4 in Formation (from C2C site)

Just thought I'd post this up and get some sort of ATS consensus for this pic of the moon. Personally, I do not have a clue how this could happen.

And no, it's not dirt. READ the posters comments BEFORE you reply and think about what they said.

4 in formation...

MODs: if this has been posted before, you know what to do.

[edit on 19-2-2009 by Komodo]

reply to post by Komodo


Any reason to think they aren't birds? I mean, all they are is dots so they could be just about anything.

reply to post by Komodo


Could it be Cluster II, a formation of 4 ESA satellites near their apoapsis when they might appear close together from the point of view of a ground observer?
sci.esa.int...

I know the navy also used a formation of satellites for spying on subs back in the day.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Komodo

 

Any reason to think they aren't birds? I mean, all they are is dots so they could be just about anything.

well, what's odd is, with the moon at that magnification, shouldn't the dots be alot bigger if they were birds? Anything flying/moving across the lense would be mag'd as well...

reply to post by ngchunter


See my reply to Phage above. just seems that it would be logical.

2nd line

I think I'd have to go with Phage on this one (although a satellite formation may well be possible too as NGC says) - it could be birds.

Although, the exposure seems a bit long to freeze the motion, if it was birds. Perhaps a Satellite formation would be a better bet after all.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ec9b3b10e44.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 20-2-2009 by C.H.U.D.]

[edit on 20-2-2009 by C.H.U.D.]

Actually this is the first time i disagree with phage.
In his initial view he posts it may be birds.
Well i just do not think that birds would be that high to show as dots in this kind of magnification.
It is also a rare coincidence to have them flying at night at such a height-if possible at all.
I do not even dare think of the temperature the birds would have to be travelling through at this heigh. Atmospairic presure would also have been to low for them to make such a flight efficient as such heights.

On the other hand i would bite into the ESA formation from a specific perspective.

Phage do not take me wrong, to me you are one of the most respected members in ATS, and i recon there is also a chance you are being humorous.
On the other hand i may just be wrong...

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


Good point on the exposure time. But even with satellites an exposure of nearly a second should show some trails. Apparently there is a sequence but we only get the one image, the others might tell us more. If the sequence shows much movement and there is no blurring or trails, something is fishy.

Lets see those other pictures coming!

I should note that last summer i was havin a gaze at the moon through a 130mm telescope of a friend of mine.

A low orbit sattelite went in my line of sight between the telescope and the moon.
It travelled at a high pace and it took less than a second to cross the moon and was lost in the darkness again.
The apparent size of the sattelite was about 1.5 times the size of the moon.

I do not know if the above help but i certainly hope i get a decent telescope my self soon. ( so many things to do with limited budget....)



[edit on 20/2/2009 by GEORGETHEGREEK]

Originally posted by Phage
But even with satellites an exposure of nearly a second should show some trails.

I agree, satellites should normally cross the entire moon in .8 seconds. Good catch on the exposure. The only exception might be a satellite formation that goes to a very high orbit where the velocity is low at apogee, but even then I wouldn't expect perfectly round dots, more like small lines. My thought is that if this isn't something in orbit, maybe it's a few kids helium balloons tied together, like what you get at a theme park?

[edit on 20-2-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by ngchunter


Good point NGC.

With that 'slow' a shutter speed, pretty much anything moving in the sky is likely to blur/trail. This one is a mystery, and I don't think we can rule out a hoax, as Phage suggested earlier.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Phage
But even with satellites an exposure of nearly a second should show some trails.

I agree, satellites should normally cross the entire moon in .8 seconds. Good catch on the exposure. The only exception might be a satellite formation that goes to a very high orbit where the velocity is low at apogee, but even then I wouldn't expect perfectly round dots, more like small lines. My thought is that if this isn't something in orbit, maybe it's a few kids helium balloons tied together, like what you get at a theme park?

[edit on 20-2-2009 by ngchunter]

But wouldn't balloons be larger given the mag of the moon in the lense? Certainly, if the moon is that size, the balloons would be even larger....(?)

*still scratching head on this one*. ..

Thanks for all the replies and definitely appreciate the input of the detail. This photo seemed particularly odd, and thought I'd let ATS's best shread it apart a bit.. *grin*.... *that's a complement...not a slam*

I was hoping that the OP of the pic would have put up some other pics to contrast this one. Think I'm going to see if they posted an email; if I can get them to post up on ATS for this. we might be able to get them to do some more moon shots to compare to. At the very least, we might be able to enhance our resources with scopes like this one. (not that I'm a expert by far or even close to a novice, but more the merrier)

...and I would concur with having a limited budget! Truly, if I had $$$ I'd be all over in buying a scope! So frustrating in trying to capture something in the sky with a digital camera

Originally posted by Komodo
But wouldn't balloons be larger given the mag of the moon in the lense? Certainly, if the moon is that size, the balloons would be even larger....(?)

It depends how far away (high up) the balloons are. The further away something gets from you, the smaller it will appear. Is this not obvious? Balloons can attain great height, so they could easily appear as 'dots' in a photograph like this.

If you imagine a balloon 1 foot away from the scope, it would block the whole view. Move that same balloon so that it sits on the surface of the moon, and it would be too small to even see. Somewhere in between, and the balloons would appear to be small dots.

With that 'slow' a shutter speed, pretty much anything moving in the sky is likely to blur/trail.

Would a small dark object against a bright background show at all in a long exposure if it was moving at any appreciable speed? At least would it leave a trail?

Seems to me the bright background would fill back any streak during exposure.

It's not like a bright object against a dimmer/dark background.

Just wondering

Originally posted by Komodo
But wouldn't balloons be larger given the mag of the moon in the lense? Certainly, if the moon is that size, the balloons would be even larger....(?)

That's a variable determined by the distance of the balloons. Not only could they be high up, but if the moon was anywhere near the horizon, they could be very far away (almost indefinately, in fact).

Let's do some math. A typical helium balloon can get as high as 8-10km.
visindavefur.hi.is...
Let's assume the moon was about 45 degrees high in the sky. Simple trig shows that the balloons would be about 14.4 km away. If the telescope was at a magnification of 100x (that's probably being a little on the generous side if the whole moon was in the picture at once), it's about like taking a picture of a balloon at 1x from 144 meters away. Here's what a balloon looks like in a picture less than a football field away, let alone 1.5 football fields:
www.balloon.co.uk...
I think it being a "dot" in an image, even in a good telescope, is not out of the question.

[edit on 21-2-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by IAttackPeople

With that 'slow' a shutter speed, pretty much anything moving in the sky is likely to blur/trail.

Would a small dark object against a bright background show at all in a long exposure if it was moving at any appreciable speed? At least would it leave a trail?

Seems to me the bright background would fill back any streak during exposure.

It's not like a bright object against a dimmer/dark background.

Just wondering

good question and I'm still thinking about that, being that I have no knowledge of photography.. but suffice for now IMO, it might depending on the speed of the object in question.

If these are/were balloons and they were floating, I don't think there would be any streaks. From ngchunter's quote above, they very well could be balloons. However, I'm still thinking about the size they would have to be if the moon was at 45* angle from the horizon being they'd be about 9 miles away.

At 9 miles, if it moon was at 45*, they would be quite big in order to be able to see them in the scope, because the more mag you get with the scope in the view, it magnifies EVERYTHING in the view.

*I guess the only thing(s) remaining for me would be...what is the actual magnification of the scope?
*are these indeed Satellites?? This would make better sense.

Originally posted by IAttackPeople

Would a small dark object against a bright background show at all in a long exposure if it was moving at any appreciable speed? At least would it leave a trail?

Yes, it could, depending on the circumstances.

The dark object prevents photons from hitting the film/sensor, therefore the areas of the film/sensor that the object 'passed over' will not be as well exposed (as bright) as where the object did not pass over the film/sensor. This is assuming that the background is not severely over-exposed in the first place, in which case there might not be enough contrast to see the difference in tones that indicates a dark object was present/moving across the frame.

Originally posted by IAttackPeople
Seems to me the bright background would fill back any streak during exposure.

Only if the background was overexposed as I said above.

ran across this photo again and thought I'd give this another bump, I still believe this photo deserves a deeper investigation.

was hoping that someone out there would seriously take a look at this under photoshop to see if it was tampered with.

any ATS veterans out there care to give it another try ??