Toolbag discovered by astronomer!!

We now have a new moon folks! Missing toolbag discovered

Its amazed me that we can spot and track an object so small from the ground. Well done to the guy concerened in finding this

Ya its amazing how things can be found from devices parked 300+ miles up in orbit and read postage stamps clearly and even see the crack of sheeple's arses as they bend over putting their heads into the sand.


Yet we cannot get clean, clear crisp images of things on the Moon or Mars.



Cheers!!!!

---

Mod Edit: Advertising removed. Please see Terms and Conditions of Use section 4) Advertising. Thank you - Jak


[edit on 26/11/08 by JAK]

Cool! Man, that thing is really whizzing, isn't it? That is to say, someone whizzed it down their leg.

YouTube Link

Considering how small the bag would be and at that distance, I find this guys story hard to believe. Without the proper resolution clearly showing the detail of the bag, it could be anything from garbage debris to a rock.

As an amateur astronomer I have to call shenanigans. There is no way he tracked something that small with a telescope. Heck try tracking a satilite with a backyard telescope. You can do it, but its tough. The video is a fake.

reply to post by zombiemann

---

I must respectfully disagree. I've tracked objects as small as 2 meters in diameter with ease by eye (in the telescope) in less-than-optimal passes and heavy light pollution. He knew the general orbit it would be in too; the space station's orbit is the starting point, just park the scope along the track it takes and wait for it to show up ahead of or behind the station. By timing the arrival you can get the corrected orbit for the toolbag. We can confirm his results by comparing the orbit of this object to known orbits of known objects and to the station's orbit. We can confirm that the video itself is real by verifying his finding, which I'll happily do as soon as my part of the country gets a pass opportunity (more than 10 days away at the moment).

I mean no disrespect NCG but how can you be sure the size of something that far away as being as small as 2 meters with nothing near it to compare it to? if the space station looks like a small bright dot it I would think that the tool bag (smaller than 2 meters) would not even be noticeable. Again I mean no disrespect to any one here, I just can't fathom something that small being seen.

The size was a known quantity, I was tracking an orbiting module known to be 2 meters in diameter. It was just a rapidly moving point light source, but the point was that I was able to see it by eye in the eyepiece quite easily, despite the small size.

My avatar is an image of the space station photographed with my telescope. In a telescope the station is about the same size as jupiter, maybe bigger now with the latest solar panels. Smaller or more distant satellites are often just points of light even in a telescope, but the main limiting factor to visibility is reflectivity, not size. As you can see in this photo, the toolbag reflects sunlight pretty well:
cache.daylife.com...

[edit on 27-11-2008 by ngchunter]

cool photo! Im also curious about the direction the bag went off in. I believe the guy that says he found the bag did it by following the orbit of the station. Now how can we be certain that the bag didn't float off in some other direction say...into a polar orbit or something?

That would require many magnitudes more delta-V than could even be imparted by an astronaut trying to throw the bag away in the right direction as hard as they can. Orbital plane changes require large amounts of additional energy (in the form of velocity = delta-V), comparable to the amount of energy used to get the bag to orbit in the first place. Even though things can float away from you in space, unless they're constantly accelerating away from you they will stay in roughly the same orbit you're in. Orbital drag will differentially affect the bag and the station to separate them farther and farther, but because the orbital plane couldn't have been changed much there is a small risk that one could eventually "lap" the other at a point where their orbits cross altitude, which would mean a collision. However, I suspect they did a routine re-boost of the station using the shuttle after the bag was lost, which would effectively eliminate any risk of a future collision.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by ngchunter]

I may be wrong but I find this hard to believe. I seem to remember a thread talking about why we would never be able to see the flag and landing site on the moon to help prove the US have been there. If I remember correctly it was because it was too small and our technology is not meant to find objects that small.......yet we can find a toolbag lost in space?!

Maybe I'm missing something.

well the moon is a quarter of a million miles away and the tool bag is a few hundred miles away. So distance plays a factor.

It is amazing that something that small can bee seen from the ground. It also amazes me that it costs as much as my house. Where did they get it?
A boutique on Rodeo Drive?

reply to post by ngchunter

---

Starred, good post

I always thought though that as something like a toolbag was travelling at the same rate and same orbit as the shuttle, then it wouldnt just float off anywhere????

Surely it would have to be pushed or thrown to drift off like that
As its subjected to the same forces as the astronaut and its in a vacuum, whats acting on it to make it move away and effectively change orbit?

reply to post by ngchunter

---

Great photo, how expensive is your telescope?

This may be a little off topic, but have you ever spotted something out of the ordinary?




[edit on 28-11-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Well that's just it, the orbit hasn't really changed hardly at all. All it takes is a harmless little bump from an elbow or whatever and it'll float out of reach. The shape of its orbit is only altered by accelerations though, not by the constant velocity of it floating away - the initial bump is a tiny acceleration that just tweaks the orbits shape almost imperceptibly so that it floats out of reach - the velocity it has as it floats away is a consequence of the newly tweaked orbit separate from the space station, but since the orbits still intersect there is a risk of future collision unless something further accelerates one of the objects. Orbital drag will differentially affect them though; because the station is much more massive it has much more inertia to resist orbital drag, but because its got huge solar panels it also experiences more drag, so I'm not sure which would burn up first if left alone and not re-boosted. ISS is re-boosted routinely though, including during each shuttle mission.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by ngchunter]

Thanks! It used to go for $3000 retail, but I got it on sale as the model was being phased out, for a lot less than that. I once spotted something I didn't expect; a point of light trailing the space station in the viewfinder as I was tracking it. Turned out to be a discarded progress module full of trash. Nice to know that I could see something near the station in orbit if ever there was something out of the ordinary.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter

---

Cheers, another good post

Im not sure about orbital drag though? Is that due to the weight and size of an object being affected by gravity of earth rather than drag that you would experience in an atmosphere? if so, shouldnt it be called gravity drag!

Well surely if they can track this they should be able to provide photos of the moon landings ie what was left behind.
I'll be waiting but won't hold my breath.