| |
Main
Date: 04 Aug 2007 22:00:08
From: Esmail
Subject: how complete is heavens-above
|
Hi all,
I just went out to view an iridium flare and saw another bright
object (looked like another iridium flare), but I didn't see it
listed on heavens-above once I came back in. (Could have been a
regular satellite too of course).
Made me wonder how complete the info on satellites is on the site.
In the past I've always found what I was looking for.
Esmail
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 06:40:36
From: Esmail
Subject: Re: how complete is heavens-above
|
Thanks all.
I do have my exact coordinates entered in H-A. And the satellite
(more like flare really) was very bright, mag 0 or better.
I guess as was stated, the main use might be for predicting what
might be swooshing by in the evening, rather than finding out what
was seen in retrospect, and the database must not be complete.
Still a great resource.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 08:18:57
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: how complete is heavens-above
|
On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 06:40:36 -0400, Esmail <ebonak_delme@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>I guess as was stated, the main use might be for predicting what
>might be swooshing by in the evening, rather than finding out what
>was seen in retrospect, and the database must not be complete.
Esmail-
Also, even if they use the complete catalog of tracked satellites, which
is ~12000 objects, there are a number of classified objects which don't
have elements reported. Some of these can be found in unofficial
catalogs maintained by amateur satellite trackers, but I doubt H-A is
using any of those. Probably just the Space-Track data.
I've seen a number of bright satellites that weren't in the catalog (the
NOSS pairs and triads are most famous, but there are lots of others as
well). Some modern spy satellites are very large, and impossible to hide
even though they don't officially exist.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Aug 2007 07:16:04
From: Esmail
Subject: Re: how complete is heavens-above
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> Also, even if they use the complete catalog of tracked satellites, which
> is ~12000 objects, there are a number of classified objects which don't
> have elements reported. Some of these can be found in unofficial
> catalogs maintained by amateur satellite trackers, but I doubt H-A is
> using any of those. Probably just the Space-Track data.
>
> I've seen a number of bright satellites that weren't in the catalog (the
> NOSS pairs and triads are most famous, but there are lots of others as
> well). Some modern spy satellites are very large, and impossible to hide
> even though they don't officially exist.
Hi Chris,
Good point. I hadn't even considered all the "secret" satellites.
thanks,
Esmail
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 00:38:31
From: Dennis Allen
Subject: Re: how complete is heavens-above
|
The thing to remember about heavens-above is that it needs to be
configured for your exact latitude, longitude, and time zone. The more
accurate the better.
If you wish, use our club's web site www.wmich-astro.org . Once
configured to your location, any link on our web site, heavens-above,
calsky, etc., is also configured...Dennis
"Esmail" <ebonak_delme@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:46b52f28$0$29711$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I just went out to view an iridium flare and saw another bright
> object (looked like another iridium flare), but I didn't see it
> listed on heavens-above once I came back in. (Could have been a
> regular satellite too of course).
>
> Made me wonder how complete the info on satellites is on the site.
> In the past I've always found what I was looking for.
>
> Esmail
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 03:47:04
From: Skywise
Subject: Re: how complete is heavens-above
|
Esmail <ebonak_delme@hotmail.com > wrote in news:46b52f28$0$29711
$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
> Hi all,
>
> I just went out to view an iridium flare and saw another bright
> object (looked like another iridium flare), but I didn't see it
> listed on heavens-above once I came back in. (Could have been a
> regular satellite too of course).
>
> Made me wonder how complete the info on satellites is on the site.
> In the past I've always found what I was looking for.
>
> Esmail
H-A only shows predictions for sats down to mag 4.5, mag 5 if
you edit the URL.
The satellite must also have a known absolute magnitude. Not
all sats do, most, but not all.
H-A is geared towards "I wonder what I might see if I look up
tonight" type questions rather than "What was that I saw last
night when I looked up".
If you want to ID an unknown observation, you need a proper
program and a comprehensive list of orbital elements.
There's an email list called SeeSat-L for serious satellite
observers. Archives are online and searchable. Read online
or subscribe and lurk and you'll learn about some great
software and other resources.
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
|
| |
Date: 05 Aug 2007 03:25:50
From: Curtis Croulet
Subject: Re: how complete is heavens-above
|
I often see bright satellites that are not listed in heavens-above.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W
|
| |
Date: 04 Aug 2007 22:16:43
From: Marty
Subject: Re: how complete is heavens-above
|
Good question, Esmail. A while back, I tried to identify what must have
been a rather dim satellite I saw drift through the FOV of my C8, but I
couldn't do it. The site seems to have a pretty good list of stuff up
there if you type in like say, stuff launched in a certain year. I'm
not sure though, if a person can identify a pass of something like 5th
mag or below if he doesn't know what it is in the first place.
I'll be watching for answers from people who know...
Marty
|
|
