Starship Asterisk*

Guest wrote:In the final second of the clip, there is a prominent streak that clearly is not in the equatorial plane, by perhaps 15-20 degrees. The streak is somewhat shorter than the others, so perhaps it is in a higher (slower) orbit.

Can anyone shed light on this?

neufer wrote:Sirius Satellite Radio satellite on it's way to short southern perigee stopover

Chris Peterson wrote:It could be a low inclination geosynchronous satellite. It might also be a retired geostationary satellite pushed into a higher parking orbit.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Guest wrote:
In the final second of the clip, there is a prominent streak that clearly is not in the equatorial plane, by perhaps 15-20 degrees. The streak is somewhat shorter than the others, so perhaps it is in a higher (slower) orbit.

It could be a low inclination geosynchronous satellite.
It might also be a retired geostationary satellite pushed into a higher parking orbit.

• Retired geostationary satellites (like retired NOAA geostationary satellite scientists)
  are only nudged into a slightly higher (~300 km) parking orbit when decommissioned.
  
  (A spacecraft [or NOAA retiree] moved to a graveyard orbit will typically be passivated.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_orbit wrote:
<<A graveyard orbit, also called a junk orbit or disposal orbit, is an orbit that lies away from common operational orbits, typically a supersynchronous orbit well above synchronous orbit. Satellites are moved into such orbits at the end of their operational life to reduce the probability of colliding with operational spacecraft or generating space debris. In order to obtain a license to provide telecommunications services in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires all geostationary satellites launched after March 18, 2002, to commit to moving to a graveyard orbit at the end of their operational life. U.S. government regulations require a boost, Δ H of ~300 km. De-orbiting a geostationary satellite requires a delta-v of about 1,500 metres per second, whereas re-orbiting it to a graveyard orbit only requires about 11 metres per second. The transfer to a graveyard orbit above geostationary orbit requires the same amount of fuel as a satellite needs for about three months of stationkeeping. It also requires a reliable attitude control during the transfer maneuver. While most satellite operators try to perform such a maneuver at the end of their satellites' operational lives, through 2005 only about one-third succeeded. However, as of 2011, most recently decommissioned geosynchronous spacecraft were said to have been moved to a graveyard orbit.>>

onteria wrote:
This may be a very silly question, but I'm struggling. If a satellite is geostationary, it's always above the same spot of land. If that's true, and I'm standing directly underneath it, shouldn't the satellite appear to not move at all in the sky? In my example, shouldn't the satellite be directly overhead at all times of the day and night?

This logic seems to be true no matter where on earth you are standing, a geostationary satellite should appear to not move at all relative to where you are standing, even if the stars appear to move. The stars in this video appear to be streaking across the sky.

Am i missing something?

Guest wrote:In the final second of the clip, there is a prominent streak that clearly is not in the equatorial plane, by perhaps 15-20 degrees. The streak is somewhat shorter than the others, so perhaps it is in a higher (slower) orbit.

Can anyone shed light on this?

Guest wrote:
In the final second of the clip, there is a prominent streak that clearly is not in the equatorial plane, by perhaps 15-20 degrees. The streak is somewhat shorter than the others, so perhaps it is in a higher (slower) orbit.

Can anyone shed light on this?

• Sirius Satellite Radio satellite on it's way to short southern perigee stopover

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra_orbit wrote:

[b][color=#0000FF]A Tundra orbit for communications over Japan[/color][/b]

---

<<A Tundra orbit (Russian: Тундра) is a highly elliptical geosynchronous orbit with a high inclination (usually near 63.4°) and an orbital period of one sidereal day (about 4 minutes less than a solar day). A satellite placed in this orbit spends most of its time over a chosen area of the Earth, a phenomenon known as apogee dwell. The ground track of a satellite in a tundra orbit is a closed figure eight. The only current known users of Tundra orbits are Sirius Satellite Radio and the EKS satellite. The EKS satellite is part of a Russian early warning constellation for missile launches, and Sirius operates a constellation of three satellites used for satellite radio. The RAAN and mean anomaly of each satellite is offset by 120° so that when one satellite moves out of position, another has passed perigee and is ready to take over. Tundra orbits are used to provide high latitude users with higher elevation angles than a geostationary orbit. An argument of perigee of 270° places apogee at the northernmost point of the orbit.>>

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

BjoernH
"...but I want to raise concerns about how people blatantly copy others processing routines to the detail, without mentioning the original work."

De58te wrote:If a satellite is in geostationary orbit over the equator which means it orbits at the same speed as the Earth then that means it hangs over the same spot in the sky. If the apparent motion of the Orion Nebula is from bottom to top in the video wouldn't the satellite be going from top to bottom? Since that is the motion of the Earth. Orion doesn't go north to south in the sky, it goes east to west. So the satellite would go opposite of Orion's direction. But in the video they are going at right angles to Earth's rotation?

neufer wrote:

geckzilla wrote:

BjoernH wrote:
Well, I captured an extremely simlar animation end of November and published it a month ago, two weeks before the APOD winner captured his image series. Seems he got "inspired" by me, and blatantly copied my work. Nearly the same viewfield, same processing, same "feeling", similar exposure, etc. A little bit own creativity would have made it unique, but this is pure copying. He even used my wording (highway)!
Here is my original, if you are interested: http://www.astrobin.com/276520/B/

Just FYI, James DeYoung didn't write the APOD description. The APOD editor did. It is possible that he saw your work and was inspired, but it's also entirely possible that he came up with the description on his own.

Perhaps everyone was inspired by an earlier APOD:

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100220.html

http://twanight.org/newTWAN/case.asp

geckzilla wrote:

BjoernH wrote:
Well, I captured an extremely simlar animation end of November and published it a month ago, two weeks before the APOD winner captured his image series. Seems he got "inspired" by me, and blatantly copied my work. Nearly the same viewfield, same processing, same "feeling", similar exposure, etc. A little bit own creativity would have made it unique, but this is pure copying. He even used my wording (highway)!
Here is my original, if you are interested: http://www.astrobin.com/276520/B/

Just FYI, James DeYoung didn't write the APOD description. The APOD editor did. It is possible that he saw your work and was inspired, but it's also entirely possible that he came up with the description on his own.

BjoernH wrote:Well, I captured an extremely simlar animation end of November and published it a month ago, two weeks before the APOD winner captured his image series. Seems he got "inspired" by me, and blatantly copied my work. Nearly the same viewfield, same processing, same "feeling", similar exposure, etc. A little bit own creativity would have made it unique, but this is pure copying. He even used my wording (highway)!
Here is my original, if you are interested: http://www.astrobin.com/276520/B/

Visual_Astronomer wrote:I remember the first time I saw this phenomenon. I was looking closely at the Trapezium cluster in the Orion Nebula when I noticed a faint, star-like object slowly moving through the field of view. At first I was certain I had spotted a UFO, but then I realized that I was seeing a geosynchronous satellite that only appeared to be moving because I was tracking the nebula!

BjoernH wrote:Well, I would never call it science, but art. The way of capturing it, and then finding out that some guy reproduced your exact way and got an APOD, is pretty frustrating.

JohnD wrote:I hope we are not heading for another Leibnitz versus Newton spat here! "Simultaneous discovery" of significant science is common enough for a large Wiki list of such events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... iscoveries.

Today, the two or more originators share their Nobel, as did McDonald and Kajita in '15 for the mass of the neutrino. But I have to say, Bjoern, your excellent work is not in the queue.
John

bystander wrote: BjoernH, you are not the first to have done this. It's really not all that unique.

BjoernH wrote:Well, I captured an extremely simlar animation end of November and published it a month ago, two weeks before the APOD winner captured his image series. Seems he got "inspired" by me, and blatantly copied my work. Nearly the same viewfield, same processing, same "feeling", similar exposure, etc. A little bit own creativity would have made it unique, but this is pure copying. He even used my wording (highway)!

Here is my original, if you are interested: http://www.astrobin.com/276520/B/

APOD Robot wrote:... this video showing several satellites in geostationary orbit ...

As a non-astronomer, one has no way of knowing which series of images was made first.

However, the close similarity of both the subject matter and of its presentation certainly leads one to believe that one sprang from an original vision in the mind of the astrophotographer and the other is but an unattributed copy of the resulting work.

Interesting - as would be a comment from APOD.

nthpijots wrote:
Didn't Clarke predict that we'd need as many as three geostationary satellites to service the whole planet? True in theory, but we ended up with a few more than that!

• Three geostationary satellites can service most of our planet.
  
  Polar regions above 71º latitude between satellites are out of reach
  and no geostationary satellite can see above 81º latitude.

https://www.usap.gov/technology/contenthandler.cfm?id=1935 wrote:
<<Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station uses [non-geostationary] communications satellites that serve as relay stations, receiving radio signals from one location and transmitting them to another. The United States Antarctic Program utilizes the satellites for the transfer of South Pole science, operational, and weather data, as well as Internet, telephone, and email services. South Pole satellite schedule forecasts are published weekly on Tuesdays, with updates made throughout the week to adjust service times.>>