Slashdot Mirror
Visibility Of The ISS Grows
ackthpt writes: "NASA has a feature on the growing visibility of the International Space Station, along with naked-eye Visibility Data when and where to look to see it streaking throught the night sky for US and Non-US cities. Will there be a point where corporate sponsorship hangs an ad in space? Already appearing "as the third brightest star in the nighttime sky", it will eventually be second only to Venus. Will we look up and see a Nike swoosh some day?"
I just can't get terribly excited about the ISS. I think we would get much more bang for the buck with unmanned missions and research on new lift vehicles and propulsion systems.
3 is the duration, in minutes, that the ISS is visible. 18 is the maximum elevation above the horizon. So that's how far above the horizon that it's fight path would take it, from your viewpoint. So it will be relatively low in the sky. 0 is on the horizon, 90 is straight up.
-The Tempest
And if you really care about light pollution, visit the International Dark-Sky Association and you'll find that light pollution starts at home.
(Perth, Australia: sorry, not visible -- D'oh!)
If you have never read any Heinlein, you should start now. One of his short novels/longer short stories is called "The Man Who Sold the Moon." This amusing tale covers, among other things, what happens when corporate America gets involved with the space program. One example was a plan to have the light side of the moon scorched on a large scale to produce a company's logo that would be visible in earth's night sky. What's really interesting is that the story was written well before there was a space program. Heinlein is often amazing for his uncanny ability to describe our modern US (and sometimes global) society in shockingly accurate terms, especially considering how long it's been since he wrote the bulk of his work.
Windows is going the way of phlogiston...
This reminds me of a 'work of art' that the ESA (European Space Agency) was said to want to put in space some time a go.
A set of really thin mirrors, and equally thin interconnecting wires was to be created which would unfold as this huge structure in space. It was going to look like the thirteen star ring of the Europeanc community, like the one that can be seen on some bumper stickers. It was going to be large enough so that it could clearly be recognized from anywhere on earth in the nighttime with the naked eye.
The project ended being cancelled because it was too controversial. Problems ranging from the setting a possible bad precedent (do we want the sky cluttered with 'art' and advertisements?), to what it would mean to the followers of certain religions led to the demise of the project.
Although it was cancelled, this project proved that putting 'art' or advertisements in space would be not only economically feasible, but as a matter of fact, relatively cheap, as the 'art' would take only a fraction of the payload of a modern rocket.
IMO with a cost of a few million, some crazy millionaire or corporation is bound to try something similar sooner or later. But, I think they will be quite unpopular; the last thing I personally want to see when I look up at the sky is something man made. Much less something that is close to being omnipresent.
If any of you have ever read Red Dwarf, you may remember how coke paid to have approximately 4000 stars sent supernova, just to spell out "Coke gives life". I laughed then, but now i'm wondering just how long it's going to be. Truth really is stranger than fiction, and the two are merging.
You also mischaracterize the particular experiment. It isn't about "fuel efficiency", it's about getting more gasoline from a barrel of oil by improving the efficiency of cracking (the "hydrogen storage" angle in the article is even more of a long shot). That doesn't improve energy efficiency or greenhouse gas emissions. There are much simpler ways of achieving better fuel efficiency, foremost by taxing gas guzzlers like SUVs.
As for light pollution, you can escape from city lights by putting your telescopes in remote places, but you can't escape from shiny objects orbiting the earth. At best, you can try to avoid having them pass through your field of view.
I have seen the ISS with my naked eye an several occasions. I recommend you visit http://www.heavens-above.com and select your location from their database of over two million. They give daily predictions of where to see any naked eye visible satelites, complete with skymaps, and times to the second, so even a completely ignorant astromomer can tell where to look. The ISS is not currently as bright as Mir, is much brighter since the Zveda module went up. Happy sighting, Alex.
As I am a scientist at NASA, I can tell you the ISS is approximately 42 kilometers wide. I guess NASA still hasn't mastered the metric system.
XML causes global warming.
A fist at arms' length is approxmently five degrees in the sky. this makes it easy to figure out elvations in the sky
"Will there be a point where corporate sponsorship hangs an ad in space? Already appearing "as the third brightest star in the nighttime sky", it will eventually be second only to Venus. Will we look up and see a Nike swoosh some day?"
Give me a break. What's with Slashdot's obsession with advertising? I'd understand predictions of commercialization of the sky in a story about the Pizza Hut ad on a rocket, but what does the brightness of the space station have to do with ads in space (besides the obvious, which any dummy could figure out)?
Next Slashdot story: "Scientists discover anti-gravity. What next, hovering ads that follow you around???"
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
He put the word "some" in bold and you still missed it? I guess the requirement to be at least as smart as this stick -> | is no longer a requirement for using the Internet.
Deo
If somebody starts "tagging" the sky, it's sure we might soon see advertisings, religious or political propaganda, an maybe even tags.
Whatever one finds in a mail-bin, could appear in the sky.
But, if the pollution rises, nobody will be able to see it through the smog.
My bet is that it will be considered as pollution and thus forbidden, like the noise.
And if it's ever accepted and performed, then I bet that if Nike sells caps, it will be to people willing not to see their ads in the sky.
Until then, a solution would be to declare the Sky as part of the UNESCO's Patrimony so that it will virtually become impossible to soil it.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Hey, everyone makes mistakes. NASA completes far more succesful missions than failures.
Correct, they hardly complete any failures.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
All NASA failures are successes in some ways. Where did the money go that was spent on the failed mars lander? Is it sitting on mars? No.
---
I am the dot in slashdot.org
It's the free market economy for goodness sake, try to block it in the name of keeping space clean / scientific progress / human values and some corporate will claim that you're blocking their right under the first amendment to free speech or something like it. Maybe they 'll even sue and make the environmental groups pay for it...
First amendment is American.
The sky isn't (only).
Let the American do whatever they want with the stars they put on their banner.
If they touch the ones that shin in the sky, I am not sure the UNO or whoever else will agree.
Don't forget that there are much more Americanophobic muslims than American guys over there.
Would they accept to read some American brand while sleeping outside ?
There are far cheaper ways to be impopular.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
When complete it will be around the size of a football pitch.
troc
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
To be more precise: An equatorial orbit is an orbit at any height that is over (or nearly) over the equator -- hence anyone near the equator can see it on a daily basis if it's big/close enough.
:)
A geostationary (or geosynchronous) orbit is one in which the object's logititude doesn't change due to its orbit (about 24,000 miles) -- at this height and speed, it moves around the earth at the same rate the earth spins. Running to stand still, if you will. If that orbit is over the equator, then it will be a stationary spot. If it's anywhere else, it WILL change latitude but not longititude. Not much use for this since spy satellites have to be closer and anything else wants to maintain an area of coverage, but it can and has been done.
The ISS is in an inclined orbit somewhere between 200 and 300 miles up, IIRC. So it will 'fly over' a variety of areas both above and below the hemisphere, covering a path centered on the equator (Man, a picture WOULD be worth all these words...). When it happens to be over your neck of the woods, if you're close enough to the equator (apparently, it's a relatively high inclination if people in New Zealand will be able to see it), is merely a question of time
Someone said it will eventually be "second [in brightness] only to Venus" when finished -- that should be second to THE MOON -- it'll be brighter than Venus when completed.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
Solution: Paint it black, or put black solar panels on it.
This is a problem, as it will be more difficult in the future to block out these objects from telescopes. So why not do it for them? Same problem with the irridium satelites... is there any good reason for their color now? Sure, it will still pass in front of stars from time to time, but it will be better than the way it is now.
I don't see a good excuse NOT to black it out.
-Ben
Can anyone explain why it would be visible twice tonight (the 24th) in boston, within 2 hrs, once heading eastish, the other time heading westish?
I could understand if it were in a really low orbit that it came overhead once ever two hours, but then shouldn't it tend in the same direction? and then another 20 hours till we see it again?
confused.
Painting satellites and space stations black would cause them to absorb FAR more heat than reflective surfaces. Heat is a huge problem in space, believe it or not.
For what Nike (which was only an example) paid Mr. Tiger Woods, I think they could send up a few of their own rockets. What they do with them is left to what they think they could get away with.
I thought paying an athlete $70 million (or whatever its up to now) for endorsements was pretty blatant. People aren't stomping around outraged so, what's the threshold? Once we get over our ire, what's the next threshold? Etc.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's impossible to orbit a satellite that can't be seen from at least some parts of the southern hemisphere.
A worst case scenario would be a satellite orbiting just above the atmospheric limit, right over the equator, which would only be visible within a strip along the equator. Even so, since the atmospheric limit is roughly 150km, we are talking about a pretty wide strip.
As far as the ISS is concerned, I imagine the orbit is inclined with respect to the equator by a considerable ammount, so there should be plenty of viewing opportunities for most of the world. Extreme latitudes (northern Norway, Alaska, Tierra del Fuego) are probably left out in the cold. Ummm... you know what I mean.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Is that a soccer field?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Why? As a preemptive strike?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?