female to male population still 2:1 ? And quite fitting that you should be studying the fabric of the Universe from there!

[Utah]

I have not followed this thread closely because I am not a "technological" type of guy but I want to attract other members' attention to a long lived but supposedly failed idea of satelite mobile phones . I have heard of staelites phones for many years , well over decade I believe that there is or was a corporate provider of such a service called IRIDIUM . My point is that at least to me it is very suspicious that this technology didn't break through like GSM , GPRS or 3G . Why don't I see satelite mobile phones being used by corporate world ? Why put up with losing your range when travelling ? Why bother to cover whole countries with GSM anthenas when we could just use satelite signals ? Technology is here ...

To summarize : I have seen mobile phones being just toys for the rich in the early 90ies , than over time becoming cheaper and cheaper to the point in time where even the toddlers use ones ? The same with CD , VHS , microwave ovens etc.

Why isn't it the case with satelite mobile phones ?

Not that it means much, but the IRIDIUM phones do work in remote locations where standard cell phones do not. They have been standard standard safety equipment for remote trips in the outdoor recreation business for at least five years, but never really caught on- as you pointed out.

But, wait... Our consumer smartphones are so amazing, NASA is going to send them into orbit!

NASA set to launch satellite “Smartphones”

NASA has unfolded a future plan in which it will send compact and cheap satellites in the space using the technology of smartphones. The new plan is called PhoneSat and uses a Nexus S handset specially made for the purpose which runs on Android software. PhoneSat is a plan which will send satellites into the space orbits. The satellites will be very cheap and easy to construct which will run on the Google’s Android operating system. The main reason behind PhoneSat is that NASA wants to use the capabilities and the fine technology that is used in the smartphones. The smartphones are loaded with multiple miniature sensors, various operating systems and fast processors.

They also have fast processors which can come in handy in the space operations of NASA. Under the current plan, NASA is going to launch three smartphones into the outer orbits. The basic function carried out by these smartphones in the outer space will be of taking high resolution photos. The first test carried out by the agency had a cost of around 3,500 dollars and a Nexus One S smartphone was used in the experiment. Earlier NASA had issued a challenge for the sole purpose of finding a person who could have delivered the best application for the PhoneSat to use. NASA had specified certain conditions for the challengers like, the app must include an altitude determination app and a monitor for checking radiation levels, a star tracker and a fire locator etc. The space agency has planned to send 3 PhoneSat systems into the space by the use of Antares rocket later this year. The phones will be packed in a cubeSat which is a 4 inch metal box to protect the device in the space from radiation and obstacles.

http://whdi-reviews.com/2012/09/nasa-se ... artphones/

[CitronBleu]

According to informational site Wikipedia, NEAs (Near-Earth asteroids) have orbits that lie partly between 0.983 and 1.300 astronomical units (1 astronomical unit (AU) = distance from Sun to Earth).

NASA has a congregational mandate to catalogue all NEAs, which, as of August 2012, number 8,880, including 848 asteroids larger than 1 km. Estimates of the actual number of these objects vary.

NEAs range in size from 1 m to 32 km.

843 NEAs have an absolute magnitude brighter than 17.75, which corresponds to at least 1 km in size.

There are three types of NEAs:

Athens (8% of NEAs) have an average orbital radii lower than 1 AU, placing them generally inside the orbit of Earth.
Apollos (54%) have an average orbital radii between 1 AU and 1.017 (yikes!). All Apollos have orbits that cross that of the Earth.
Amors (37%) have an average orbital radii between Earth and the planet Mars (1.017-1.300 AU).

(1% near Earth live comets with tail and/or coma).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_object
% Source: http://www.permanent.com/apollo-amor-at ... roids.html


The three families of Near-Earth asteroids.
Source: http://www.permanent.com/apollo-amor-at ... roids.html

NEAs whose orbits are very Earth-like in character, with orbital periods close to one Earth year, and low eccentry, are commonly referred to as Arjuna asteroids. Arjuna is a central hero in Hindu mythology.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjuna_asteroid

It appears as if the sky is full of these objects.
This following site provides a list and detailed information on all apollos catalogued:

Source: http://www.minorplanetcenter.org/iau/lists/Apollos.html

Sometimes NEAs are referred to as "Triple-As" for Apollo, Amor, and Athen.

There is also a category of Near-Earth asteroids called Earth Trojans. Earth Trojans are NEAs captured by Earth gravity that orbit the Sun synchronistically, bobbling in and out of Earth's orbit in a rough 60 degree span ahead and back.

A few asteroids are captured by Earth gravity and go around the Earth in oddly shaped orbits, usually for a year, before being spewed back into space.

Source: http://www.permanent.com/apollo-amor-at ... roids.html


Apollos appear to be the closest objects to Earth that could possibly be confused with man-made satellites.

It would be interesting to find out if any of these asteroid objects intersect the paths of the man-made satellites discussed in this thread.

[CitronBleu]

One hour time-span video taken on January 25 2011 porpoited to show passing man-made satellites in the general direction of Polaris, the North Star. Polaris is the bright star located in the lower center.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tztaK8v8-ck


Video of a Near-Earth asteroid captured by an Italian observatory on June 14, 2012. Asteroid is 500 meters wide and is 5 million km away.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAynAE8Dx4


Here is another video of an NEA captured by an observatory. This asteroid flew by Earth on July 22, 2012.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sg9-tH8DK0



At the very least there can be some confusion between identifying a man-made satellite and a Near-Earth asteroid since they would appear to look identical in the sky, exhibiting the same described brightness and velocity.

After a search online I could not find any warning or suggestions to astronomers on the possible confusion when searching for man-made satellites in the sky.

These sightings can only be desribed as awe-inspiring. My personal intuition tells me to trust Nature, rather than Man, to be the cause of this effect in me...

Maybe like others have already done before me after discovering this site I also need to join my local astronomy club!

[Alfie]

is the female to male population still 2:1 ? And quite fitting that you should be studying the fabric of the Universe from there!

What a genius line that is! Thanks,properly laughed out loud. I'll have my scope on!

[CitronBleu]

Due to the complexity in tracking rapidly moving objects in the sky with large telescopes, it is apparently difficult if not impossible to track artificial satellites in the sky but with binoculars or simply with one's own eyes.

A member in this thread commented that according to astronomers who did track these objects, they were described as rather round and with no edges (reference?).

After searching online I found two Earth-based photographs of man-made satellites, besides a handful of unconvincing photographs of the ISS and shuttles already mentioned in the thread.

These are the two images I've found so far:


Cropped image of the Russian Molniya 3-46 satellite taken on 06:21:35.670 to 06:22:15.670 U.T.C. October 2, 2005.

and


Image of the Telesat satellites Anik F1 and Anik F1-R, taken on 05:58:55.670 to 05:59:05.670 U.T.C. October 2, 2005.

These images were taken with "a prototype for the Canadian Satellite Tracking and Orbit Research (CASTOR) facility." This particular prototype was comprised of:

a Celestron NexStar 11 GPS goto telescope;
an SBIG ST-9XE CCD camera; and
a run-of-the-mill laptop computer.

The computer contains software for predicting satellite locations, given their orbit elements, and astrometry software.

Total cost of software: $20,000 Cdn.



Source: http://ottawa-rasc.ca/articles/earl_mik ... cking.html


Very impressive!

Especially considering all the man-made satellites out there:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydbbd-4oEds

[brianv]

A $20,000 computer guided telescope outdoors mounted on higgledy piggeldy paving meant for the aspidistra pot. I thought most amateur astronomers at least had a shed! Something about the way it is sitting doesn't sit right with me!



What camera was responsible for the photograph?

[CitronBleu]

If we are to believe the little dots moving in the sky are Earth satellites, then this phenomenon must have only originated in the previous fifty or so years.

So did people of Old witness these strange brightly-lit moving things in the sky above before the advent of our glorious new Space religion (sorry: age)?

Could their recorded descriptions have been what are today considered as ancient witness testimonies of alien spacecraft by the avid UFO community?

After all, bright lights moving in the starry skies above always have, and always will, excite our imaginations.

This would tie in nicely with the idea of faked satellites, with the government perhaps cultivating the belief so as to obfuscate the existence of these mysterious natural sky lights before the coming of our modern age.

Area 51 is Real!



Detail image from fresco painting depicting the crucifixion of Christ, unknown artist, 1350

Image link: http://www.artpromote.com/crucifixionfresco.shtml

[brianv]

"Christ" is a character out of a book and that's a fucking painting from somebody's imagination, it proves nothing. Yes "Area 51" is real, a real name! It's so top secret everybody knows about it!

[CitronBleu]

Hi Brianv,

You are right, this is not proof. I went on a tangent and started speculating on a different subject.


Let me come back to our real subject at hand: musings on the existence of man-made satellites.

I read this thread and I want to research further the propositions made by several members on this forum:

1. Satellite communication can be created with Earth-based signals, through Ionospheric refraction.

Ok Let's assume this is possible.

2. The existence of man-made satellites orbiting Earth stretches the limits of human credibility, in particular to the apparent physical and technological factors involved.

I agree with this statement.

3. Photographs claiming to portray artificial satellites in Space show incoherences and presence of image manipulation.

Definitely agree on this point after reading the major threads in the Space forum and viewing various examples of blatant image manipulation.

If point 1, 2, and 3 are true, then the question necessarily arises: what are those moving lights in the night sky everyone can see with their own eyes?

This therefore leads us to proposition numéro quatre:

4. The moving lights in the sky are NEAs: Near-Earth asteroids.


A few conclusions may be made from researching these peculiar Earth-hugging space rocks:

It is possible to speculate, by the existence, brightness, and velocity of these asteroids, that the bright things we see in the night sky are Near-Earth asteroids. In addition, man-made satellites may be confused with NEAs. Astronomers tracking artificial satellites do not seem, as far as I know, to be aware of this possible confusion.

I haven't found any conclusive evidence from astronomers or astronomy sites purporting to track satellites in the sky that these objects are man-made satellites, because of:

a. Lack of any comprehensive photographic evidence of man-made satellites in the sky from Earth; and
b. Apparent uncertainty and incomprehension on the part of astronomers on how to properly track and observe man-made satellites in the field.

This is no proof and still not evidence that proposition numéro quatre is true: more accurate information is needed. How many of these asteroids are actually out there? How frequently can they be seen? How frequently do they pass by Earth?

We can however make the basic proposition that if these shiny moving objects in the sky are indeed man-made satellites, then they should not have been observed before the 1950s.

This is what I am trying to find out.

If there are more recent descriptions of "many bright-lit things" flying overhead in the sky in say, the period from 1890 to 1950 (with the birth of more accurate scientific data and recordings through photographic and video equipment), then this would lend credence and weight to proposition 4:

The moving lights in the sky are NEAs: Near-Earth asteroids.

[simonshack]

The moving lights in the sky are NEAs: Near-Earth asteroids.

Cher Citron Bleu,

I hazard to say that no astronomer would possibly deny that MANY or MOST (if not ALL) of the moving lights crossing the sky at night (the likes of which I have seen in abundance and very reliably - at a rate of one every 15 minutes, conservatively speaking on any given summer night and ever since I was a kid vacationing in Norway back in the 70's) are NEAR-EARTH ASTEROIDS. The question is, as you say, if SOME of these moving lights are man-made satellites, do astronomers know how to tell a NEA from a man-made satellite? If so, how?

In any case, I feel the urge to post once again this offensively silly caption for this animated gif that I found on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-Earth_asteroids (scroll halfway down the page)

I have no idea how anyone can possibly believe in that ridiculous caption:


Wiki Caption: "Flyby of asteroid 2004 FH.
The other object that flashes by is an artificial satellite."

So, are we to believe that man-made, artificial satellites look a bit like comets, with bright tails of light trailing behind them? Really?

[fbenario]

Ludicrous - and what an ugly creature. Usually it's a cute dog or chimp.

Tardigrades or "Water bears" are the only creatures that can survive the extreme conditions in the vacuum of outer space.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W194GQ6fH

[CitronBleu]

no astronomer would possibly deny that MANY or MOST (if not ALL) of the moving lights crossing the sky at night are NEAR-EARTH ASTEROIDS.

Dyrt Simon,

Reference?

I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss this subject with a qualified astronomer.

All I have found online are either videos pointing to moving objects in the sky and asking: satellite or UFO? or online information informing us that moving objects in sky are Earth satellites.

From the data available online, my understanding is that they are a relatively rare sighting in the sky compared with the 13,000 artificial satellites bobbling around in every direction.

[simonshack]

*

THE SATELLITE ENCYCLOPEDIA http://www.tbs-satellite.com/tse/

Does anyone here have 7649 euro($9802) to spare? That's what we'd need to fork out to gain full/global access (as an enterprise) for all our members to the SATELLITE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Satellite info doesn't come cheap !

http://www.tbs-satellite.com/tse/order.html#how



A sample of a Satellite Fact Sheet that they'll kindly let you check out for free... : http://www.tbs-satellite.com/tse/online ... ra_1d.html