Bright "star" in the western sky tonight

[theGinsue]

I've been watching what appears to be a very bright star to the west tonight. It hasn't moved noticably so I'm inclined to believe it isn't in the local atmosphere but in space.

Is anyone else seeng this? Anyone know what it is (planet, satellite)?

[Irving]

If you download a skymap on your smart phone, it will tell you exactly what it is.

[skoodge]

I know which one you're talking about, I see it when I leave the gym every night. Like Irving said, get Skymap on your smart phone, it's a pretty cool app. I just have an old pos phone, so I cant do it.

But from what I;ve heard, the brightest ones in the sky at night are planets (since theyre really close); so, thats my guess.

[davsel]

It is really bright tonight.

I believe it is Venus

[roberth]

Skymap is cool, thanks for the tip.

[Irving]

Looks like it could be Venus.

http://www.beckstromobservatory.com/whats-up-in-tonights-sky-2/

I'm going to go look through my phone to see if I can see what you're talking about.

In the mean time, if you like space, and would like your mind blown, watch this video. If you don't want to sit through 11 minutes of entertainment, start at about 3:30. This video shows you what constellations would look like in the night sky without distortion. Pretty crazy IMO.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ0hS7l9ckY&t=259s

[Graves]

Looks like Uranus, Mars, and Venus are in a little group right now.

[Gman]

All I see is snow.

[Irving]

Too over cast up here, and a tree is in the way, but this is what Skymaps shows. I find that it's usually Venus.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Df7Z6GiJ40z7p72vC5OkkbuzCeJIPU0hZvx1dvfxPUBO4bz1OL 5zqfGol0PjvYX7r8L1i_bsk4FbCI5JzVKNyUHmJoEZEKFuTVmF 1bOdB2MlWBu2PEqWbUiU8Lh_a453RmMVV0li9zveFsGeiPy4Sz hDDMkxitAWNEXqW_qU9Uv-tZzJJtPjz4CjcSl0DHurIMeWKn7ig4AZbrJ7H0h99F9Vi7J8g6 M3-UZLRd5HmYLAKiXxviegh3r5XvMOgCWed6McJ1fq5F-_0Qz2QLTL06V8q6KvXqKc0Rgkm0Vli5bG5_cgdQp-SVcshS105x64IaOX6XSxm4Bkqy0o_Gl5xsPev8m9h6QO990ubk aL9vFbTR_170L-ISE0r-CMwWkPOXc3aLzfqeKfSHkJ0-Q1-iGw_2qdZTrndu7TkfnFIJaJRWvzIpdV1M2l7Nr4IEPgk5_5Jrb hxMLVw8BI9jzzh_ky27uzMtEWvVMPtVCoeslanWsbcIBjZ3ArZ HQXa1N3D-Nj5XfYRsgOazMILTprGGsYiHJPxcMKcRV-gpUYOzHckAlUgAA_RZrzJ0hO7LgjlQ6L91LI6y8o7cPjPYukJj pfNhI9LFTLue_tlpm1336CIRBAIwUJZT-8O3T5DqoO2b-bV6hOB5YYp15zj2Juusq2LRePRVNGDdThVsNhX4E=w1634-h919-no

[theGinsue]

Yeah, I've already got Skymap on my phone, but when I'm home my cell phone is in my backpack and I forget about it. Guess I'll have to dig it out.

[Aloha_Shooter]

If it were in space, it'd be moving. If you could see anything in geostationary orbit with the naked eye, it'd be pretty dim.

[BPTactical]

Figures, Thomas would notice Uranus........






I'm jus sayin........[Coffee]

[theGinsue]

Annnnd, there's my buddy Bert. Don't you have some Famcy Feast to take away from your yard flamimgos?

Love ya Bert!

[GilpinGuy]

Damn, snowy up here too. I love this stuff. It's cool seeing satellites cruise by. Sometimes I'll see 1 every 5 mins or so, then none for a half hour. How they aren't playing bumper cars up there is amazing to me, but I'm sure some super-g will tell me why they aren't.

[Irving]

I can post a video of that as well...

[GilpinGuy]

Bring it!

[Irving]

This doesn't explain it, just a demonstration of the "space junk" that is out there.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPXCk85wMSQ

[jhood001]

Why can't you all just think outside of the box?

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/13/itsaliens.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

[Great-Kazoo]

Sure that's not a traffic circle light on Lookout Mth?

[GilpinGuy]

F-me. After midnight I'll be able see this due to my satellite internet data restriction. Ironic?

Good thing is that I'm up past midnight A LOT, so I use it.....and I use it good. [Mad]

[Great-Kazoo]

F-me. After midnight I'll be able see this due to my satellite internet data restriction. Ironic?

Good thing is that I'm up past midnight A LOT, so I use it.....and I use it good. [Mad]

Now WHIP IT, WHIP IT GOOD

[Graves]

This doesn't explain it, just a demonstration of the "space junk" that is out there.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPXCk85wMSQ

Neil deGrasse Tyson was just on Joe Rogan's podcast talking about this. It's amazing how much shit we put out there in such a short amount of time. He was saying how it won't be long before it will completely interfere with space exploration altogether.

[GilpinGuy]

Now WHIP IT, WHIP IT GOOD

[LOL] And I will.....

[Irving]

Neil deGrasse Tyson was just on Joe Rogan's podcast talking about this. It's amazing how much shit we put out there in such a short amount of time. He was saying how it won't be long before it will completely interfere with space exploration altogether.

I actually caught about a third of that podcast (saw it said "live" and clicked on it) and that's where I saw that video.

[GilpinGuy]

My satellite internet provider graciously allowed me to view that video just now.

So am I to assume that most of what I see is "junk" and visible? What I mean is, how small of an object is considered junk and how big does it have to be to be visible from earth?

I'm sure there are trillions of man-made particles floating around earth, but how many are visible? Not many is my guess.

[brutal]

This doesn't explain it, just a demonstration of the "space junk" that is out there.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPXCk85wMSQ

I caught part of a show a few weeks back about all the junk up there. What kills me is the idiots that decided some years ago that it was a good idea to blow up a satellite that had a disintegrating orbit. Subsequently spawning thousands more death dealing projectiles up there.

[rondog]

I always assumed it's the ISS. I see that bright spot in the same place every night going to work.

[Graves]

The ISS is moving at over 16,000mph. I guess it's moving fast enough to turn it's constant decent to earth into a steady orbit.

[GilpinGuy]

I found my answer HERE (http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3768/how-large-does-a-spacecraft-need-to-be-to-be-visible-from-the-surface-of-the-ear)

how-large-does-a-spacecraft-need-to-be-to-be-visible-from-the-surface-of-the-earth
Given an angular size aa (in seconds of arc), object diameter dd and distance DD, we know that
a206265=dD
a206265=dD
where 206,265 is the number of arc seconds in one radian (206265=60×60×360°2π206265=60×60×360°2π) and dd and DD are in the same units. We know that a=60a=60 (arc seconds) and D=400 kmD=400 km, and if we plug these in and use the here more useful unit of meter then we get
60206265=d400000 m
60206265=d400000 m
Solving for dd gives us
d=400000 m×60206265≈116 m
d=400000 m×60206265≈116 m
which tells us that the smallest resolvable size for the human eye at distance 400 km is approximately 116 m.

[Irving]

My satellite internet provider graciously allowed me to view that video just now.

So am I to assume that most of what I see is "junk" and visible? What I mean is, how small of an object is considered junk and how big does it have to be to be visible from earth?

I'm sure there are trillions of man-made particles floating around earth, but how many are visible? Not many is my guess.
I watched another video and it said space junk from the size of a fingernail to the size of a bowling ball, all traveling around 16-17,000 mph.


I caught part of a show a few weeks back about all the junk up there. What kills me is the idiots that decided some years ago that it was a good idea to blow up a satellite that had a disintegrating orbit. Subsequently spawning thousands more death dealing projectiles up there.
That was China and was talked about in that podcast.


I always assumed it's the ISS. I see that bright spot in the same place every night going to work.

Usually very bright "stars" in the night sky are planets. While one can see the ISS and other satellites, they look like very dim airplanes in my experience. You wouldn't notice them while driving.

[Graves]

The only time I can see satellites up there is when I'm out camping on a clear night and looking up there pretty hard, they tend to just catch your eye up there, they move about like aircraft without the flashers.

[GilpinGuy]

The weird thing is that it's best to look just to the side of the object to get a better view of it moving. I heard that somewhere years ago and it works for me. Humans are f-ed up.

[Irving]

The weird thing is that it's best to look just to the side of the object to get a better view of it moving. I heard that somewhere years ago and it works for me. Humans are f-ed up.

Want a video about that? Heh

I'll spare the site another Vsauce video (Vsauce3 in this case) but it has to do with light collection in your eyes when viewing dim objects, not the movement.

Edit: link
https://youtu.be/nSvIxDbfk3k

[Martinjmpr]

The weird thing is that it's best to look just to the side of the object to get a better view of it moving. I heard that somewhere years ago and it works for me. Humans are f-ed up.


Want a video about that? Heh

I'll spare the site another Vsauce video (Vsauce3 in this case) but it has to do with light collection in your eyes when viewing dim objects, not the movement.

Edit: link
https://youtu.be/nSvIxDbfk3k

Rods and cones. ;) It's that way on purpose.

[O2HeN2]

The weird thing is that it's best to look just to the side of the object to get a better view of it moving. I heard that somewhere years ago and it works for me. Humans are f-ed up.
Averted vision. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averted_vision)

We're actually not f-ed up. The center of your vision is covered by cones, which are color receptors. They are used for discerning the subtle color difference between our camouflaged prey and its surroundings. ...or the few camouflaged animals that would prey on us. Problem is, cones are not that sensitive in low light.

Around the cones are rods, which are in our peripheral vision. The rods only see black and white but are far more sensitive to light. This keeps us from being sitting ducks at night to the animals that would prey upon us.

By using averted vision you use the more sensitive rods to see what you’re looking at.

O2

On edit: Day late and a dollar short. Already coverd.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I caught part of a show a few weeks back about all the junk up there. What kills me is the idiots that decided some years ago that it was a good idea to blow up a satellite that had a disintegrating orbit. Subsequently spawning thousands more death dealing projectiles up there.


That was China and was talked about in that podcast.

Two different incidents. In Jan 2007, the People's Republic of China tested an anti-satellite weapon against a functioning weather satellite that left thousands of pieces of junk in Low Earth Orbit. That junk is still there and will be for hundreds of years.

About a year later, the US destroyed a satellite that didn't function properly and was in an uncontrollable decaying (disintegrating) orbit using a specially-configured SM-3 missile from an Aegis cruiser. Unlike the CHICOMs, the US mission was designed to ensure the debris would re-enter the atmosphere and burn up rather than linger in orbit. IIRC, most of the debris was gone within 3 weeks and almost all of it was gone within 2 months.


I watched another video and it said space junk from the size of a fingernail to the size of a bowling ball, all traveling around 16-17,000 mph.

Most of it but not all is traveling that fast. Things don't have to go as fast to stay in orbit when they're higher up. IIRC, about 2/3 of the stuff is below 600 miles altitude so moving on the order of 16000-17000 mph but stuff at geosynchronous altitude (22,300 miles) is moving more like 7000 mph.


I found my answer HERE (http://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/3768/how-large-does-a-spacecraft-need-to-be-to-be-visible-from-the-surface-of-the-ear)

how-large-does-a-spacecraft-need-to-be-to-be-visible-from-the-surface-of-the-earth
Given an angular size aa (in seconds of arc), object diameter dd and distance DD, we know that
a206265=dD
a206265=dD
where 206,265 is the number of arc seconds in one radian (206265=60×60×360°2π206265=60×60×360°2π) and dd and DD are in the same units. We know that a=60a=60 (arc seconds) and D=400 kmD=400 km, and if we plug these in and use the here more useful unit of meter then we get
60206265=d400000 m
60206265=d400000 m
Solving for dd gives us
d=400000 m×60206265≈116 m
d=400000 m×60206265≈116 m
which tells us that the smallest resolvable size for the human eye at distance 400 km is approximately 116 m.

I"m not sure why you worked the equations for a resolvable size since we're looking at dots of light. What matters in this case is the brightness of the dot. People can usually see flashes from the Iridium satellites orbiting at an altitude of almost 800 km and they're considerably smaller than 116 m long. In fact, most of the stuff that we can see with the naked eye is quite a bit smaller than 100 m long. You can get a listing of things to watch for at heavens-above.com or n2yo.com.