Are we trapped in a star atlas?!

[Rodd]

The other night I was imaging M45 and i noticed a very strange phenomenon.  At first I thought it was passing satellites, or planes.  But two subs in a. row contained the exact same artifact--which means that for at least 2 minutes, these lines were present.  That does not sound like satellites, planes, or anything else I am aware of.  It looks like grid lines in a cartesian coordinate system--like a star atlas RA and DEC lines.  After 2 subs it disappeared and did not return.  Does anyone have an idea what these could be?  Remember, these lines were in the sky for at least 2 minutes.

[andrew s]

My guess (and it is just a guess) would be satellite constellations.  Regards Andrew 

[carastro]

Short queue of Musk satellites both ways?
 

Rather coincidental though.  But isn’t the eventual plan to have then make a grid? 
 

Carole

[tomato]

I would also go with a satellite grid but interesting how they have followed precisely the same trajectory in such a short interval of time. 
 

A projected grid would be useful if plate solving or Goto mounts suddenly stopped working.☺️

[gorann]

My guess is that if you are into astrophotography long enough and take thousands of subs, a freak satellite event like this may eventually happen

[maw lod qan]

My question is how long were your images? And how many?

I took a single widefield image a couple years back that was at the most 10 seconds long and got a satellite like trail across the entire image.

Now to sound crazy, as the sky rotated in another image I got the same line, but it too had changed direction angle.

[Rodd]

1 hour ago, gorann said:

My guess is that if you are into astrophotography long enough and take thousands of subs, a freak satellite event like this may eventually happen

Awfully slow moving satellites to be over 2 minutes in the same spot. Once the satellite goes by, the line disappears. Doesn’t really make sense. How about lasers?

Edited December 24, 2022 by Rodd

[Rodd]

57 minutes ago, maw lod qan said:

My question is how long were your images? And how many?

I took a single widefield image a couple years back that was at the most 10 seconds long and got a satellite like trail across the entire image.

Now to sound crazy, as the sky rotated in another image I got the same line, but it too had changed direction angle.

My images were 1 minute long snd there were 2 back to back that looked identical. Satellites couldn’t appear on back to back subs in the precise same location.  I’m thinking lasers

[andrew s]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Awfully slow moving satellites to be over 2 minutes in the same spot. Once the satellite goes by, the line disappears. Doesn’t really make sense. How about lasers?

Not one but a whole train of satellites all in the same orbit one behind the other.

The aim is to have a near continuous grid for communication purposes. 

Regards Andrew 

Edited December 24, 2022 by andrew s

[Rodd]

12 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Not one but a whole train of satellites all in the same orbit one behind the other.

The aim is to have a near continuous grid for communication purposes. 

Regards Andrew 

So this grid pattern of 2 squares (until they fill out the grid) is revolving around Earth maintaining the shape?  or are they geocentric?  If that was the case, they wouldn't form lines  .

[Craney]

I'm afraid you are all wrong.......  it's the Tholian Web......

 

season3 episode 9......

[Rodd]

9 minutes ago, Craney said:

I'm afraid you are all wrong.......  it's the Tholian Web......

 

season3 episode 9......

Finally--someone starting to make sense!

[andrew s]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

So this grid pattern of 2 squares (until they fill out the grid) is revolving around Earth maintaining the shape?  or are they geocentric?  If that was the case, they wouldn't form lines  .

No they are not geocentric.  You can't have a grid crisscrossing the globe in geocentric orbits which are strictly limited. Regards Andrew 

[Ouroboros]

Not infrequently through binoculars I see two satellites trailing one another, obviously orbiting as a pair. Is this for binocular satellite imagery? 

If I understand the OP correctly, the lines don’t have to be in the sky for two minutes. All that was necessary was for first satellite to pass across the field of view towards the end of the first shot, and the following satellite to do the same on the next shot. It is, however, a bit more of a coincidence that this appears to have happened twice in two directions in consecutive subs ….. but, hey, take enough shots and you’re bound to see bizarre things occasionally. 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Ouroboros

[Rallemikken]

12 hours ago, Rodd said:

Does anyone have an idea what these could be?

That's the seven sisters. I guess it's Orion's crosshair.

[Rodd]

39 minutes ago, andrew s said:

No they are not geocentric.  You can't have a grid crisscrossing the globe in geocentric orbits which are strictly limited. Regards Andrew 

Why couldn't the grid lines be stationary over the same spot?

[Rodd]

13 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

Not infrequently through binoculars I see two satellites trailing one another, obviously orbiting as a pair. Is this for binocular satellite imagery? 

If I understand the OP correctly, the lines don’t have to be in the sky for two minutes. All that was necessary was for first satellite to pass across the field of view towards the end of the first shot, and the following satellite to do the same on the next shot. It is, however, a bit more of a coincidence that this appears to have happened twice in two directions in consecutive subs ….. but, hey, take enough shots and you’re bound to see bizarre things occasionally. 

I think 2 minutes is a long time to transverse my sensor  And it was longer than 2 minutes because the grids were 100% complete in both subs.

[Ouroboros]

40 minutes ago, Rodd said:

I think 2 minutes is a long time to transverse my sensor  And it was longer than 2 minutes because the grids were 100% complete in both subs.

I assume these two two-minute subs were taken one immediately following  the other.  So all you would need is two pairs of satellites, each pair travelling more or less at 90° to the other. The first satellite of each pair traversed the sensor maybe only seconds before the end of the first sub, whilst the second satellite of each pair went through during the first few seconds  of the second  sub.  Two minutes is not required, unless you have a long dwell time between subs.

But maybe I’m not understanding the problem. 

[andrew s]

1 hour ago, Rodd said:

Why couldn't the grid lines be stationary over the same spot?

No you need to understand the possible orbits. It's too complex to post simply so you will have to do your own research. 

Regards Andrew 

 

[Rodd]

2 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

I assume these two two-minute subs were taken one immediately following  the other.  So all you would need is two pairs of satellites, each pair travelling more or less at 90° to the other. The first satellite of each pair traversed the sensor maybe only seconds before the end of the first sub, whilst the second satellite of each pair went through during the first few seconds  of the second  sub.  Two minutes is not required, unless you have a long dwell time between subs.

But maybe I’m not understanding the problem. 

I have collected subs where a plane only reaches half way across. These lines are too distinct to have been made in the first 5 sec of the sub. They would dim as integration continued after the satellite passed.  The fact that they are identical in both subs means they must have been there for at least  60 seconds. And because the lines are consistent, I think longer. Up to 2 minutes.  It does not take a satellite 60 seconds to travel across my sensor 

[Ouroboros]

No it doesn’t. It just means they have had to have been bright enough as they crossed the field of view.

I’m not saying that satellites were the cause. I’m just describing how what you have captured could have been caused by two pairs of satellites travelling in tandem.  Failing that what? Two pairs of planes? I think satellites are more likely.

I’m afraid it’s getting to point that I see satellite trails in almost every sub.  Often more than one. And it’s only going to get worse. So the number of satellite events is now very high. So it’s only a matter of time before some odd coincidences will happen. 

[Rodd]

43 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

No it doesn’t. It just means they have had to have been bright enough as they crossed the field of view.

I’m not saying that satellites were the cause. I’m just describing how what you have captured could have been caused by two pairs of satellites travelling in tandem.  Failing that what? Two pairs of planes? I think satellites are more likely.

I’m afraid it’s getting to point that I see satellite trails in almost every sub.  Often more than one. And it’s only going to get worse. So the number of satellite events is now very high. So it’s only a matter of time before some odd coincidences will happen. 

Show me where 2 consecutive 60 sec subs have exactly the same pattern.  like this.

[Ouroboros]

On 24/12/2022 at 21:45, Rodd said:

Show me where 2 consecutive 60 sec subs have exactly the same pattern.  like this.

Well, I can’t. But that’s not the question. The way to think about this is to ask, given the observation, what might have caused it? I can only suggest the coincidence of two pairs of satellites travelling in tandem (a phenomenon I’ve seen several times in the eyepiece) with trajectories more or less at right angles to one another. I think this would explain what you photographed. I’m not saying that’s definitely the explanation.  

[Rodd]

8 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

Well, I can’t. But that’s not the question. The way to think about this is to ask, given the observation, what might have caused it? I can only suggest the coincidence of two pairs of satellites travelling in tandem (a phenomenon I’ve seen several times in the eyepiece) with trajectories more or less at right angles to one another. I think this would explain what you photographed. I’m not saying that’s definitely the explanation.  

Agreed.....but we should still be able to reason through the problem.  Satellites taking 2 min to traverse my FOV is not believable without assuming the satellites are moving slower than normal.  Even then, the satellites would not fully traverse both frames in 2 min.  The second sub would only have the pattern from its location where the first sub ended--not from side to side, as the sub started after the satellite had moved partially across the sensor.  The two subs I had showed identical patterns and the sub previous to the first and directly after the second had no pattern.  That is why I considered lasers, as they would be in place 100% of the time until turned off.  But I do not know if lasers would show up on the subs

[Astroscot2]

Can we see the identical subs? I only see 1 image.  Thanks