Starship Asterisk*

Skippy wrote:Well now, nothing astronomical to put here? This was useless.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Skippy wrote:Well now, nothing astronomical to put here? This was useless.

So was your comment.

astrogator wrote:Ok my biggest gripe upon first seeing this graphic when it made its rounds in my newsfeed from IFLS was that it completely leaves out Iridium flares. Which can sometimes move a bit making it seem like a slow moving meteor as they brighten to the flare and then gradually disappear.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Zuben L. Genubi wrote:So... lights in the sky. The morning of the Camelopardidn''t meteor storm, I was out in the country between the hours of 0300 and 0400 EST and did see, among other things, seven fairly slowly-moving, non-blinking objects. Movement was uniform in speed and direction. Most passed within several degrees of directly overhead. When I checked websites to help me identify satellites that might have passed over at that time, there might have been one listed - but not seven. All moved at about the same speed. There was no sound (such as the distant roar of jet engines that usually follows high-flying aircraft, except that of a mooing cow toward 0400 - and I don't believe that came from any of these on objects. Any ideas???

I'd assume satellites. Many more are visible than can easily be identified, both because many dimmer ones aren't tested for by identification tools, and because many are classified and don't have official elements listed (although nearly all have unofficial elements provided by amateur observers).

"so quickly you almost missed it?"

(YES)

"is it extra super bright?"

(NO)

can you still see it moving faintly after it dimmed? (NEW)

(YES) . . . . . . . . . . . . (NO)

[FLARE] . . . . . . . [METEOR]

geckzilla wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Skippy wrote:Well now, nothing astronomical to put here? This was useless.

So was your comment.

Actually, I think just the comment was useless. The graphic is both useful and humorous.

astrogator wrote:Ok my biggest gripe upon first seeing this graphic when it made its rounds in my newsfeed from IFLS was that it completely leaves out Iridium flares. Which can sometimes move a bit making it seem like a slow moving meteor as they brighten to the flare and then gradually disappear.

JollyCrackers wrote:I think you left out one potential object: for instance, this past Friday night, June 6th, at about 10:30 PM PST looking toward the East I saw a rapidly descending bright light that was clearly not a meteor but most likely space junk (debris). 2014

Chris Peterson wrote:

Nitpicker wrote:I was taught as a child that planets don't twinkle. It seems to be a common belief, almost a superstition. Since taking up astronomy as a hobby, I see twinkling planets (and stars) all the time. I prefer it when they don't twinkle.

It's still a good rule of thumb. Even under terrible seeing conditions (like I have under the jetstream here in Colorado) it is rare for a planet above 20 or 30 degrees altitude to twinkle anywhere near as much as a star. It only takes a few inch wide ray path through the atmosphere to significantly reduce or eliminate scintillation (which is why stars rarely twinkle when seen through binoculars).

When I've got a group outside under the stars, I explain where the scintillation comes from, and show them (if the right objects are present) how different planets and stars always appear if you look at them critically.

(Check out Jupiter in the evening sky right now- a brilliant evening "star", which even very low looks nothing like any of the bright stars around it, such as Procyon or Capella. They may all be twinkling, but there's an obvious qualitative difference between the planet and the stars. Obvious if you make the effort to actually observe, that is. Most people don't- most people outside forums like this, anyway. BTW, Mercury is visible now, as well. It's not bright enough, or contrasty enough against the light sky, to normally show twinkling, even right on the horizon.)

Nitpicker wrote:In my (more humid) sky, high jetstream velocities do not seem to correlate with twinkling stars and planets. I can observe almost no twinkling with my eyes, then set up my scope and observe planets that have a smeared (rather than wobbly) appearance, which does correlate with high jetstream velocities. Then, I can pick another time with low jetstream velocities and the stars are twinkling like crazy. Twinkling seems to be caused more by turbulence at lower altitudes. I have not studied this topic exhaustively, but I have read explanations which match my own observations.

firstmagnitude wrote:This is not a picture, this is a graphic, but not a picture per se!