Astronut, you are wrong. Reflections from the Sun off a shiney silvery surface can be huge. The example I gave of distant aircraft that are barely visible to the naked eye suddenly drawing our attention as they 'flash' momentarily in the Sun's light,
First of all, you're talking about conditions in broad daylight, second of all, an airplane's surfaces are much more flat and reflective than the surfaces on ISS save for the radiators, lastly and most importantly, a plane is not a point light source, ISS is unless you're looking at it through a telescope.
Quote:
Besides I myself have seen other Earth satellites glint or 'flash' in the Sun.
The only other satellites that routinely do so are Iridium satellites with their large mirror-like antennae which account for most of their brightness, and even then you must be correctly positioned with just the right timing to see it.
Quote:
Perhaps they are too shy to point the fact out just in case someone accuses them of not having their telescope in focus! Either that or someone has arranged to have their comments censured.
I haven't censored any of your comments, what are you complaining for?
Quote:
And also, while I remember, why is it these other images of the ISS you have shown us are all so steady and aren't moving all over the place in an apparently random fashion? What was the explanation you gave for this again Astronut? Something about a Barlow lens and a hard drive hiccuping?
Are you talking about other people's videos? I know Mike Tyrell and most others will register their images before assembling them into a video; they move the images to center ISS in each frame of the video to make it easier to look at. I don't alter my videos unless it's a time lapse (the only thing I will do is trim out excess empty parts of the video for the sake of time). Still accusing us of lying, you're incredible.
galexander,
If the Space Station were a hoax, wouldn't some organizaton or government, interested in the embarressment of the participating nations or with a simple since of honesty, expose the hoax long ago? I mean, North Korea probably has some pretty nice telescopes, much better than the ones a hobbyist could afford.
Maybe the question would be better put... what evidence would you accept as proof, or are your conclusions set and immovable?
Unfortunately I find this a little naive of you GROND. Look at the influence of the US across the globe as a superpower and who is going to listen to COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA? During Apollo 11 the Dutch press went very public in exposing the hoax but then seemed to change their tune. I wonder why?
And think also how NASA could have peddled influence over the years especially when you consider all the billions in spare cash they have!
First of all, you're talking about conditions in broad daylight, second of all, an airplane's surfaces are much more flat and reflective than the surfaces on ISS save for the radiators, lastly and most importantly, a plane is not a point light source, ISS is unless you're looking at it through a telescope.
That's just rubbish Astronut! There is nothing flat about the surfaces of an aeoroplane and the ISS is meant to have shiney metallic surfaces on it which would produce blindingly bright glares on it.
Quote:
The only other satellites that routinely do so are Iridium satellites with their large mirror-like antennae which account for most of their brightness, and even then you must be correctly positioned with just the right timing to see it.
Rubbish yet again Astronut. I have seen the ENVISAT satellite blinking on and off as it span out of control during those solar storms we had several years ago. I contacted the press about this but never got a reply. So its not just the Iridium satellites.
You have made so many mistakes so far Astronut that I am extremely doubtful as to your authenticity as the dedicated astronomer you claim. We've been treated to an incorrect definition of bond energy, an incorrect value for the bond energy of titanium oxide and the Moon evaporating in the Sun's UV light! Indeed all the evidence so far suggest that you are the TROLL Astronut and not myself.
That's just rubbish Astronut! There is nothing flat about the surfaces of an aeoroplane
Compare the hull of an airplane to that of ISS and you'll find the former to be far more smooth.
Quote:
and the ISS is meant to have shiney metallic surfaces on it which would produce blindingly bright glares on it.
Blindingly bright? Quite the claim, prove it.
Quote:
Rubbish yet again Astronut. I have seen the ENVISAT satellite blinking on and off as it span out of control during those solar storms we had several years ago.
You're comparing a tumbling satellite to a gyro stabilized one? Are you nuts? Oh, I forgot, yes. Apples and oranges, ISS isn't tumbling out of control.
Quote:
I contacted the press about this but never got a reply.
Cause they probably identified you as a nut.
Quote:
So its not just the Iridium satellites.
Gee, who would have thought you'd be foolish enough to compare a tumbling piece of junk to ISS? At least iridium sats are usually stable.
Quote:
We've been treated to an incorrect definition of bond energy, an incorrect value for the bond energy of titanium oxide
You confuse the wikipedia definition of "bond energy" (as in the average dissociation energy) with the energy required to break a bond, then you troll me about semantics, and yet you don't apply this mistake to the moon for some reason. If the moon's atoms are not chemically bound at all but just held together by gravity, it would have evaporated away a long time ago. What do you call a gravitationally bound collection of individual unbonded atoms? A nebula, and even those usually contain some small molecules and dimers.
About reflections of the Sun's light off the surface of the ISS, Astronut said the following:
Quote:
Blindingly bright? Quite the claim, prove it.
Polished metal is almost as reflective a surface as a glassed mirror. A schoolboy would have known this.
Quote:
You're comparing a tumbling satellite to a gyro stabilized one? Are you nuts? Oh, I forgot, yes. Apples and oranges, ISS isn't tumbling out of control.
Yes but what you didn't comment upon Astronut was why the ENVISAT was able to disappear completely between winks. The following night was even more interesting because its rate of rotation was much slower and the satellite 'flared' each time before disappearing again.
Quote:
If the moon's atoms are not chemically bound at all but just held together by gravity, it would have evaporated away a long time ago.
This last comment is an absolute classic! So what is the temperature of vaporization of silicon, calcium, phospherous and all the other minerals found on the Moon?
Polished metal is almost as reflective a surface as a glassed mirror. A schoolboy would have known this.
I guess you've never looked at a picture of ISS, it's not as reflective as a mirror. It's certainly not nearly as flat as an airplane's fuselage.
Quote:
Yes but what you didn't comment upon Astronut was why the ENVISAT was able to disappear completely between winks. The following night was even more interesting because its rate of rotation was much slower and the satellite 'flared' each time before disappearing again.
You're continuing to compare apples to oranges. Evisat was tumbling out of control. It doesn't freaking matter how bright or dim it got, it was spinning out of control, what part of that do you not get? That's the only reason the brightness varied so much during the pass! ISS varies in brightness as well depending on what angle you're looking at it from in a given pass, but because it's not tumbling you won't see that variation from a single spot within a pass but as a variation from pass to pass.
Quote:
This last comment is an absolute classic! So what is the temperature of vaporization of silicon, calcium, phospherous and all the other minerals found on the Moon?
I assume you want those values for standard temperature and pressure, right? Tell me genius, how is it that carbon monoxide is found in the reflection nebula NGC 7023 when it's temperature is 40 kelvin while the boiling point for carbon monoxide is 81 kelvin? [astro-ph/0103151] Physical Conditions in the Foreground Gas of Reflection Nebulae: NGC 2023, vdB 102, and NGC 7023
If the atoms of the moon were completely chemically unbound the solar radiation pressure would have dissolved the entire thing a long time ago. But hey, you only have to wait till october to witness LCROSS slam into the very-solid moon.
I saw it happen with my own eyes from my front lawn, certain family members of mine retained a piece of the debris recovered from the ocean floor (probably not legally), it was not a hoax. If this is sarcasm you really should try harder to denote it as such.
Where is your front lawn located and how is it that one of your family members were able to retain a piece of the Space Shuttle debris that was recovered from the ocean floor after it exploded in mid-air in the early 1980's?
Last edited by BlueAngel : 08-05-2009 at 10:48 PM.
I guess you've never looked at a picture of ISS, it's not as reflective as a mirror. It's certainly not nearly as flat as an airplane's fuselage.
Polished metal makes a very good mirror in actual fact Astronut. You can see you face in it easily. And what is the primary mirror of your very telescope made from Astronut but aluminium coated onto the outside of glass?
Polished metal makes a very good mirror in actual fact Astronut.
You overestimate how well "polished" the aluminum of ISS is. Aluminum can be as dull as it can be vibrant. You can't see your reflection in the surfaces of ISS: http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/dewi...estiny_Lab.jpg
I can't believe you're actually comparing Aluminum coating on telescope mirrors to any and all other applications of aluminum. I used to have a small slab of industrial aluminum, not well polished, but smooth to the touch. It was anything but shiny.
08-04-2009, 07:13 AM
Re: The Space Shuttle and the ISS are a Hoax!
Linear Mode
