Satellite Photo: Is It Plausible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photo Satellite
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the plausibility of a photograph purportedly capturing a satellite as seen through a telescope. Participants explore various aspects of the image, including its authenticity, the conditions under which it was taken, and the characteristics of the object depicted. The conversation encompasses technical reasoning, skepticism, and comparisons with known satellite images.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the photograph's authenticity, questioning whether it is plausible to capture a satellite with a handheld camera through a telescope.
  • Others find the image interesting and suggest it could be a legitimate capture, contingent on verifying the time and location of the photo.
  • One participant performs rough calculations to estimate the size of the object based on its pixel dimensions relative to the Moon, suggesting it could be feasible for a satellite.
  • Another participant argues that the object resembles balloons rather than a satellite, citing size and motion characteristics as evidence.
  • Concerns are raised about the quality of the image, with some noting that it appears too clear for a photo taken through an eyepiece, suggesting possible cropping or manipulation.
  • Discussions include the exposure time of the photograph and its implications for motion blur, with varying opinions on whether motion would be discernible.
  • Some participants propose that the object could be debris or terrestrial in nature, rather than a satellite.
  • Comparisons are made to other images of satellites passing in front of the Moon, highlighting differences in appearance and context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of the object in the photograph. Multiple competing views remain, with some believing it could be a satellite and others asserting it is more likely to be balloons or debris.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on rough calculations and assumptions regarding distances and sizes, as well as the potential for image manipulation. The discussion also highlights the challenges of verifying the object's identity without additional data.

  • #31
I saw that. CCD - that just means digital camera, right? Or am I misunderstanding the term?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
A 'proper' CCD is different from a camera - it has no lens, or the usual camera controls, you use the 'prime focus' method - Focus the telescope directly onto the sensor (basically using the scope as a large telephoto lens) - it connects to a computer, and exposure, etc are controlled through the software
Entry-level models include the Celestron Neximage, or Meade DSI.

I understood that this was the sort of thing the OP used for his Moon pic (it does look very similar to the results I got using a webcam at prime focus (CMOS sensor) with the lens removed

It may just be that he misunderstood the difference though...
Some digital cams use a CMOS sensor, some (usually the better ones, like DSLRs) use a CCD
As a general rule of thumb, a camera that is capable of longer exposures (half a second, and longer) will have a CCD, as CCDs can handle longer exposures than a CMOS
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Would this then mean he is either mistaken in his terms or falsifying one of his stories?

cuz I'd like to ask him.

[EDIT] Already did.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Probably not falsifying the story, but ususally if it is a DSLR they say "DSLR" and not "CCD". Some atrocams actually use the same CCDs as higher end DSLR cameras and a DSLR without a lens produces excellent prime focus photos. You wouldn't hold the camera with your hand, though - it would have a T mount for that.
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
Probably not falsifying the story, but ususally if it is a DSLR they say "DSLR" and not "CCD". Some atrocams actually use the same CCDs as higher end DSLR cameras and a DSLR without a lens produces excellent prime focus photos. You wouldn't hold the camera with your hand, though - it would have a T mount for that.
But a CCD in astronomy is an actual accessory device on a telescope, which would definitely make it a different ball of worms from "holding up a camera to the lens".
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Is Shutting Down the Space Fence Putting Our Satellites at Risk?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Plotting My Air Flight Path from Photos
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
High School Is Saturn the Night Object in Photos?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
Looking for blueprints to the ISS solar panel array
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Tracking flight 370 : Can we use satellite images to find it?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
Intro Physics Feynman Lectures on Physics Photos posted online
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Superposition Diagram Reduction
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
Undergrad What would Kessler Syndrome really look like?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Sandy Hill Plunge: A Lifted Bronco's Free-Fall
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Undergrad Concentrated arcs in bubble chamber photos
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K