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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.