The object is too slow to be a asteroid or satellite.
Maybe its a experimental spacecraft that the government don't want us to know about.
Perhaps its a extraterrestrial ufo, due to the fact that it appears highly reflective and appeared like it could speed up and slow down saying that it was being controlled by someone or something else.
Which satellite is this?
Dec. 17, 2004 streak above Hawaii
Is the shutter speed of the camera(s) available? That information could be used to calculate the angular velocity of the object. Proposed elevations for certain objects (balloon, meteor, earth-orbit debris) could then be applied to provide an estimate of the velocity of the object.
Maybe this is a military spy satellite?
Has anyone thought that it may be a "secret" satellite that we're not supposed to know about. I'm certain there are plenty of them out there. If it's up there by the military, then certainly the data used to calculate it's exact position would NOT be made publicly available. 
-
parasitewasp
- Asternaut
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:08 pm
- Contact:
Maybe a military aircraft.
I live in Kaneohe Hawaii and just right across the bay is a marine air base, on the other side of the island is Hickham airforce base, and the obsevatory isn't far from Hilo which has a large airport. The point is that maybe it's a military aircraft of some sort.
Parasitewasp
-
Pat Snyder
- Asternaut
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:31 pm
Too slow
If you look at the movement of the back ground stars you will see that this object is moving very slowly.It couls be a hellicopter or maby a blimp.But without more info all it is ever going to be is slow moveing bright light in the night sky.If you look at the time stamp it is 20 sec from the first frame to the last.This makes me think it could be a high flying airliner with its anticollsion lights on.
From the photos the object seems to have moved about 28 degrees in 8 minutes. That works out to an orbital period of about 102 minutes. This is consistent with near earth satellites. The size and shape of the object is particularly interesting in that it is generally rectangular and about 4 times as long as it is wide. It is also moving parallel to its long axis. Assuming that smearing has not taken place due to exposure time the object is quite large. 
Prof Chuck
Prof Chuck
Visit the following URL:
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=219
and see these posts, especially the first, that of 'lior'.
Though beyond me, seems the math and data are
available to yield the same analysis on the current APOD
images. I am confused as to why this data was not presented
in this case prior to asking for comment? I return to the
speculation of one of the early posters here who suggested
a 'sociological experiment'.
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=219
and see these posts, especially the first, that of 'lior'.
Though beyond me, seems the math and data are
available to yield the same analysis on the current APOD
images. I am confused as to why this data was not presented
in this case prior to asking for comment? I return to the
speculation of one of the early posters here who suggested
a 'sociological experiment'.
I would have to agree with those that support the gas-dump theory on this one. It being semi-transparent, moving in parallel with a smaller object, and the brightness of it all fall well in line.
I recall seeing a launch from Vandenberg a few years back. The launch was done after sunset, and though I was hundreds of miles away, still the contrail was extremely obvious in the upper atmosphere, and bright enough to catch the eye while driving. I would have to think that a cloud of vapor would be able to catch more than enough sunlight to produce these results at that altitude.
I recall seeing a launch from Vandenberg a few years back. The launch was done after sunset, and though I was hundreds of miles away, still the contrail was extremely obvious in the upper atmosphere, and bright enough to catch the eye while driving. I would have to think that a cloud of vapor would be able to catch more than enough sunlight to produce these results at that altitude.
Keck's laser was actually my first thought as I was just reading about it yesterday before the APOD was posted, but as an ealier post mentioned the laser doesn't generate a guide star any brighter than 9-11th magnitude, whereas this object was much brighter than Saturn, also seen in the image.
It's a shame we've only got comcam photos of it, it'd be great to have performed some absorption spectroscopy of the cloud using the light of the background stars. A chemical composition of rocket fuel would have brought us to this likely conclusion a lot faster than 11 pages before the conspiracy theorists started to ease off ^_^
It's a shame we've only got comcam photos of it, it'd be great to have performed some absorption spectroscopy of the cloud using the light of the background stars. A chemical composition of rocket fuel would have brought us to this likely conclusion a lot faster than 11 pages before the conspiracy theorists started to ease off ^_^
Rev. Delvan Neville
I was thinking that the dim farther object was the intended false star in the sodium rich layer. The closer, and therefore intrinsicly brighter object could have been an unintended aberition{spelling} on a lower elevation layer of, .... clouds, ice crystals,.... something? The fact that the smaller object shadowed the brighter one was what made me think of it.
object in sky
Using Occam's razor (modern definition) we can safely say that it spent too much time visible in the atmosphere for it to be a meteor. I have seen a lot of space shuttle mission video that showed similar objects in near earth orbit actually leaving earth as well as ones entering into a descent. These kinds of anomalies have been captured on film before even following rockets into orbit so the idea that France had a sat scheduled to take off may have attracted some attention of someone's advanced technology...probably ours but with a remote possibility that it is someone else's. It clealry didn't move like a functional sat or fizzle out like a meteor so with those two explanations depleted we can easily go into the Twilight Zone and not feel too stupid. On the other hand, it could be a static plasma release from a grinding of the earth's tectonic plates or impending volcanic activity. My thought is that if it's a plasma release we will see more of the same tonight.
On the other hand, if it was simply something that grazed the surface of the atmosphere and then went on it's way, that would explaint he foreshortening of the end of the footage. Given the earths rotation, it would have appeared to be moving faster upon approach, and after it's fleeting appearance, would have appeared to almost stand still as the viewer rotated over the receding horizon. I like that Idea.
gas dump
here's some math...
The longitude of Hawaii is about 157.7 degrees west. Thus, at 14:19 UTC on december 17, the sun would have been at an altitude of about -40 degrees. 20 minutes later, at 14:39 UTC, it would have been at about -35 degrees. (i.e. 35 to 40 degrees below the horizon).
It appears to me that the object is not visible in the frame prior to 14:19 UTC. Since it is most likely that the object is illuminated by the sun, it drifts into sunlight at about this time. Also, it appears that the object is slightly off vertical in the picture, by about 8 or 9 degrees (as best as I can tell from the fish eye lens image). Using a bit of trig, and the radius of the earth, the MINUMUM altitude of the object is about 3000 km. (even if it appeared at zenith, the angle of the sun would dictate a minimum altitude of nearly 2000km).
Geosynhronus orbit is at an altitude of 16,000 km.
Looking at the apparent angle the object traverses in one 4 minute picture, it appears to cover about 8 degrees of angular distance. (Note of interest, in 4 minutes, the earth rotates 1 degree). Using orbital mechanics, an approximate 8 degree motion in 4 minutes works out to an altitude of approximately 4,000km. The numbers here are very rough. And I don't have a good idea of the actual degrees covered in the fish eye lens photo. Also, we have no information on movement away from the camera (increasing altitude over time), this would change things slightly as well.
In short, in an order of magnitude calculation, it appears that this object is likely in a GTO (geosynchronus transfer orbit). The large size and slow motion make it an ideal candidate for the fuel dump theory.
(edited a couple times to fix some numbers).
Hope that helps.
The longitude of Hawaii is about 157.7 degrees west. Thus, at 14:19 UTC on december 17, the sun would have been at an altitude of about -40 degrees. 20 minutes later, at 14:39 UTC, it would have been at about -35 degrees. (i.e. 35 to 40 degrees below the horizon).
It appears to me that the object is not visible in the frame prior to 14:19 UTC. Since it is most likely that the object is illuminated by the sun, it drifts into sunlight at about this time. Also, it appears that the object is slightly off vertical in the picture, by about 8 or 9 degrees (as best as I can tell from the fish eye lens image). Using a bit of trig, and the radius of the earth, the MINUMUM altitude of the object is about 3000 km. (even if it appeared at zenith, the angle of the sun would dictate a minimum altitude of nearly 2000km).
Geosynhronus orbit is at an altitude of 16,000 km.
Looking at the apparent angle the object traverses in one 4 minute picture, it appears to cover about 8 degrees of angular distance. (Note of interest, in 4 minutes, the earth rotates 1 degree). Using orbital mechanics, an approximate 8 degree motion in 4 minutes works out to an altitude of approximately 4,000km. The numbers here are very rough. And I don't have a good idea of the actual degrees covered in the fish eye lens photo. Also, we have no information on movement away from the camera (increasing altitude over time), this would change things slightly as well.
In short, in an order of magnitude calculation, it appears that this object is likely in a GTO (geosynchronus transfer orbit). The large size and slow motion make it an ideal candidate for the fuel dump theory.
(edited a couple times to fix some numbers).
Hope that helps.
Last edited by dolph on Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
Random observations, seeking to narrow the list of possible explanations.
As I noted previously, there is no way this phenomenon is occuring within the atmosphere. There's no significant atmosphere (no balloons, no blimps, no clouds, no helicopters, no airliners, no Aurora replacement for the SR-71, no military aircraft) above 100Km. If this thing were at or below 100Km, it would be at a VERY different location viewed from the two cams. Any of these would show up on opposite sides of the pictures from the two cams.
Meteors light up when they hit the atmosphere. Again, too low. Its not a meteor.
The laser guide star is interesting, but again ruled out. Those guide stars are still (they don't move, that's the whole point), the laser would be visible (it is in other pictures), and again, it would not be high enough. We need an explanation WAY beyond the atmosphere.
It is not elongated, AND we can figure out the approximate shutter speed. Look at the two pictures from Haleakala, 14:23:25 and 14:27:23UT (on page 1, easy to find). First, and this is really simple, the pictures are about 4 minutes apart. (They're labeled
Second, if you look where the first ends, and the second starts, the gap between them is a good deal shorter than the length of the streak (line up on the same stars in the two picutres). It looks to me like the streak is about 3x as long as the gap, suggesting the camera was open 3 minutes and closed 1 minute. Then notice that right after the time is the notation "+180s". I don't know what that means, but it *could* mean 180second exposure, which is exactly 3 minutes. Even if that is not what it means, it is clearly about a 3 minute exposure. The object is not long, it is moving. Look at any long exposure picture of an Iridium flare, a meteor, or an asteroid (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980316.html) to see the effect.
"The object is too slow to be an asteroid or satellite." Not at all. Geosynchronous satellites don't appear to move at all. (When you point your satellite TV dish at the satellite, it should stay put.) Asteroids are pretty faint, but can spend weeks traversing the sky, depending on how far away they are. Indeed, if this is an asteroid, it is moving very fast, meaning it is VERY CLOSE (relatively speaking, ie within the orbit of the moon). Indeed, the speed of this thing is between the space station (3 minutes to cross the sky) and a TV satellite. That puts it between 300KM and 30000KM if it is indeed in orbit (ie not a space rock whizzing by).
I'd love to have someone actually do the math, and calculate altitude and speed. There's plenty of data in the pictures alone to get close enough (parallax plus angle covered per unit time). I'm too lazy to re-derive my trig from <too many> years ago.
A space rock fits the data, but would probably have been detected and tracked by the surveys looking for that killer rock. I wouldn't rule it out, but I don't favor that theory.
Kudos to JimO for a really rich explanation. I like his fuel dump explanation and background. It fits all the available data very nicely. Science is a beautiful thing!
As I noted previously, there is no way this phenomenon is occuring within the atmosphere. There's no significant atmosphere (no balloons, no blimps, no clouds, no helicopters, no airliners, no Aurora replacement for the SR-71, no military aircraft) above 100Km. If this thing were at or below 100Km, it would be at a VERY different location viewed from the two cams. Any of these would show up on opposite sides of the pictures from the two cams.
Meteors light up when they hit the atmosphere. Again, too low. Its not a meteor.
The laser guide star is interesting, but again ruled out. Those guide stars are still (they don't move, that's the whole point), the laser would be visible (it is in other pictures), and again, it would not be high enough. We need an explanation WAY beyond the atmosphere.
It is not elongated, AND we can figure out the approximate shutter speed. Look at the two pictures from Haleakala, 14:23:25 and 14:27:23UT (on page 1, easy to find). First, and this is really simple, the pictures are about 4 minutes apart. (They're labeled
Second, if you look where the first ends, and the second starts, the gap between them is a good deal shorter than the length of the streak (line up on the same stars in the two picutres). It looks to me like the streak is about 3x as long as the gap, suggesting the camera was open 3 minutes and closed 1 minute. Then notice that right after the time is the notation "+180s". I don't know what that means, but it *could* mean 180second exposure, which is exactly 3 minutes. Even if that is not what it means, it is clearly about a 3 minute exposure. The object is not long, it is moving. Look at any long exposure picture of an Iridium flare, a meteor, or an asteroid (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980316.html) to see the effect."The object is too slow to be an asteroid or satellite." Not at all. Geosynchronous satellites don't appear to move at all. (When you point your satellite TV dish at the satellite, it should stay put.) Asteroids are pretty faint, but can spend weeks traversing the sky, depending on how far away they are. Indeed, if this is an asteroid, it is moving very fast, meaning it is VERY CLOSE (relatively speaking, ie within the orbit of the moon). Indeed, the speed of this thing is between the space station (3 minutes to cross the sky) and a TV satellite. That puts it between 300KM and 30000KM if it is indeed in orbit (ie not a space rock whizzing by).
I'd love to have someone actually do the math, and calculate altitude and speed. There's plenty of data in the pictures alone to get close enough (parallax plus angle covered per unit time). I'm too lazy to re-derive my trig from <too many> years ago.
A space rock fits the data, but would probably have been detected and tracked by the surveys looking for that killer rock. I wouldn't rule it out, but I don't favor that theory.
Kudos to JimO for a really rich explanation. I like his fuel dump explanation and background. It fits all the available data very nicely. Science is a beautiful thing!
Too high to be a satellite, to slow to be a meteor, but it could be one of the propulsion stages of apollo 12, because one of them (I can't remenber if it was the 2 or 3) entered heliocentric orbit. That would account for the slow motion and reflectivity (they were painted white, and they were big). Also that might explain why it is not on heavens-above, since it is not orbiting our planet.
Last edited by vulto on Wed Feb 09, 2005 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Which satellite is this?
"should be computable" Just triangulate it. Assuming a clean fisheye lens with no distortion (roughly anyway), shrinking the bigger image to match sizes, and measuring 4 pixels (out of 427) difference in the position of the streak (southerly), that's about 1% of 180-degrees or 1.8 degrees. A map of Hawaii shows roughly 115 miles latitude between the 2 telescopes, so a little trig shows a height of about 3500 miles. Double-checking of these computations is encouraged. With only 4 pixels of accuracy, exact figures are not needed.
Given the extremely rough numbers, the "agreement" with the orbital-mechanics of DOLPH giving 4,000 KM (not miles) ain't that bad.
jsainio at sbcglobal dot net
[quote="RJN"]A series of images from HL and MK on 2004 December 17 show an unusual bright object moving across the sky that must be some sort of of satellite. Oddly it might be quite high since there is NOT a lot of parallax between the two sites! The images follow. Since it was seen by both HL and MK, its height should be computable. Could someone search http://heavens-above.com/ to see what this is? Why hasn't the NSL network seen it before?
Given the extremely rough numbers, the "agreement" with the orbital-mechanics of DOLPH giving 4,000 KM (not miles) ain't that bad.
jsainio at sbcglobal dot net
[quote="RJN"]A series of images from HL and MK on 2004 December 17 show an unusual bright object moving across the sky that must be some sort of of satellite. Oddly it might be quite high since there is NOT a lot of parallax between the two sites! The images follow. Since it was seen by both HL and MK, its height should be computable. Could someone search http://heavens-above.com/ to see what this is? Why hasn't the NSL network seen it before?
A question for Mr. Cordell...
Dear Mr. Cordell,
I'm an amateur astronomer (not a good one at that). My interest in stargazing began after I saw an inexplicable event/object once on a clear winter night in Southern Ontario, Canada. That was 20 years ago and frankly I still can't explain what I saw back then.
Regardless, my interest in astronomy persists. If you're counting hits at APOD, that's me 2-3 times a day.
My main question is: What constitutes a conspiracy theory?
Actually, do we as humans think that we can figure it out solely by "doing the math"? Yes, logic is the only thing we can rely on.
Thanks to these cameras, the debate on this board has made my day.
The most interesting thing about this discussion is how our rapidly changing tools (like the CONCAM) kind of gives credibility to hillbillies like me who see things in the night.
Who do you trust? The NSL project or someone from the backwoods, like me?
Maybe they should rename these cameras Billybob and Cleetus.
Thanks for a great forum.
Save the Hubble!!!
I'm an amateur astronomer (not a good one at that). My interest in stargazing began after I saw an inexplicable event/object once on a clear winter night in Southern Ontario, Canada. That was 20 years ago and frankly I still can't explain what I saw back then.
Regardless, my interest in astronomy persists. If you're counting hits at APOD, that's me 2-3 times a day.
My main question is: What constitutes a conspiracy theory?
Actually, do we as humans think that we can figure it out solely by "doing the math"? Yes, logic is the only thing we can rely on.
Thanks to these cameras, the debate on this board has made my day.
The most interesting thing about this discussion is how our rapidly changing tools (like the CONCAM) kind of gives credibility to hillbillies like me who see things in the night.
Who do you trust? The NSL project or someone from the backwoods, like me?
Maybe they should rename these cameras Billybob and Cleetus.
Thanks for a great forum.
Save the Hubble!!!
From all the data here, etc., to me this scenario makes the most sense, and fits all the relevant requirements. Simply making good sense can go a long way, eh?Dan Cordell wrote: As for my own view: I am pretty sure that it is a fuel dump.
If it hasn't been posted already, the estimated altitute for this event is >1000km.
Thanks Bob for posing the question,
The object appears to be in a high orbit as others have suggested -maybe 35,000 to 40,000 miles above earth's surface, and at about a thirty degree angle to the ecliptic. Nations close to the equater launch satellites at small angles like that. It is far too high to be luminescent from re-entry heat. The reflectance is astounding for an object that far away. It is obviously not a fuel dump or a UFO.
I was the first one to suggest that your last "What is it?" question was the halo affect from silica sand from a sandblaster. I am puzzled about this one. I was involved in monitering orbiting objects over thirty years ago from many nations while in the military. I think the physics still work the same way.
Cal
The object appears to be in a high orbit as others have suggested -maybe 35,000 to 40,000 miles above earth's surface, and at about a thirty degree angle to the ecliptic. Nations close to the equater launch satellites at small angles like that. It is far too high to be luminescent from re-entry heat. The reflectance is astounding for an object that far away. It is obviously not a fuel dump or a UFO.
I was the first one to suggest that your last "What is it?" question was the halo affect from silica sand from a sandblaster. I am puzzled about this one. I was involved in monitering orbiting objects over thirty years ago from many nations while in the military. I think the physics still work the same way.
Cal
Cal Harth
The expected orbital parameters of the Centaur are on the SpaceFlightNow site.
The parking orbit to GTO burn start:T+plus 1 hour, 41 minutes, 57 seconds. Engine ignition!
The parking orbit to GTO burn stop:T+plus 1 hour, 45 minutes, 52 seconds. MECO! The Centaur's Pratt & Whitney RL10 engine has shut down
The GTO orbit is quite eliptical (19.3 kMi x 2.6 kMi) and would appear to slow down as it got higher.
The Centaur uses cryogenic main fuel (LH2 & LO2) and has a hypergolic thruster system. IIRC they have to vent all the fuel to keep them from blowing up later and creating a bunch of space debris (or was that the Russian upper stages?). Not sure how much main fuel is leftover, but the thruster system should be designed to have some leftover fuel.
Is there orbital data for the Centaur currently available? It should still be in the same GTO orbit (the sat does its own circulization to go from GTO to GSO). Here is some historical Centaur orbital data: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hattonjaso ... NTAUR.HTML .
Liftoff at 7:07 a.m. EST (1207 GMT) this morning.The Centaur upper stage with its single Pratt & Whitney RL10 engine then ignites for an 11-minute firing to reach a parking orbit featuring a high point of 2,882 nautical miles, perigee of 90 miles and inclination of 27.20 degrees.
The rocket coasts in that orbit for 90 minutes before the cryogenic engine re-starts for a four-minute burn to inject AMC 16 into geosynchronous transfer orbit. The launch concludes at T+plus 1 hour, 48 minutes, 42 seconds with release of the payload into an orbit with a high point of 19,323 nautical miles, low point of 2,591 miles and inclination of 18.02 degrees north and south of equator.
The parking orbit to GTO burn start:T+plus 1 hour, 41 minutes, 57 seconds. Engine ignition!
The parking orbit to GTO burn stop:T+plus 1 hour, 45 minutes, 52 seconds. MECO! The Centaur's Pratt & Whitney RL10 engine has shut down
The GTO orbit is quite eliptical (19.3 kMi x 2.6 kMi) and would appear to slow down as it got higher.
The Centaur uses cryogenic main fuel (LH2 & LO2) and has a hypergolic thruster system. IIRC they have to vent all the fuel to keep them from blowing up later and creating a bunch of space debris (or was that the Russian upper stages?). Not sure how much main fuel is leftover, but the thruster system should be designed to have some leftover fuel.
Is there orbital data for the Centaur currently available? It should still be in the same GTO orbit (the sat does its own circulization to go from GTO to GSO). Here is some historical Centaur orbital data: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/hattonjaso ... NTAUR.HTML .
It was NOT a laser guide star
I can say that this was not a laser guide star with 100% certainty...ypyetr wrote:Is it possible that someone was using the false star laser in an adaptive optics telescopic system. Keck uses one.
1) Keck has the only laser guide star in hawaii, and it was NOT on at that time.
2) When the laser is on it appears as a thin line on the mauna kea concam which sees only the scattering of the beam as it leaves the keck 2 dome.
3) The 'artificial star' created by the laser is typically between 9th and 11th magnitude... The streak was FAR brighter.
4) The 'artificial star' created by the laser is at an altitude of just ~90km. The similarity between the two widely separated concams indicates that the event was at a higher altitude than 90km.
5) The laser guide star would never sweep across the sky like that- there are interlocks to prevent that.
6) quite frankly the phenomenon seems to be explained perfectly by the fuel dump explanation...