Did I get the ISS?

RAJAH235 · #1 08-08-2005, 03:16 AM

Hiya all, I posted this a bit earlier in reply to hOughy's post. I can only say that, to me, it looks like the ISS. Of the 5 or 6 shots that I managed to get on the 25th, this was the only one that showed a clear object. The others all had an image that resembled the ISS, ie; it had a vertical orientation & was in the right place,(SW to NE), at the right time,(6.09am), but the sun's angle caused *bright reflections, (mag 0 to -3?), off both ends of the object*. I could not make out any real detail in them.
I'll bet that everyone is saying, C**P, B******T, etc. etc. but this is what I shot with my little hand held A75.
Comments & explanations from the experts as to why/why not, are most welcome please.

Thanks,

L.
ps. Poss. UFO or HST?
pps. Checked on H-Above & HST was not in the area until 18.38 on the 27th.

MiG · #2 08-08-2005, 04:30 AM

That photo is way too small, but it does look like you might have resolved an object. Considering that the ISS is the biggest fast moving object in the sky, it seems like you might have caught it.
This is through a telescope right? If it's just the cameras lens then there is no way you have resolved the ISS because it is at least 350 km away.

RAJAH235 · #3 09-08-2005, 04:06 AM

Thanks for the reply Mig. Have inverted & enlarged the image a smidge, to try to clean it up a bit. I can only re-iterate, that this was what my hand held, 3 X optical zoom, (no t'scope), camera caught, ie; right place, right time. I watched it for 5 mins.

L.

MiG · #4 09-08-2005, 05:11 AM

Your camera when fully zoomed in has a FOV of 18.7 x 14.0 degrees which is recorded by 2048x1536 pixels. So assuming an ideal lens, each pixel covers 32.9 arcseconds.

Lets say the ISS was directly overhead, so its distance was 355 km. Its largest dimension is 73 m. So its angular size is 43.0 arc seconds.
Therefore, with ISS directly overhead, ideal lens and ideal atmosphere, the largest dimension of the ISS is 1.3 pixels in size.
The object in your image seems to be a few times larger than this. I can only suggest that this size may be some sort of artifact?

RAJAH235 · #5 09-08-2005, 09:44 PM

Thanks Mig. Have sent PM.

L.