It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Soyuz launch today -- three objects swoop past on way to space

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ratskywatsky
but I'm partially colour blind


Exactly my point. We all perceive color differently.


Originally posted by ratskywatsky
Those "globe" pictures you posted on top are the star Sirius taken slightly out of focus, and the photographer says he used a 200mm lens to take them, and yes, they do resemble the "globe" in the Soyuz vid - BUT they must have been enlarged tremendously to make them appear so big, and in the slightly out of focus Soyuz video the mystery globe appears to be about 60% the size of the rocket.


No, they are not enlarged much. I think you are missing the point here... no pun intended...

If you take a point source of light like a star, and look at it through a lens, when the lens is correctly focused the star will more or less look like a point. Now if you start to gradually defocus the lens, the light is spread out over a wider and wider area. The more you defocus, the larger the "globe" will be. That's not strictly speaking "enlarging" anything, it's just what happens when you change the focus on a lens.

Try it for yourself with your binoculars. You don't even need a star, any distant light will do.



Originally posted by ratskywatsky
Maybe the rocket was so far away at that point that it only appeared as a point of light to the naked eye, but if you looked at it through a telephoto lens could the star appear that large in comparison? When i look at the night sky with 12X binoculars (or a NV scope) the stars still remain only points of light.


Yes it/they could. Try doing what I described above.



Originally posted by ratskywatsky
So then are you convinced that both the dots and the globe are nothing but stars?


Absolutely 100%.

The sky is clear. We know this since we can clearly see the rocket. So stars would be visible

Lets suppose for a second that they were not stars. They are still relatively faint compared to the rocket in brightness, and whatever they are the camera has picked them up. So if it can pick "them" up, why couldn't it pick up bright stars?

They ("globes" included) also "move" up the frame just as you would expect, if the camera was panning down to follow the later stages of the launch.

I've put together a little diagram to try and illustrate what is going on.



I've marked the trajectory of the rocket in red. "A" is the launch site, and "B" is about the point in the rockets launch where the rocket will appear to be traveling downwards and towards the horizon from the perspective of an observer watching the rocket from the launch site.


edit on 28-12-2011 by C.H.U.D. because: fixed typo




posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by C.H.U.D.

I've put together a little diagram to try and illustrate what is going on.



Phage has posted a very useful version of this here:
files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:10 PM
link   
"I''ve marked the trajectory of the rocket in red. "A" is the launch site, and "B" is about the point in the rockets launch where the rocket will appear to be traveling downwards "

Yes, I understand that.


" Originally posted by ratskywatsky
So then are you convinced that both the dots and the globe are nothing but stars?



Absolutely 100%. "




Okeydokey then, CHUD. I defer to your expertise. Good posts.
edit on 28-12-2011 by ratskywatsky because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2011 by ratskywatsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Looked at the starry sky with binoculars last night, and sure enough, stars out of focus look like darker colored globes. (And the moon looked so gorgeous and three dimensional!) Anyway, CHUD called it - and the pompous blowhards over here

www.bautforum.com...

going on about "lens flares" or whatever else pops into their heads, and banning people who ask questions, are, as always, full of beans.




Ong



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ratskywatsky
 


Thanks for the acknowledgement and for posting your findings ratskywatsky.

I wish more people on ATS were like you - willing to take a look at something from another angle. ATS would be a much less confused place.

Without wanting to sound condescending/patronizing, Keep looking up, and keep learning, but also keep in mind what we see can be misleading.

Anyway, credit should go to Jim for starting this thread to point out how misleading this subject can be


A shame to hear that bad astronomy is being a bit mean. There were some very knowledgeable people over there, but I haven't visited for a while.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I always try to give credit where it's due, CHUD, and like I always say, if I'm wrong about anything I'll be the first to admit it. I'm just kinda interesting in finding out the truth about everything, that's all.


Ratskywatsky (that name comes from one of my very favorite movies) aka Ong aka WW



new topics

top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join