Very Unusual Satellite

[exo_doc]

I just spotted the slowest moving satellite I have ever seen in 30+ years of stargazing.
It came from the south and initially had a magnitude of around 1, which dropped to around 3 at zenith. Using the full moon as a reference (a full moon is approx half a degree) this sat took 20 to 25 seconds per degree of movement. That is incredibly slow for a sat.
That means it had an extremely high orbit, and for it to have been so bright it had to have been huge, something on the order of house size or bigger. It creeped into the NNE until it went behind some clouds.
I've checked Heavens-Above.com and none of the sats for this particular time they have listed fit the pattern of this sat. I know they don't list all sats, so I don't know what to think.
(Ignoring the obvious)...Could it have been a near miss asteroid?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I like your reasoning exo. You are spot in with taking rough rule of thumb measurements against the moon and with speed etc.

Regarding the height of orbit, I might be wrong but even if you had a big enough satellite reflecting light and it was very high up - does that not mean that the orbital speed has to be much higher to stay in orbit? So I think even a higher, faster orbit would appear on earth to be similar in speed passing an observer on the ground? (I am so rusty on anything like this so really I would need to go look)

But I agree, I can't see there being anything so large up there that would take so long to traverse the sky? It's seldom I am far enough away from local light pollution to see satellites much.

We do know that the ISS took many launches to ferry all the modules and stores up into orbit, it costs so much per kg etc
I think the ISS is the largest man-made orbiting satellite up there right now - of course that is talking about conventional rocket launches etc. If there is a secret space program utilising some kind of anti-grav then all bets are off!

Anyway, I mainly posted to say I like it when I hear of someone trying to reason something out and take what measurements they can. Some simple data collection can be all there is between a truth and a thorough debunking.

 

[Randall]

There's all kinds of stuff up there we have very little idea about. I've seen aircraft so high up that at first you think they're satellites moving really slow ( until you get some high powered binoculars on them ), and now they've got that mini-space shuttle that they can remote control. Back in about 1988 I saw a large bright object that seemed to be in orbit moving east to west. It was unusual because the only thing I've ever seen that is similar are space stations ( like MIR and ISS ) and they have different orbits. It was visible at certain times of the day for about a week and I've never seen it before or since. Below is a flyover of the ISS and the object I saw seemed at least 4 or 5 times that size and orbited about every 96 mins, each time lower on the southern horizon. One day ( while it was light out ) I watched it come around 4 times before it went below the horizon.

​

ISS​

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Am I correct in thinking you referred to some charts or software to be aware of where and when the ISS would go past? It's amazing it is so bright, even through some clouds but of course there are those huge solar panels that reflect lots of light.

What ever happened to the 'space mirror' idea? A huge concave orbiting mirror array could bring near-daylight to dark parts of the world. I'm sure it was actually on the drawing board of the Russians for a time?

 

[exo_doc]

Am I correct in thinking you referred to some charts or software to be aware of where and when the ISS would go past? It's amazing it is so bright, even through some clouds but of course there are those huge solar panels that reflect lots of light.

What ever happened to the 'space mirror' idea? A huge concave orbiting mirror array could bring near-daylight to dark parts of the world. I'm sure it was actually on the drawing board of the Russians for a time?

Yes. I checked with Heavens-Above.com a few minutes after the sighting. The ISS was no where near, if I remember correctly it showed the ISS to be over Australia at the time (5:30EST).
As I understand it all satellites are moving at the same speed to maintain orbit. Any slower and they fall out of orbit, any faster and they move out of orbit. Even geosynchronous sats (at 26500 +/- miles) are moving at the same speed as the ISS (which is roughly 300+/- miles high).
So the object I observed had to have been at least 3 times the height of the ISS. I did observe two other satellites while watching the primary object, and they were moving at "normal" speeds moving out of sight within a couple of minutes.
Could it have been some space mirror or other ? Or NEA asteroid? But I doubt that because NASA loves announcing those.
I love a good mystery.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

@exo_doc - can you possibly reveal your occupation, former or current? I ask cos I am interested in your thinking in that you say you've been stargazing for over 30 years. Do you have a scientific/engineering background? Just the way you are familiar with degrees in the sky etc it makes me think you must have a scientific side, if not it being your actual occupation! I don't mean to pry as we are all entitled to anonymity if need be. You can generalise if you wish. This is to satisfy my own curiosity cos I would put money on you being reasonably technical in your ability to analyse what you are looking at. It might seem natural to many of us here in this forum but not everyone interested in ufos/paranormal has any kind of mathematical/engineering ability!

 

[exo_doc]

I'm retired US Army, one of my many jobs was field satellite communications. I have two degrees I earned while in service...B.S. in Applied Physics with a minor in Astronomy, and a B.S. in Geology specializing in mapping. I currently work for the USGS.
I have always loved science, and I've always loved to learn anything.
I consider myself an amateur scientist, but for my own fun mostly. I have a weather station with a geiger counter connected to my computer, along with a geomagnetometer, a seismometer (second hand), and assorted telescopes, microscopes, binoculars, etc. But mostly I have loved astronomy since my first telescope I got back in 1976.
I'm outside any time it's a clear night.

 

[Polterwurst]

I guess, if it went in a straight line and didn't show any strange behaviour other than the seemingly slow movement, I'd count it as nothing anomalous. Geostationary satellites seem to stand still over a certain place while they actually are going just as fast as the earth revolves. So maybe that satellite, if it was one, was something similar, moving with the earth surface, just a little slower (actually, as you say it was headed NNE) which would look like slow movement from down here.

EDIT ...umm...or just a plane.

 

[stonehart]

Nice spotting exo-doc...

Could it be a near miss asteroid?

But would that not have been moving as fast if not faster than the satellites or it would have been pulled into earths atmosphere?

Just a question... but I guess if it were far enough out and viewed with the relative motion of the earth in mind it could look slower... but that would be one monster of a rock indeed in that case.

Anyway just some questions there.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I figured right Exo. I did applied physics too, but that was so long ago, I've forgotten so much. There are some things about physics you never forget but at the same time it's a field that has as many questions popping up as answers are discovered.

I really wonder if we even have half a clue as to the real structure of the universe and matter/energy. One of the reasons I like 'paranormal' topics is that the more we find out about the very small, the more I can imagine there are whole mechanisms of information and energy transfer that we are not even close to discovering. I mean that even things such as ghosts might have a perfectly rational explanation, they are still ghosts but they may one day be explained.

 

[exo_doc]

I figured right Exo. I did applied physics too, but that was so long ago, I've forgotten so much. There are some things about physics you never forget but at the same time it's a field that has as many questions popping up as answers are discovered.

I really wonder if we even have half a clue as to the real structure of the universe and matter/energy. One of the reasons I like 'paranormal' topics is that the more we find out about the very small, the more I can imagine there are whole mechanisms of information and energy transfer that we are not even close to discovering. I mean that even things such as ghosts might have a perfectly rational explanation, they are still ghosts but they may one day be explained.

One of the things I learned in college was just how ignorant we really are about even the fundamentals of how our universe works. I've been to a lot of places, and I've seen some weird and bizarre stuff I couldn't explain. This is why I roll my eyes everytime I hear someone say "Oh that's impossible!"
How can that statement be valid? We don't know even a fraction about physics, or chemistry or any other science other than the most obvious gross workings. We are cavemen using a stick to move a rock and thinking we have the power of the Gods.
Our science TODAY might tell us nothing can move faster than light, but what about 50 years? Or 100? Or even 1000?
We have so much to learn and discover. That is what keeps my mind open.

 

[exo_doc]

I guess, if it went in a straight line and didn't show any strange behaviour other than the seemingly slow movement, I'd count it as nothing anomalous. Geostationary satellites seem to stand still over a certain place while they actually are going just as fast as the earth revolves. So maybe that satellite, if it was one, was something similar, moving with the earth surface, just a little slower (actually, as you say it was headed NNE) which would look like slow movement from down here.

EDIT ...umm...or just a plane.

Orbital mechanics states that all orbiting objects have to move at the same speed. Too slow and it falls, too fast and it leaves earths orbit.
For an orbiting object to be moving as slow as I observed it would have had to have been at a very high orbit...at least 3 or 4 times higher then the ISS, probably more.
Which means the size of the object was realtively bigger than the ISS for it to have been so bright (Unless it was a solar sail with mirrored surfaces...then it would have been EXTREMELY brighter than it was....unless it was even further out in orbit than I was postulating.)

Airplanes behave differently in flight than satellites, they normaly do not glow with (what appeared to be) reflected sunlight like sats, and almost always have blinking lights. It could have been an airplane, but my reasoning and observation tells me it wasn't.

Stonehart and Goggs have mentioned a near earth asteroid possibility. I think it's also possible. But that means it was missed by all the observing scopes around the world because NASA wouldn't have missed alerting the media, and I don't see any news about it. Yet.

Ufology brought up maybe it was the ISS, but Heavens-Above .com listed it as near over Australia, and wasn't due to be visible at my location for at least 5 days.

SO I do not know what it was. Was it anomalous?.....eeehh maybe a minor anomaly. It was certainly ABnormal. Something very big orbiting at a very high altitude is at least intrigueing.

 

[Polterwurst]

Orbital mechanics states that all orbiting objects have to move at the same speed. Too slow and it falls, too fast and it leaves earths orbit.

Erm... I guess that should be, like, all objects of the same mass orbiting at the same height have to move at the sme speed...? I have no idea of "satellite physics", but I guess that, a telecommunications satellite for example orbits at a different height and has a different mass from, say, a surface monitoring satellite. So they would have to go at different speeds in order to just keep 'falling around the earth' instead of right into it...? So that a satellite higher up might be much bigger and maybe even slower than one in a considerably lower orbit, because gravity is tugging at it a little less? Or maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Weight has nothing to do with it. It's speed relative to height, cos all objects fall to earth at the same rate, regardless of size.

My point is that the higher a satellite is, the faster it needs to be going to maintain orbit, but the time for rotation round the Earth will be the same.

 

[exo_doc]

Weight has nothing to do with it. It's speed relative to height, cos all objects fall to earth at the same rate, regardless of size.

My point is that the higher a satellite is, the faster it needs to be going to maintain orbit, but the time for rotation round the Earth will be the same.

Close Goggs, but you've got it backwards. Sats move faster the closer they are to earth. The further away, the slower the necessary speed.
I mean think about it, the closer you are to earth, the stronger the gravitational pull is.

 

[Polterwurst]

Well, he said weight has nothing to do with it. Guess I'll google some more.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Draw a side on picture of the earth, a circle. Now draw something orbiting close to the earth, and something orbiting about 5 times the distance of the closer object.

Now draw the orbit of the two objects, you will now have 3 concentric circles. I think for orbits to work they must travel round the Earth at the same rate, i.e if they both start above Canaveral, but at different altitudes, they need both to come round again and be above Canaveral at the same time.
Now look at the path of the largest circle - the higher orbiting body - and measure it's circumference. It is much bigger than the lower orbit but they must orbit at the same rate. Does that not make the larger distance travelled in the same time the much faster? (speed = dist/time)

(this is all based on them needing to complete an orbit at same rate though)

 

[Goggs Mackay]

And this is not the same as a 'geo-synchronous' orbit, the height of which means the orbiting body is rotating at the same rate as the Earth, allowing it to stay above a fixed point on the surface.

 

[exo_doc]

Draw a side on picture of the earth, a circle. Now draw something orbiting close to the earth, and something orbiting about 5 times the distance of the closer object.

Now draw the orbit of the two objects, you will now have 3 concentric circles. I think for orbits to work they must travel round the Earth at the same rate, i.e if they both start above Canaveral, but at different altitudes, they need both to come round again and be above Canaveral at the same time.
Now look at the path of the largest circle - the higher orbiting body - and measure it's circumference. It is much bigger than the lower orbit but they must orbit at the same rate. Does that not make the larger distance travelled in the same time the much faster? (speed = dist/time)

(this is all based on them needing to complete an orbit at same rate though)

Think about Mercury. It takes just 88 days for one orbit. It takes Jupiter 12 years for one orbit. I understand the concetric circle thing, but orbital mechanics don't work that way.
The further away you are, the less gravitational effect earth has, the slower orbital speed you need to maintain.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I stand corrected.

Weird this, in my head I am thinking if the speed is X of something in low-earth orbit, then if you slow down does that mean you gain height?