Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ISS To Become Second Brightest-Object In the Sky

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the bright-future-of-the-iss dept.

Space 243

Matt_dk writes "Move over, Morning Star. Once Canadarm2 helps install the fourth and final set of solar array wings to the International Space Station later this month, the Station will surpass Venus as the brightest object in the night sky, second only to the Moon. The Space Shuttle Discovery is set to deliver the power-generating solar panels and Starboard 6 (S6) truss segment to the ISS on the 125th mission in the Shuttle program, known as STS-119/15A (slated for launch on March 11)."

cancel ×

243 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

2nd brightest? not quite. (4, Informative)

lecithin (745575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126047)

Yes, the ISS is bright and will be brighter.

This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.

Predictions of the ISS and Iridium flares are provided at http://www.heavens-above.com/ [heavens-above.com]

Then there have been comets and supernova that have been visible during daylight. Yea, I think the ISS is cool to observe, but don't call it 2nd brightest after the moon.

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (4, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126069)

Plus, you know, THE SUN. (I know the summary was more specific, but the title was not.)

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (4, Funny)

discord5 (798235) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126131)

THE SUN

Flaming ball of fusion, you have thwarted my plans for the last time! You will rue the day!!!

shakes fist angrily at sun

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126219)

Mr. Burns, is that you?

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (3, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126233)

"day" is based on the sun I believe. You may want to change your terminology when cursing the sun. ;)

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126499)

No, no, I think telling the sun to rue the day makes sense.

"You will rue the day, sun, for it will be the last."

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (4, Funny)

tcolberg (998885) | more than 5 years ago | (#27127199)

"Day" has long been symbolic of the Sun's oppression; discord5 is taking the word back.

Oblig (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126433)

What does sky objects have to do with a British tabloid newspaper?

Oblig attempt to one-up (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126521)

What does Skyy vodka have to do with newspapers, and why did you mess up the spelling?

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (1)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126691)

So, it's the 4th brightest thing in the sky. After the sun. And the moon. And then Venus.

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (1)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126819)

And, not to be a stickler, but aircraft. The lights from aircraft are probably brighter too.

That being said, I live in a pretty dense urban environment (read: lots of light pollution). When the new modifications are made, will I be able to see the ISS and identify it as such from the ground with the naked eye?

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (3, Insightful)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126907)

I would say yes because the visible ISS passes are at dawn or dusk. I live in a similarly dense environment and had no problem seeing ISS and the Shuttle the last time it was there (in fact I saw the two orbiting just after disconnection, the Shuttle slightly ahead of the ISS and that was a pretty impressive sight). Just look up which part of the sky the pass will be for you and move away from any local bright lights that might obscure the view.

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126951)

Do bright lights include the CRT glow in mother's basement? If so this might be a non-starter for most slashdotters.

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (1)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27127047)

I think that in this day and age, most slashdotters have saved up enough in allowance to buy LCD displays. I don't know if CRT or LCD glow makes a difference.

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (5, Funny)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#27127191)

From the summary:

as the brightest object in the night sky

From your comment:

Plus, you know, THE SUN.

Last I checked, and admittedly It's been almost 12 hours, the sun isn't visible in the sky at night...

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (4, Interesting)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126375)

Yes, the ISS is bright and will be brighter.

This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.

Then there have been comets and supernova that have been visible during daylight. Yea, I think the ISS is cool to observe, but don't call it 2nd brightest after the moon.

Okay, but those supernova are long gone so while they were on top back then, they aren't relevant today. You could also make an argument that the flare's apparent brightness only lasts a couple seconds while the ISS is bright for the majority of its traversal. Doesn't change that the flare really is much brighter when it occurs, but on the other hand on a normal night I'm perfectly comfortable saying that Venus is the 2nd brightest object in the sky.

Either way, this is a dramatic increase in the brightness of ISS. On a clear night far away from cities, ISS is easy to see, but also easy to lose in the sea of stars of similar brightness*. To be sure that you'll find it, you have to know roughly when and where it will appear, and then look for the star that moves. If it becomes brighter than Venus, you won't need a schedule or even a dark sky to be able to easily see when it passes over.

* Okay WP says that its max magnitude is equal to that of Venus, but I've never seen ISS under those conditions then. If the upgraded ISS will only be brighter than Venus at maximum, then maybe it's not that big a change as I'm thinking.

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (5, Insightful)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126487)

> This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.

Yes it does. It does already. You're comparing flare mags with standard mags. The ISS _does_ flare, and when it does it is much brighter than Iridium. Sadly, Mike Tyrrell's page is gone, but there was a collection of images there.

Maury

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (1)

UbuntuLinux (1242150) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126493)

Who cares, let me know when I can install Linux on my toilet seat.

Re:2nd brightest? not quite. (1)

Evil.Bonsai (1205202) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126989)

Re: iridium flares...are there some iridium satellites that don't flare? I've tried numerous times to view the flares but have yet to see one. I usually start several minutes prior and watch until several minutes after and haven't seen a one.

He's Headed to That Small Moon Over There (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126055)

Move over, Morning Star. Once Canadarm2 helps install the fourth and final set of solar array wings to the International Space Station later this month, the Station will surpass Venus as the brightest object in the night sky, second only to the Moon.

That's no moon. It's the International Space Station.

Second only to the Moon? (-1, Redundant)

The Creator (4611) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126083)

Is the sun so obvious that they don't even see it?

Re:Second only to the Moon? (3, Insightful)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126145)

the Station will surpass Venus as the brightest object in the night sky,

Is the sun so obvious that they don't even see it?

Ummm... Since when is the sun in the *night* sky??

Re:Second only to the Moon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126251)

Shame that the title doesn't have the word night in it.

Re:Second only to the Moon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126945)

Shame that the title doesn't have the word night in it.

In unrelated news, it has not only become uncommon among slashdotters to read TFA, but it is now common to skip TBS (The Bad Summary), too.

Re:Second only to the Moon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126383)

It is when viewed from Australia! You insensitive clod.

Re:Second only to the Moon? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126723)

"Earth rotation axis FAIL!"

Re:Second only to the Moon? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126879)

At night. Duh.

Re:Second only to the Moon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126917)

This can only be insightful to slashdotters.

Re:Second only to the Moon? (1)

Henriok (6762) | more than 5 years ago | (#27127137)

Living here in the cold north, the Sun never sets in the summers. It's still night, even if it's not dark.

Re:Second only to the Moon? (1, Redundant)

TheCabal (215908) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126155)

How often do you see the sun in the night sky?

Re:Second only to the Moon? (5, Funny)

argux (568146) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126207)

He lives in Alaska, you insensitive clod!

Re:Second only to the Moon? (1)

Hardhead_7 (987030) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126413)

The title is "ISS To Become Second Brightest Object In the Sky."

Re:Second only to the Moon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27127079)

Every day.

Moon? (0, Redundant)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126085)

You mean third. ISS, Moon, *Sun*. :)

Re:Moon? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126127)

That's what they WANT you to believe.

Re:Moon? (0, Redundant)

TheCabal (215908) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126171)

From the headline: " the Station will surpass Venus as the brightest object in the night sky"

Unless the Sun has taken to showing up at night.

Re:Moon? (1, Funny)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126197)

I was mocking the /. headline, not the article headline. :)

Re:Moon? (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126491)

But some times of the year Venus isn't visible at night and some (not necessarily the same) times of the month, the moon isn't visible at night. So there may well be nights when the ISS is the brightest thing up there.

The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (5, Funny)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126217)

It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)

Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.

Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!

Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126369)

Well this explains why they shot JFK.

But what I don't understand is why there are phases of the moon. Is that a bug in the programming?

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126657)

Well, they've *got* to change the bulbs *sometime*, and it's a big job!

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (1)

frosty_tsm (933163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126679)

The lights are so bright / working so hard they burn out frequently and need replacement?

And that longer-lasting, energy efficient bulbs are being passed out to the public for beta-testing to reduce moon outages?

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (1)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 5 years ago | (#27127109)

I don't think it's because they burn out. They're just cycled through to give the illusion of realism, and to prevent heat buildup. If the moon was on all the time, it would get very hot and the power bill would be very expensive.

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126565)

Are you nuts? Less than a minute googling 'history of the moon' will give you hundreds of references to it pre 1950.

And for the sake of argument, let's say all of those references were fabricated by historians. Then how do you explain the tides? Menstrual cycles? Even fish are more likely to bite on certain weeks, and it all has to do with lunar cycles. You don't really think that all of the above is recent to the past 60 years, do you?

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126631)

Either someone just got trolled, or I just got reverse-trolled.

It's getting harder and harder to tell these days.

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (5, Funny)

neko the frog (94213) | more than 5 years ago | (#27127229)

Are you nuts? Less than a minute googling 'history of the moon' will give you hundreds of references to it pre 1950.

uh the internet wasnt around in 1950 genius

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126721)

Are you nuts? How is this modded as interesting? There are literally thousands of historical references to the moon pre-1950. Luna and Kagua are both ancient moon goddesses. And when I say 'ancient', that does mean more than 60 years ago.

But lets say for the sake of argument that these historical references we have were fabricated by historians. Then how would you explain tidal flows, menstrual cycles, and even fish being more prone to biting a lure on certain weeks of the month? Do you really think these things have been happening for 60 years, and are caused by a giant man made weather balloon?

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126913)

Do you really think these things have been happening for 60 years, and are caused by a giant man made weather balloon?

Yes. That you would argue otherwise simply reveals your LIEBRAL nature.

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (1)

washort (6555) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126811)

Wait a minute, you're telling me that they have orbital gun-control satellites?

I suppose I've been planning for the wrong apocalypse entirely.

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126813)

Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950.

... "I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me."

-- Genesis 37:9b [biblegateway.com]

Re:The Moon: A Ridiculous Liberal Myth (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27127227)

That publication is from the 1970s [wikipedia.org] .

Oh, and:

God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
Gen 1:16

Re:Moon? (4, Funny)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126337)

Actually, in order to combat global warming, they intend to turn off the sun.

You missed one! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126089)

I guess the sun isn't very bright.

Gods Must Be Crazy? (3, Funny)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126097)

I keep thinking of the effects of a discarded Coke bottle on those non-technically savvy people in "The Gods Must Be Crazy"...
Perhaps they will select Three Wise Men to go on a pilgrimage toward the bright new star...

Re:Gods Must Be Crazy? (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126181)

While that was a great movie, I don't think we'll worry about people trekking toward it. Its generally only visible for a few minutes at a time. Its not geostationary.

Number of UFO sightings? (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126553)

Spiking in 3, 2, 1...

It doesn't matter for me (4, Insightful)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126103)

I live in a city so the light pollution messes up any chances I have at looking at a starry sky. I have as a child always found it incomprehensible that people said that you couldn't count all the stars because I can surely do it where I live.

Re:It doesn't matter for me (1, Informative)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126167)

you couldn't count all the stars

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.

Re:It doesn't matter for me (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126579)

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.

That's what "they" want you to think. Those "stars" were all manufactured in a Hollywood studio, next to the faked moon landings.

Re:It doesn't matter for me (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126683)

that looks like a very expensive production ...

Re:It doesn't matter for me (3, Insightful)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27127027)

Yet there still seem to be a finite number of them, and they are thus countable. Not even enough to have to determine if they are a countable or uncountable infinity.

Re:It doesn't matter for me (1)

polar red (215081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27127241)

the grains of sand on the beaches of earth are countable, in theory at least ...

Re:It doesn't matter for me (5, Interesting)

Nos. (179609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126269)

Even growing up in a small town I didn't really comprehend how many stars there were until we went camping. We were in Dinosaur Provincial Park and once it got dark it was amazing. With almost no nearby light pollution, you can clearly see an arm of the milky way overhead. Even without that arm, there are too many stars to count.

Re:It doesn't matter for me (1)

TheManInTheMoon (1495657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126463)

Since I'm the Man In The Moon, the Earth is the second brightest thing in the sky. P.S. What does night mean?

Re:It doesn't matter for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126791)

Since I'm the Man In The Moon, the Earth is the second brightest thing in the sky.

P.S. What does night mean?

Night is when you only see the earth and it is fully illuminated. Day is when you can see the sun. Each of these periods lasts roughly 14 rotations of the earth.

Re:It doesn't matter for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126571)

you couldn't count all the stars

I've always thought this was a ridiculous statement. There is a finite amount of visible sky, and only so much visual acuity allowed for the common human being. I don't find it unimaginable that a person could, theoretically, count all the stars "in the night sky".

You could argue that a human could not count fast enough before daylight arrived, or even before certain stars sank below the horizon. I would counter that, in that case, they are no longer counting the stars that were in the sky when the original statement was made.

Re:It doesn't matter for me (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126909)

I live in a city so the light pollution messes up any chances I have at looking at a starry sky.

I live in the suburbs. Fortunately for me, the light pollution isn't bad enough to make star gazing difficult. I've recently become interested in astronomy. Thanks to Stellarium, I can easily pick out Venus in the night's sky, and am working on other stars and planets.

However, I live in the flight path of a nearby airport. How can I tell the difference between ISS, and a passing plane?

Re:It doesn't matter for me (5, Funny)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126929)

"However, I live in the flight path of a nearby airport. How can I tell the difference between ISS, and a passing plane?"

If you fire a stinger at it and it hits, it's most certainly a plain. If it misses, it's probably the ISS.

Works for me.

Darkness (4, Interesting)

qoncept (599709) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126113)

My dad grew up in the middle-of-nowhere, Idaho, and says when he was kid they would watch Sputnik fly across the sky. The high elevation and lack of big city lights make the night sky amazing.

Re:Darkness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126353)

When I grew up in Denmark in the 70s and 80s, my family usually sat outside late in the evening and watched the night sky. Lots of times we could see satellites move over the sky.

Re:Darkness (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126385)

My dad grew up in the middle-of-nowhere, Idaho

I bet addressing and delivering mail to him was a pain in the butt.

Re:Darkness (1)

Waste55 (1003084) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126479)

Really you don't have to live in the middle of nowhere. I live in Houston and have seen ISS fly overs more than once with the naked eye (at night).

Simply, it is amazing to watch. I could see the solar panels, the lights blinking, and even what looked like to be a tiny shuttle docked!

Re:Darkness (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27127219)

Did you see me mooning you?

Reminds me of a song... (1)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126137)

"I saw two shooting stars last night,
I wished on them but they were only satellites.
Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?"
--Billy Brag "A New England"

Re:Reminds me of a song... (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126241)

Probably slightly less wrong than to wish on lumps of rock and ice

Re:Reminds me of a song... (5, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126701)

Star light, star bright,
First star I see tonight,
I wish I may, I wish I might,
Ah crap, it's a satellite.

bright enough to see in daylight? (2, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126161)

Some say Venus is visible during the day (tho' I've not seen it myself).

If the ISS does turn out to be brighter than Venus - which varies in brightness considerably, depending on where in it's orbit it is - relative to earth, then it will be interesting to see if it's visible during daytime passes, too.

Re:bright enough to see in daylight? (1)

richardellisjr (584919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126323)

I've seen Venus during the day, although it was later in the day just before the sun set.

Re:bright enough to see in daylight? (2, Informative)

berend botje (1401731) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126411)

Venus can be (and often is) visible during the day. The Moon also, and I'm sure you've seen that some time.

The only problem is that ISS isn't stationary, so you have to know where to look and at the right time as well!

Re:bright enough to see in daylight? (2, Interesting)

areusche (1297613) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126961)

You can track the ISS online with this nifty tool http://www.n2yo.com/ [n2yo.com]

Re:bright enough to see in daylight? (1)

RabidMoose (746680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126501)

Recently I've been seeing Venus (from suburban Denver) in the western sky nearly every night. If I know where to look, I can usually make it out in the early morning when the sun is still on the opposite side of the sky.

Re:bright enough to see in daylight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27127077)

Recently I've been seeing Venus (from suburban Denver) in the western sky nearly every night. If I know where to look, I can usually make it out in the early morning when the sun is still on the opposite side of the sky.

I'm interested in the drugs you regularly take. May I have some?

Seriously, the last time when Venus and the Sun were on opposite sides of the sky was when I was visiting Mercury.

From Earth--no chance, Moose, you'd get a maximum of approximately 50 degrees distance between Sun and Venus.

Re:bright enough to see in daylight? (1)

Dr La (1342733) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126795)

The problem with ISS daylight visibility is that the illumination angle will be very small - the side facing outward from earth, not to earth, is illuminated. It will reach maximum brightness only in the nighttime sky.

In fact, ISS already does rival Venus in brightness during a good pass currently, reaching -4. And I have seen it (and filmed it - see http://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2008/02/twice-iss-and-bag-of-other-objects.html [blogspot.com] ) descending to the eastern horizon with the sun only 4 degrees under the western horizon.

And yes, Venus is visible in daylight, if you know where to look.

Second Brightest After THIS Object: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126185)

U.S.A. [youtube.com]
started the economic collapse implosion.

Good luck in your Gulug.

Yours In Socialism,
K. Trout

Which country? (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126265)

Anyone know which country the Canadarm2 is from? /ducks

Re:Which country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126405)

Soviet Canuckistan

Re:Which country? (1)

flattop100 (624647) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126523)

Armenia? /ducks

Re:Which country? (1)

geekmansworld (950281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126547)

In the West, you make jokes about Canada.

In Soviet space, no one can hear you scream!

Re:Which country? (5, Funny)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126797)

I believe it was made in China.

Like most things in Canada.

Signed, a proud Canadian.

Re:Which country? (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27127063)

You mean like the small Canada flags that people buy on july 1st?

It'll become the brightest of all... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126395)

... when it springs another gas leak and blows up.

Uhh, what about the Sun? (0, Redundant)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126409)

I would think ISS would be 3rd, behind the moon and the Sun!

Re:Uhh, what about the Sun? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126623)

You can actually see the sun in the NIGHT sky? You must have pretty good eyes.

Re:Uhh, what about the Sun? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27127133)

It would be least visible if the ISS was behind the moon and the sun.

How ironic (5, Interesting)

zmooc (33175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126473)

Isn't it ironic that the parts of the ISS that are meant to absorb as much sunlight as they can, actually reflect enough of it to make the ISS the seconds brightest object in the sky:P

Re:How ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27126693)

Isn't it ironic that if the solar panels were black they'd melt? ---Wait that's not ironic.

Silly mortal. You have an ozone and other atmosphereic delights to protect you from my face melting rays.

Up here in space, us Gods like to melt little astro-men. It brings us pleasure... however Asbestos' invention has been quite the buzzkill.

Re:How ironic (3, Funny)

CopaceticOpus (965603) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126733)

Who would've thought, it figures...

Brighter than iridium flares? (1, Redundant)

Argilo (602972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126689)

Will it be brighter than iridium flares [wikipedia.org] , which can reach an apparent magnitude of -8.0?

See the ISS (1, Redundant)

foo1752 (555890) | more than 5 years ago | (#27126903)

Heavens Above [heavens-above.com] gives predictions for the location of the ISS at your location so that you know when and where to look for it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>