## Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

simonshack » November 6th, 2017, 4:50 am wrote:Let's do a little thought experiment: Imagine yourself spotting a 747 flying overhead your garden one sunny afternoon - at about standard cruising altitude (ca. 10 km), moving from West to East (the plane, as it proceeds Eastwards, is therefore well lit by the sun from behind). As it moves away from you, the plane obviously becomes smaller and smaller. The cruise speed of a Boeing 747 is about 900 km/h. Now, imagine if (by magic) this 747 were capable of ascending to about 400 km of altitude. Well, let's say that (after having passed overhead of you in your garden) it starts slowly ascending and, 1440 km later, it finally reaches 400 km of altitude.

Now, since the plane would employ about 1.6 hours (1440km / 900 km/h = 1.6) to cover those 1440 km, you would have to patiently stand in your garden for 1.6 hours, watching your 747 fading away in the distance - while slowly ascending to 400 km of altitude. (So make sure you have adequate supplies of soda and popcorn at hand ... 1.6 hours [i.e. 1h and 36 minutes] is a pretty long wait!)

The question is : do you truly / honestly think that, even given the most ideal of visibility conditions imaginable (i.e. super-clear sky / sun shining directly on the ascending shape of the large 747 wings), the plane would still be visible to your naked eyes, 1.6 hours after it passed over your garden?

The important element left out of that scenario is a dark sky which is not glowing bright blue.

You wont see it in the daytime.

If the sky were clear and dark and the bottom of the plane was in bright sunlight, yes I think it would be visible. You wouldn't be able to tell it was a plane without some good magnification, but with the naked eye you would see a slowly moving point of light.
NotRappaport
Member

Posts: 124
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

NotRappaport » November 6th, 2017, 9:11 am wrote:the picture could turn out completely underexposed and not show anything but black

Have you tried taking a picture of a bright star to get your exposure settings close?
Do you think that auto-bracketing might be an option, does it add shake or take too long?
One good still is better than a fuzzy moving dot. Try saving, then editing, RAW data.
Also, a cable release would be a good investment for your endeavor (under \$20 on amazon).

Good luck :)
Nick Java
Member

Posts: 15
Joined: March 14th, 2012, 2:18 am

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

hoi.polloi » November 6th, 2017, 10:45 am wrote:As it stands, this level of resolution looks like the kind on grainy things I was developing in college photography courses. I don't think I was using zoom lenses like yours. I sincerely hope it will produce enough detail! Do you think there may be more ideal equipment one could borrow or rent for this kind of project? Maybe you can get up to Mount Shasta or somewhere for a clearer view?

The seeing was actually pretty good, its my setup that needs improvement. Without the camera attached the view is crisp and clear (and the moon is almost blindingly bright).

One problem is (I think) the weight of the camera attached where the scope usually only holds a small eyepiece. This might be weighing it down too much and causing a minor misalignment. My initial tests with the 26mm eyepiece (23x magnification) were truly terrible - part of the moon in sharp focus, and the rest distorted and blurry. It might be possible to fix this by more carefully attaching the pieces or tightening some screws. If the skies are clear I'll try again tonight.

Focusing can only be done with the scope's rack-and-pinion focuser (no autofucos) and my only view of how well it is focused is looking either through the camera viewfinder (bad because this is the view directly through the lens without any ISO exposure settings applied) or else on the tiny LCD screen on the back of the camera (better, because it shows image as it appears with current settings and can be zoomed in up to 10x). I'm currently using the highest ISO my camera offers (6400), and higher ISO produces increased image noise/graininess. I am unsure if the softness of the picture is due to focal issues or the high ISO level - probably a combination of the two.

The light collecting ability of the scope is limited due to it's aperture (102mm or about 4 inches). A larger aperture would get more light and allow faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO.

Suggested improvements would be:
1. telescope with a larger aperture than 102mm for better light gathering and
2. a telescope webcam that doesn't weigh much more than an eyepiece (my DSLR weighs about 1.5 lbs [~0.7 kg])

I'll keep experimenting to see what improvements I can make with what I have.
NotRappaport
Member

Posts: 124
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Nick Java » November 6th, 2017, 11:31 am wrote:
NotRappaport » November 6th, 2017, 9:11 am wrote:the picture could turn out completely underexposed and not show anything but black

Have you tried taking a picture of a bright star to get your exposure settings close?

Stars won't show up at all in these light levels. Sirius, the brightest star, has a magnitude of -1 and the "ISS" flyover I'm waiting for will be magnitude -3.9 (on the stellar magnitude scale this is much brighter). There's really nothing of comparable brightness up there to help me gauge the exposure. I'll just have to wait and see if the settings I have work.

Nick Java » November 6th, 2017, 11:31 am wrote:Do you think that auto-bracketing might be an option, does it add shake or take too long?

The camera will have a field of view of about 0.25 degrees and by my calculations the "ISS" will be in the frame for around 1/4 second (I'm going to try to catch when it's almost directly overhead so it will be closer and larger). Video seems to be the only feasible way to get it within such a narrow window of time. The video resolution is 1920x1080, which, if the exposure works to get any image at all, should be enough to see at least some sort of definite shape.

Thank you! I'm going to need it!
NotRappaport
Member

Posts: 124
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Nonrappaport,

As much as I am eager to see your photograph of this object, were to you to somehow fail to make good on that 1/4th of a second window to take a picture, please do not neglect to observe the object through some kind of telescope or binoculars so that you may give us testimony as to what it looks like.
The_White_Lodge
Member

Posts: 65
Joined: October 31st, 2017, 3:01 am

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

The_White_Lodge » November 6th, 2017, 1:53 pm wrote:Nonrappaport,

As much as I am eager to see your photograph of this object, were to you to somehow fail to make good on that 1/4th of a second window to take a picture, please do not neglect to observe the object through some kind of telescope or binoculars so that you may give us testimony as to what it looks like.

Oh I will indeed!

In fact I plan to immediately try to do this after it flies past the "sweet spot" I'm photographing. I don't have a separate scope or binoculars, but removing the camera and attaching the 26mm eyepiece shouldn't take more than a few seconds, and from there I will try to get it in view again to observe directly.
NotRappaport
Member

Posts: 124
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

NotRappaport » November 5th, 2017, 10:11 pm wrote:
Altair » November 5th, 2017, 11:15 am wrote:But the distance when setting over the horizon is 2.300 kms. And it should be still visible! So, can anyone one imagine spotting a 747 from 2.300 kms. away? Ok, let's concede that it could be a highly reflective object and it would be easier to see against the dark firmament, but still looks pretty incredible.

You generally won't see anything, except the sun and maybe the moon, right on the horizon due to atmospheric extinction. That's why heavens Above (and other sites) give 10 degrees above the horizon as the point at which it is considered observable. This is around 1440 km away and the math for the 76 meter long 747 plane is the same and works out to 10.9 arcseconds angular diameter. - this is roughly the current size of Venus. Even if you do the math for 2800 km away it still comes to 5.6 arcseconds, which is larger than Mars' current angular diameter.

The reason you don't see 747's from that far away is because their cruising altitude puts them less than 10 degrees above the horizon once they're ~50 km away.

OK, let's suppose that we have the ISS in such a situation where it's angular diameter, and hence, its apparent size, is the same as Venus. But (if it's how we've been told), it should be *way* dimmer than the later. Moreover, due to it's irregular shape, changing position respect the observer, reflectancy of solar panels (as commented above), its brightness should vary wildly from one pass to another, and even within the same pass.

Last edited by Altair on November 6th, 2017, 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Altair
Member

Posts: 44
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 3:05 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

In addition to what Altair has said, I find it hard to understanding why the brightness would be the same along the same longitude. Shouldn't it be brightest on a particular latitude and then gradually decline in brightness for observers respectively north and south?

This question applies to iridium flares as well.

Also, I would like to state that the other week I observed two of these floaters traveling in opposite directions along the southern horizon, each which flared multiple times in their own sort of oscillating rhythm. I do not think it's even possible that such a thing could happen if the supposed source of that light was the objects reflecting the Sun.
The_White_Lodge
Member

Posts: 65
Joined: October 31st, 2017, 3:01 am

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

I agree about the importance of observations of various objects in the sky.

However, please let us focus on the alleged ISS or this topic could become a hotbed for the U-acronym discussions and we are doing very well to avoid that can of worms so far.

Anyway, I think it's safe to say there is an air of "excitement" around CF as we eagerly look forward to direct observations made by someone who is not "compromised" or suspect. NotRappaport, I expect you will have difficulties, as people have predicted, but let us hope you get good proof of whatever that light really is and avoid speculations until we see the evidence. Thank you for your honest efforts in seeking the truth.
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4977
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Hoi Polloi,

I appreciate your moderation. One reason I mentioned this is because one of the floaters I mentioned was about as bright as Venus and so for all I know it was same object that is claimed to be the ISS.

My question about the equal brightness along the whole longitude remains unanswered and in addition to that question so that we may return to focus on the ISS I am also equally perplexed why this object varies in brightness from around -1.1 to -3.8 which means the its brightest moments are 15 times brighter than it's dimmest moments if my calculations are correct. Certainly, that can't be due to this minor altitude changes if this narrative is to be logically consistent. What then is the cause?
The_White_Lodge
Member

Posts: 65
Joined: October 31st, 2017, 3:01 am

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

The_White_Lodge » November 6th, 2017, 11:16 pm wrote:My question about the equal brightness along the whole longitude remains unanswered and in addition to that question so that we may return to focus on the ISS I am also equally perplexed why this object varies in brightness from around -1.1 to -3.8 which means the its brightest moments are 15 times brighter than it's dimmest moments if my calculations are correct. Certainly, that can't be due to this minor altitude changes if this narrative is to be logically consistent. What then is the cause?

Very interesting line of inquiry, The_White_Lodge. What if an ISS object that is theoretically in space, in fact, can change lumens at such drastic levels, though? We are talking "night and day" very literally when an object is in or out of Earth's umbra.

So can we articulate our complaint about the brightness any better? Is there a reason 15 times brighter may be too much of a change?
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4977
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Hoi Polloi,

I did not have specify my question question well enough. Of course within any given path if the ISS were to go from directly in the sun to the umbra of the Earth such a decrease in brightness, in fact an even greater decrease in brightness would be expected.

I was referring to the fact that ISS can have a differential in brightness two different days appearing in the same part of the sky at about the same time. However, taking a closer look at the chart I see that there is a direct correlation between the "highest point" and the brightness, and this does seem consistent when viewing the same sighting at different points along the same longitude so the answer would be that the ISS appears dimmer when it is farther away from the observer and closer to the their horizon.

I would have to admit then that it does seem to be the case that this object whatever it is, is reflecting sunlight.
The_White_Lodge
Member

Posts: 65
Joined: October 31st, 2017, 3:01 am

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

The_White_Lodge » November 6th, 2017, 11:46 pm wrote:I would have to admit then that it does seem to be the case that this object whatever it is, is reflecting sunlight.

An object would behave like this at many different heights, no?

Plus, there could be some element of simulation or trickery, perhaps. After all, we may have recorded numbers that we are told explain that the shuttle magically rises 300 km after its fuel is expended. We are never given an actual explanation.
hoi.polloi

Posts: 4977
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

Hoi Polloi,

Are you suggesting the object is at a higher altitude than we are told? That would be easily verifiable by some simple math assuming that the records on heavens-above.com are correct.

I don't understand the point about the shuttle. Can you explain that more clearly?
The_White_Lodge
Member

Posts: 65
Joined: October 31st, 2017, 3:01 am

### Re: Fakery in Orbit: THE I\$\$

The_White_Lodge » November 6th, 2017, 4:46 pm wrote:taking a closer look at the chart I see that there is a direct correlation between the "highest point" and the brightness, and this does seem consistent when viewing the same sighting at different points along the same longitude so the answer would be that the ISS appears dimmer when it is farther away from the observer and closer to the their horizon.

The dominant factor is distance, as brightness decreases according to the inverse-square law. Something at 400 km will be about 13 times brighter than it is at 1440 km.

Also the reflected/transmitted sunlight would tend to be somewhat greater in some directions than others, so observing angle (direction and altitude) with respect to "ISS" orientation and sun position would be a factor as well.
NotRappaport
Member

Posts: 124
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

PreviousNext