Flashbulb

[Creamy Pasta]

If they said they'd heard about tumbling satellites, and wanted to see one of those too, what would you say?

Here's a video of a LEO tumbling satellite. Remember, the cameras we use to look for these satellites are very sensitive. To the eye they often appear to disappear completely, but the videos show them dimming and brightening.

 

[Creamy Pasta]

We're heading out again this Wednesday if the weather holds. Planning to make better notes in regard to time, and sky location if we make any more observations. Let me know if there are any other records you think we should make note of.

What is required is an accurate time and date, the best possible position in the sky (or the closest star and roughly how far away from it), and the location you are observing from.

Some people don't like to give their position accurately, but the more accurate it is, the better the analysis.

 

[Creamy Pasta]

And one final video to get you in the mood from Kevin Fetter. I previously showed a still 12-second exposure photo I took of Iridium 3. This video is Iridium 60

 

[JMartJr]

I've been thinking about why I'm not getting an answer to the probability question I keep asking - this may be salience bias - but I'm wondering if it's because this is all tied up with woo.

If it were reframed, and your child/friend/neighbour said they'd heard of satellite flares, wanted to see one, and asked if they would be able to if they went out and looked at the sky that night (low light-pollution area), how would you respond to them?

If they said they'd heard about tumbling satellites, and wanted to see one of those too, what would you say?

I can't give much of an answer, I lack the knowledge. But given that you were out to have a CE5 moment, would a tumbling or flaring satellite be necessary? Wouldn't any of many sorts of lights in the sky have been enough for the experience?

If my brother said "I want to see a tumbling satellite, how likely is it if I go out side tonight?" I'd have to say, "No real idea other than they seem unusual enough that I am not sure I've ever seen one, and I spend some time looking at the sky."

But if he said "I want to see something I can't identify in the sky tonight, what are my chances?," I'd say "Probably pretty good, there are many things in the sky from birds to bugs to planes to satellites to drones to balloons and on and on... and possibly including aliens spaceships, time travelers and inter-dimensional whatsises if those exist, all of which might on a given night be seen under conditions where it is not immediately obvious what you are seeing. Clapping your eyes on at least one of them and not being able to identify it is probably fairly likely, especially if you are intentionally looking for something that you can't identify."

In other words, I'd bet pretty heavily on seeing SOMETHING that qualifies as a UFO under the strict definition (flying, not identified), a tumbling satellite would be one possibility, another night it might be something else. In your case, the one you saw may have been a tumbling satellite (in which case the odds for you seeing one while looking at that place at that time were very high, since there was one there!), but it needn't have been that particular class of object for you to have seen something worth discussing here. What you saw is a good match for a satellite rolling about, or it could something completely unknown and inexplicable (aliens, etc.) that looks a bit like such a satellite. Given that we know tumbling satellites exist, I'd put my money on that even if seeing one on a given night would be fairly rare. Does that make sense? (I know I have a tendency to run on and on, if that makes sense I'll stop there! ^_^)

And ... not trying to tell you what to think, just what I would think! Use or discard as suits you.

 

[Creamy Pasta]

I'd bet pretty heavily on seeing SOMETHING that qualifies as a UFO under the strict definition

Generally, I'd agree with this if you look long enough.

But there's one piece of technology that undoes UFO sightings: a pair of binoculars. Even the "physics breaking impossible flight characteristics" sighting I had over the Firth of Forth was undone and revealed to be mundane in a split second with binoculars.

And when it's not in our atmosphere and in orbit, knowledge of how the various types of satellites behave wipes out all the rest. In 30+ years, I've yet to see anything that would set UFOTwitter on fire.

But binoculars I highly recommend; 10x50 are fine and what I use.

Happy hunting everyone

 

[FatPhil]

But there's one piece of technology that undoes UFO sightings: a pair of binoculars. Even the "physics breaking impossible flight characteristics" sighting I had over the Firth of Forth was undone and revealed to be mundane in a split second with binoculars.

Good, because what you've described is physically impossible - it would have violated the laws of physics. At no point did what you saw change from having physically-impossible flight characteristics to being mundane because one single viewer whom the object wasn't even aware of changed their method of observation. When you put down the binoculars, or had you reversed the order of the viewing mechanisms' use, would you have described what you then saw unaided as "mundane" or "physics-breaking impossible flight characteristics", knowing that you'd previously evaluated it to be mundane with the optical aids?

 

[davo27]

I can't shed light on the 30-minute timeframe you mention.

Why not? Is it really beyond reason to figure out an average number of flashes that should be visible at any given place/time? I know Starlink has been a pain for astronomers; for example, could a survey be done using this light pollution phenomenon? Scan x number of astronomical photographs, and work out how many are needed to be inspected before finding y number of visual pollutants?

While I didn't really have any expectation of seeing anything when we went out, what had been expressed prior was that someone in the group was familiar with very regularly seeing this phenomenon. If someone described a flash like this to me, I'd think it interesting, but leave it there with no conclusion. What is nudging me into 'this seems weird' territory, are the probabilities involved (plus probably being a bit down down the rabbit hole):

- flashes in the sky seem to be very rare,
- seeing multiple flashes in the sky seems to be more rare,
- seeing flashes in the sky in the same place 30 minutes apart, then 1 minute apart seems to be highly rare,
- seeing this time delay flash effect in combination with flashes in the sky in other places seems rarer still,
- seeing all this at precisely the time we go out to make this type observation...

I don't think I'm preferring the spookier explanation here unduly. That's why I keep asking for input around probability - if this type of observation (including all the listed factors) isn't as unusual as I think it is, it'd be a relief to know. If it is as rare as I'm assuming, and we have repeat nights of this, does that become any more interesting? (I know - interesting doesn't allow any spooky conclusions to be drawn!)

@flarkey et al. discovered the Sun below the horizon, approximately -36 to -40 degrees, can produce Starlink flares in the direction of the Sun

Wow - was this not known of, or predicted previously? I'm guessing this is in relation to the 'race track' sightings?

That photo of Iridium 3 appears to show what I'd expect to see from a flare - a fade in, fade out type observation.

Retired GPS sats will be likely to tumble as they're retired by raising their orbit and then venting fuel, and of course there's zero effort expended to stabilise them after those perturbations.

I guess from this and the other comments above, it'd be fair to expect that all retired orbiting satellites are in a tumbling state? Any best guess as to how many of those there are? Would anyone estimate a lower or upper limit to objects that would appear as bright flares/flashes to the naked eye (I guess taking distance, reflectivity, size into account)?

Generation 2 satellites, which don't have the same antenna geometry of the previous satellites. It's a shame because they were highly predictable.

Interesting - so having a different geometry makes them less predictable? How come? I'd have thought that you'd just end up with a new forecast table.

 

[davo27]

In other words, I'd bet pretty heavily on seeing SOMETHING that qualifies as a UFO under the strict definition (flying, not identified), a tumbling satellite would be one possibility, another night it might be something else. In your case, the one you saw may have been a tumbling satellite (in which case the odds for you seeing one while looking at that place at that time were very high, since there was one there!), but it needn't have been that particular class of object for you to have seen something worth discussing here. What you saw is a good match for a satellite rolling about, or it could something completely unknown and inexplicable (aliens, etc.) that looks a bit like such a satellite. Given that we know tumbling satellites exist, I'd put my money on that even if seeing one on a given night would be fairly rare. Does that make sense? (I know I have a tendency to run on and on, if that makes sense I'll stop there! ^_^)

And ... not trying to tell you what to think, just what I would think! Use or discard as suits you.

I think my response to that is covered in the post above, to do with probability. If not for the convergence of all these coincidences, I might be making the same assessment as you - word for word (except that, for all my summer time sky-gazing, I've never really seen anything unusual that wasn't pretty quickly obviously explainable). This is one of the reasons I'm keen to keep going with this process and see how it plays out.

(I know I have a tendency to run on and on, if that makes sense I'll stop there! ^_^)

Dude, have you seen my posts?

 

[deirdre]

Any best guess as to how many of those there are?

google search tells me.. whether this is accurate is another question, and how many you can see from wherever you are is still another question)



(not that i'm concurring you are seeing tumbling satellites..havent really followed the thread as your descriptions of "same place" vs "unchanged spot" are too vague for me. )

 

[Creamy Pasta]

Why not? Is it really beyond reason to figure out an average number of flashes that should be visible at any given place/time?

Because at this point, we don't know exactly what you saw, and I'm not going to preempt you and say you definitely did see a satellite. For all I know, you may have found a truly anomalous phenomenon. I think it's highly likely it's satellites, but let's work towards ruling that in or out.

- flashes in the sky seem to be very rare,
- seeing multiple flashes in the sky seems to be more rare,
- seeing flashes in the sky in the same place 30 minutes apart, then 1 minute apart seems to be highly rare,
- seeing this time delay flash effect in combination with flashes in the sky in other places seems rarer still,
- seeing all this at precisely the time we go out to make this type observation...

During my 30 years observing satellites, I've often seen "flashbulbs" but here's the thing. When going out to actively look I generate a list of targets of interest for the session. These "flashbulbs" aren't on that list but when I occasionally do see one I always think, meh, tumbling satellite and that's that. So, I'd somewhat disagree. We don't know they are rare because only recently have a lot more people started looking to the skies for UAP, and therefore more data is starting to come in. I applaud this effort because, as we investigate, we learn more. As I said above, we haven't ruled anything in or out at this stage. Do I think it's satellites, probably? Am I 100% sure, no. Let's gather more data and try to find out

Wow - was this not known of, or predicted previously? I'm guessing this is in relation to the 'race track' sightings?

Who's going to look for all the ways a satellite will optically behave before launch? I do know a lot of astronomers complained about Starlink even before the first ones launched based on the sheer number SpaceX intended to launch, but none of them predicted exactly how they'd turn up in observations. They just knew current satellites occasionally caused observing issues, and SpaceX launching 10,000+ satellites would only make the problem much worse.

However, once they were up there observations started to come in simply because there were now so many the chances of seeing them increased dramatically, not just for astronomers but also for the general public. Remember the "flap" that Starlink trains caused when they first appeared? After a while, everyone got used to what those looked like, and we moved on. Now, we have other types of Starlink sightings based on new geometries.

That photo of Iridium 3 appears to show what I'd expect to see from a flare - a fade in, fade out type observation.

That's an example of a "flare" and not a "flash". It's common for people to only notice a "flare" when it reaches maximum brightness, and then it appears to quickly fade out having missed the fade in, it looks like a flash that fades away. That photo was a 12-second exposure, so if you'd noticed it at maximum brightness, it would have appeared to be a flash that faded away over 6 seconds.

I guess from this and the other comments above, it'd be fair to expect that all retired orbiting satellites are in a tumbling state? Any best guess as to how many of those there are? Would anyone estimate a lower or upper limit to objects that would appear as bright flares/flashes to the naked eye (I guess taking distance, reflectivity, size into account)?

Satellites not under control will almost certainly begin to tumble and rotate, it's what they want to do naturally, and satellite operators must actively maintain attitude. Usually done by the satellite itself automatically. But once it's decommissioned, then without effort, it will slowly, over time, begin to tumble. As for how many, there are a lot. A lot of space junk up there can cause sightings of all sorts. However, to keep things easy, let's stick to known previously active but now decommissioned. The following are all GPS NAVSTAR satellites around 12,550 miles altitude (https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=50). Look at the column called "Period". Most are 718 minutes, close to 12 hours. These are all operational GPS satellites. But as you look down the list, you'll see some with bigger numbers, such as NAVSTAR 44, which has a period of 764.2 minutes (approx 12.7 hours). These are decommissioned NAVSTAR GPS satellites that have been decommissioned and had their orbits raised out of the GPS constellation (to help avoid collisions with active satellites). All these will, by now, be tumbling. And that's just NAVSTAR satellites. There are plenty more satellites up there doing different things.

Interesting - so having a different geometry makes them less predictable? How come? I'd have thought that you'd just end up with a new forecast table

To understand predictability, I refer you to this document (https://www.satobs.org/iridium.html) that explains how the Generation 1 Iridium Satellite Constellation being the easiest satellite to predict flares made possible the photograph of Iridium 3 I took. Once you have read this, you'll understand more about how flares occur and what makes some more predictable than others.

 

[Creamy Pasta]

Good, because what you've described is physically impossible - it would have violated the laws of physics. At no point did what you saw change from having physically-impossible flight characteristics to being mundane because one single viewer whom the object wasn't even aware of changed their method of observation. When you put down the binoculars, or had you reversed the order of the viewing mechanisms' use, would you have described what you then saw unaided as "mundane" or "physics-breaking impossible flight characteristics", knowing that you'd previously evaluated it to be mundane with the optical aids?

I can see I need to add more information here and clarify what I said, so I'll give you a full description of what happened and how the binoculars changed the perception.

For me, it was a normal evening session to observe two US military satellites that were due to cross my sky. These are of interest because the USA does not publish TLEs for their spy satellites, so amateurs like myself observe them and calculate TLEs for them. This hobby has existed for years. For more information Google "keyhole satellites" and also see this page.

Things started normally, but then to the northeast, I saw a fast-moving light heading roughly south. Having seen many jet fighters and living close to two Air Force bases, I assumed it was a jet. But then, as it came over the waters of the Firth of Forth, it suddenly appeared to halt and hover, a hanging light in the sky just above the horizon. Odd, I thought, and a second or two later, it shot vertically upward from what appeared to be a standing start. You could almost describe this flight characteristic as "impossible for known aircraft". Picking up my binoculars revealed it to be a Tornado GR4 fighter jet, the same type flown out of the then Leuchars airbase. At that point, I realized that the jet was flying south and turned sharply west, directly at me, making it appear to hover, and it then pulled up. What I witnessed was simply a line-of-sight illusion.

Now, imagine I didn't have binoculars. It was just a light in the sky that made no noise (it was too far away to hear). If I hadn't resolved it there and then to a jet using my binoculars, would I have had a story to tell my kids and anyone else who'd listen that I'd witnessed a UAP performing impossible flight characteristics?

That's what I mean by what binoculars can do. More information resolved the perceived impossible to be boring and mundane. It's experiences like this that teach me that most reports of strange stuff seen in the sky are probably just illusions that failed to be resolved at the time and, therefore, forever stay unresolved in that famous "5% of all sightings can't be explained" category.

 

[Duke]

Any chance this could have been a strobe on a high altitude balloon? Back several years ago, one cool, crisp night I saw what turned out to be a Loon balloon. It was very odd, seemed to flutter around like a butterfly with a "flashbulb" like effect allowing me to follow it. I identified it from FR24.

I eventually was able to trackdown and speak to a Loon staffer. He told me it was an FAA requirement all unmanned, free balloons flying below 60K ft had to have a strobe visible from 5 miles. He also said the FAA requirement met or exceeded those of other nations/ICAO.

No person may operate an unmanned free balloon below 60,000 feet standard pressure altitude between sunset and sunrise (as corrected to the altitude of operation) unless the balloon and its attachments and payload, whether or not they become separated during the operation, are equipped with lights that are visible for at least 5 miles and have a flash frequency of at least 40, and not more than 100, cycles per minute.

Content from External Source

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-101

 

[davo27]

Any chance this could have been a strobe on a high altitude balloon?

Possible, but doesn't account for observations in at least 3 different positions.

 

[davo27]

google search tells me.. whether this is accurate is another question, and how many you can see from wherever you are is still another question)

Of course... I'm usually the one getting grumpy with people not googling things... I did try getting some more answers out of Chat GPT, but v.3.5 is only giving some fairly generic answers.

How about best guess for how much of the planet's surface one of these decommissioned satellites would be flashing at and visible from, for any given time period (on average - I know, size, distance, reflectivity will all be factors). I'm trying to slowly work towards being able to put some numbers towards a rough estimate for how frequently these flashes may be expected to be seen for any given location. Will location make a significant difference here? I understand that few satellites traverse the polar areas, are other parts of the planet more or less busy?

Got some binoculars for tonights excursion...

 

[Landru]

Of course... I'm usually the one getting grumpy with people not googling things... I did try getting some more answers out of Chat GPT, but v.3.5 is only giving some fairly generic answers.

How about best guess for how much of the planet's surface one of these decommissioned satellites would be flashing at and visible from, for any given time period (on average - I know, size, distance, reflectivity will all be factors). I'm trying to slowly work towards being able to put some numbers towards a rough estimate for how frequently these flashes may be expected to be seen for any given location. Will location make a significant difference here? I understand that few satellites traverse the polar areas, are other parts of the planet more or less busy?

Got some binoculars for tonights excursion...

This took me five seconds to type.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how....34.mobile-heirloom-hp..4.25.2897.iv43gaOAMLc

 

[davo27]

This took me five seconds to type.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how....34.mobile-heirloom-hp..4.25.2897.iv43gaOAMLc

Cool. Thanks for the input.

 

[Creamy Pasta]

Hi, me again, sorry

How about best guess for how much of the planet's surface one of these decommissioned satellites would be flashing at and visible from, for any given time period

Without some knowledge of the satellite in question, its rotation, altitude, etc, it's almost impossible to give esp an "average" figure. That's why we are collecting data. First, we'd like to know if it matches a satellite (or a few) so we can identify them. Then, collect data about the number of flashes, the period between, start and end times, etc. Additionally, once we ID some satellites, we can research them to see what reflective surfaces can produce flashes.

Gathering all the data allows us to build a model and, from that model, begin to make predictions about how it may flash in the future and then go on to confirm that with further observations.

You've probably realized this is all quite a small project. Welcome to Satellite observing

Will location make a significant difference here?

I'm not sure which location you are referring to, so I'll cover both:-

1. Your position on the Earth's surface. We'd like to know this as accurately as possible. You opened this thread with an accurate location on a platform. That's good enough if you return there. Otherwise, please try and get a GPS lat/lon location for where you observe.

2. The location in the sky you observe the flash. Satellite observers who are looking to maintain TLEs usually need 0.1-degree accuracy. However, for the purposes of identifying a satellite, then within 1 degree is good enough. Imagine four Moons touching and a circle drawn around that. That's roughly 1 degree. The best way to do this is to note the closest stars where the flash occurred relative to them. Another method is to use an iPhone (or similar) to take a wide-angle long exposure and then mark a dot where the flashes were. We can use astrometry to resolve the precise position from that image.

Lastly, the date and time should be within a few seconds. And if you can, in UTC (or otherwise, state clearly your timezone so it can be converted to UTC). In the satellite observing community, we stick to UTC for all record-keeping. It just makes things simpler.

The www.satobs.org website contains a lot of information about how to go about observing and recording satellites and a section on flashing satellites. Have a good read of that if you can bear it. It's a bit dry.

And I'd also like to draw your attention to another post I made, this time about NAVSTAR 16. The post was about odd lights in the sky, but I made this post, which discusses another video he made that I looked at that you may find interesting. In that case, the person making these videos didn't want help resolving what he was filming, and I no longer entertain his postings. But the comment I added may interest you as it shows an example of resolving a "flasher" to be NAVSTAR 16. Here's the link.

 

[davo27]

OK, so some observations from last night. Taking adequate notes will be an improving process, perhaps will use voice recorder in future, instead of my crappy backup phone (dropped my phone in a bucket of water recently).

- UTC times 18 Oct
- We're sticking with this position for the foreseeable: https://maps.app.goo.gl/sDh4Q6EPa2UHSkwk8
- Will work on getting down to second timings and 1 degree accuracy. Work in progress here...

Before we started our session:
7:07 - 3 flashes same position, approx 30 second separation. Approx. between Crux and Canopus

Then:
7:37 - 2 flashes same position, approx 30 second separation Approx. between Crux and Canopus (but not same location)

7:41 - observation of 2 'pulses' - (2 flashes with fade, rather than disappearance between)
7:42 - 3 flashes in quick succession (moving west to south)
7:44 - 3 flashes in quick succession (moving west to south)
Vicinity of Beta Carinae, NGC2808, Upsilon. These observations appeared to be on same arc, so possibly tumbling satellite?

7:55 - 7:56 - 3 flashes, approx 30 second separation. Vicinity of Shaula.

After we'd finished, and were in the carpark:
9:03 - flash in vicinity of NGC6284

Flashes not as bright last night. 7:37 was approx twice as bright as anything else in the sky, the rest were approx. dim-medium star brightness. All flashes were less than a second in duration.




Good grief. I'm leaning towards us seeing odd things, but welcome to having my mind changed - I really don't get the mindset in that NAVSTAR 16 thread. Ditto towards attitude towards Mick in the UFO community. My belief that something's going on with UFO's (probably not for discussion in this particular thread), is far stronger than my belief that we're seeing odd things in the sky with these flashes. I think Mick and this site are a huge asset to we UFO believers. No false idols and all that...

 

[Creamy Pasta]

Hi, great start!

... Taking adequate notes will be an improving process, perhaps will use voice recorder in future, instead of my crappy backup phone (dropped my phone in a bucket of water recently).

Indeed, capturing data for these is a bit of an art as well as a science. You need a process that you can practice and get used to.

Then:
7:37 - 2 flashes same position, approx 30 second separation Approx. between Crux and Canopus (but not same location)

OK, using this observation report, I'd like to show you why the second timing and to within 1-degree position is really needed to identify a satellite.

From your location and the information "07:37" and "between Crux and Canopus", here are all the satellites that matched your observation. As you can see, what flashed could be one among many, and there's no real way to narrow down the search. All the satellites shown here were illuminated by the Sun while you, yourself, were in the dark.

It's great you reported some observations, but I can't do much more with them than what's in the image below.

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

OK, so some observations from last night.

I feel that you're still rushing things. The sky isn't going anywhere.

To give more precise locations there are two paths. You can learn how to identify smaller stars, or you can learn the coordinate system.

Just a primer:





For learning the smaller stars I recommend two things. At home, learn how to use Stellarium. Use it everyday. The night sky will become as familiar as a street map of your neighborhood.

In the field, (eventually!) use a star map, such as: https://www.amazon.com/Cambridge-St...ocphy=9030800&hvtargid=pla-522514965070&psc=1

Use a tiny red-filtered flashlight. I've seen too many people put a single layer of red cellophane over a huge flashlight. "Get that searchlight out of here!" Your most precious optic is your dark adaptation. It takes hours to really get it.

Don't try to use Stellarium out in the field. Relax and use Computer Number One: Your brain. It takes time and practice to train your mind.

 

[davo27]

OK, I've got one of those planispheres ordered. Slow learner, so this may take time.

That satellite visibility map is nuts. Approx. 8000 satellites up there as far as I can tell. The planet's pretty big, NZ covers about a twentieth of a percent of it, but there are nearly 1.5% of satellites visible in that one part of the sky? Am I missing something there?

I'm still a little confused by flashing vs flaring. I thought that it should only be the tumbling satellites flashing, with the others flaring?

Back to probability again - is seeing 15 flashes over an hour and a half (and probably only about 40 odd minutes looking at the sky), something you'd expect anywhere? We've done this twice on the trot now, and it's the first time I've seen *any* flashes in the sky.

I gather from your knowledge of the area, a lot of you most likely spend a bit of time looking up - has anyone else made observations of so many flashes in such short duration periods?

 

[Creamy Pasta]

OK, I've got one of those planispheres ordered. Slow learner, so this may take time.

Good stuff. We all started somewhere

I'm still a little confused by flashing vs flaring. I thought that it should only be the tumbling satellites flashing, with the others flaring?

OK, I'll try to dig into this a little more. How satellites reflect Sunlight depends on a few factors. The geometry (and phase angle), the surface doing the reflecting, and the satellite's spin rate. All these things play a role.

Let us discuss a "flare". This is where the reflecting surface is stable. The satellite's rotation matches its journey in orbit to maintain its solar panels to face the Sun and its antennas point in a specific direction. This description fits an operation satellite under control. Communications satellites generally fit this description. So the reflection here "glides" across the surface of the Earth, and if you are on its path, it'll appear to get brighter as the center of the reflection reaches you, arrives at maximum, and then fades away. That's a "flare".

However, if the reflecting surface is small, then the "spot" on the Earth will be small, and the fade-in fade-out might not be visible to the eye. Only the maximum bright part will "flash". Binoculars help here because if you catch a flash with the naked eye and then look with binoculars, you may see the fade out. It all depends on the reflecting surfacing causing the flash/flare in the first place.

Now let us discuss a "flash". As previously noted, some flares could also appear as flashes. However, most flashes would come from decommissioned satellites that have picked up a random(ish) rotation (tumble). This tends to be a bit quicker than a managed satellite's slowly controlled orbit rotation. And again, it has surfaces such as solar panels, antennas, and satellite bus that could cause a reflection. However, due to the speed of the rotation, the beam will pass your spot on Earth (if you are on its path) much faster. The fade in/out times might be very short, thus appearing more like a flash than a fade in/out.

So, that describes the common modes that produce a flash or flare, and we now discuss other factors.

That satellite visibility map is nuts. Approx. 8000 satellites up there as far as I can tell. The planet's pretty big, NZ covers about a twentieth of a percent of it, but there are nearly 1.5% of satellites visible in that one part of the sky? Am I missing something there?

There are around 8,000 operational satellites up there. There's a lot more junk than that. It's estimated that there are approx 30 to 40 thousand pieces of crap in Earth orbit we can detect with radar down to the size of a basketball. Many smaller pieces. This number has been growing for years, but the last decade has seen a massive increase in space launches. So, no, you are "not missing something here", there are more on-orbit "things" than even you approximated.

Back to probability again - is seeing 15 flashes over an hour and a half (and probably only about 40 odd minutes looking at the sky), something you'd expect anywhere? We've done this twice on the trot now, and it's the first time I've seen *any* flashes in the sky.

Probabilities are hard to define when little data is available to formulate a probability. That's what we are doing here: collecting data and trying to match what you see to what's there. It's also important to remember that a flash or flare depends on geometry and phase angle between the observer on Earth, the surface of the satellite doing the reflecting, and where the Sun is. That's what makes a lot of these "seasonal". Take, for example, the "UAP race track" phenomenon. We now know it's Starlink satellites, but those need to be at the right angle to reflect, and the Sun needs to be about 35 to 40 degrees below the horizon. Starlinks higher do reflect the Sun. It's just that the reflected direction doesn't hit the Earth, but it does for those near the horizon. Geometry is set up to cause sightings of what appear to be continuous satellites close to the horizon. Also, some reflections that don't hit the ground are not seen by us, but pilots at height might get a better view

Now consider the Sun's position in all of this. It needs to be 35 to 40 degrees below. That doesn't happen all the time throughout the year. There are times in Autumn when this all lines up, so you get these reports around this time of year.

Here's an example of when someone first noticed this Starlink race track around the same time pilots picked up on it. Look to the bottom right next to the observatory.



(edit: @Mick West, this video might be a good candidate for your latest version sitrec? The details of time, date and location are in the video description)

I gather from your knowledge of the area, a lot of you most likely spend a bit of time looking up - has anyone else made observations of so many flashes in such short duration periods?

There was an effort long ago to collect data on flashing satellites, but that website appears to have gone. Some positional observers will report when a satellite's brightness varies as it transits the sky, but not all do. The problem is you need to gather a lot of data to analyze just one satellite, and as you've already discovered, there are many of them!

Take the Iriumium Generation 1 satellites (now gone). It was noticed early on that they "randomly" created very bright flares. A few people dug into the phenomena and thanks to Macdonald Douglas providing data about these satellite designs, it was well known that the three antennas maintained a pointing direction as it orbits. From this, computer software was created that predicted them with high accuracy. That's how I took my photo of Iridium 3 a few weeks before it was retired. But this level of knowledge about a satellite is rare. And it's one reason I focused on NAVSTARs. Those retired and mostly of the same design, and it may be possible to learn more. However, other satellites and space junk are "one of a kind" and require much more data. So, I'm hoping you can see this subject is fairly small, and the number of potential variables is high.

So please keep the data coming; it's useful to some of us and goes some way to explaining some of the stuff people can see in the sky.

 

[davo27]

Gotcha. Mostly.

So, no, you are "not missing something here", there are more on-orbit "things" than even you approximated.

Ah - so that map includes junk?

In terms of probabilities, I suppose I was trying to ask whether this type of short period, multiple flash observation is known to happen. If it frequently does, that would suggest to me that what we're seeing is unremarkable. Clearly, I'm under the impression that it's pretty rare, not just here, but anywhere. Shoot me down, please!

Gathering data to try and identify what we're seeing would potentially lead to a solid resolution of what we're seeing. Regardless of whether what we're seeing is identifiable, prosaic, or something odd, I'm wondering if it's a common, or rare observation. Case in point - the Starlink race track sightings seem to have been very rare sightings, that quickly became common. But when discovered, would fairly have been described as being very unusual.

Is that seasonality issue confined to the race track sightings, or satellites in general? If it's satellites in general, should we be seeing fewer now, in our spring?

With the race track sightings, presumably now in your autumn, we wouldn't be seeing them down here? And having to be 35 to 40 degrees below the horizon, does that mean that they're visible in only a band of northern hemisphere latitudes, or is the planet's seasonal tilt too shallow to make a difference there?

 

[Creamy Pasta]

Ah - so that map includes junk?

Yes.

In terms of probabilities, I suppose I was trying to ask whether this type of short period, multiple flash observation is known to happen. If it frequently does, that would suggest to me that what we're seeing is unremarkable. Clearly, I'm under the impression that it's pretty rare, not just here, but anywhere. Shoot me down, please!

Yes, these short-duration type flashes have been happening for years, and I've noticed a slight increase. I assumed that increase was simply due to way more satellites and junk getting into space over the last decade. However, because I don't actually go looking for these things specifically, my observations here are, at best, anecdotal and only to be taken with a pinch of salt. It's my perception of the situation with regard to flashes and flares. Because of their unpredictability, they don't end up on a list of targets of interest. I just notice them if I happen to be looking in that direction.

Which I guess brings me to any future observing sessions I might plan. It's clear there's now more going on, satellites and junk, and people looking up. So I think it's probably worth making an effort, and by that I mean rather than say "meh, tumbler" and ignore any future ones I see, I'll actually try to resolve it by taking notes on them and trying to resolve them later.

So, I don't want to shoot you down. No one should. More cooperation is better, and learning more going forward together

Case in point - the Starlink race track sightings seem to have been very rare sightings, that quickly became common. But when discovered, would fairly have been described as being very unusual.

I disagree, I don't believe they were rare. They were new. SpaceX has launched a massive constellation, and each orbit plane contains multiple satellites of similar design. So what at one time been a one-off flare of flash is now a series of them given the right conditions. The one-offs are rare but not uncommon (if that makes sense). What made Starlink stand out was the sheer number of them moving through the same repeated spots causing these flares. It wasn't until many of them were launched that a very rare thing became an uncommon but predictable one.

Is that seasonality issue confined to the race track sightings, or satellites in general? If it's satellites in general, should we be seeing fewer now, in our spring?

The seasonal aspect arises because the position of the Sun is part of the geometry. Remember, you can only see a satellite if it's in sunlight and you are in the dark. For most low earth orbit that is approximately 90 mins after sunset or 90 minutes before sunrise, your sky must be dark and the satellite illuminated. So it all depends on these factors. There's a "geostationary satellite season" in Autumn when the Sun illuminates the belt just right to view them.

Again, it all depends on your location, the orbit, and the Sun's position. These can all vary for different satellites and their orbit. So don't get hung up on this aspect. However, if you go every night and see flashes and then, in mid-November, the number of sightings dramatically reduces, then you have probably discovered another seasonal effect worthy of more investigation. Only data can really resolve this.

And finally yes, our planet's tilt adds to seasonality. It plays a role in the aforementioned Geostationary Season.

 

[Creamy Pasta]

@davo27 One more thing: I'll try to explain by analogy,

Imagine one day you're walking down the road; it's early evening, and the Sun is low on the horizon to your right. Suddenly, you're blinded by a strong flash to your left, and you stop and look. You notice a window that's been blown open by the wind, but as it did so its surface just happened to reflect that strong, low sunlight straight into your face. The window continued to be blown open so the reflection is now not pointing at your face but in another direction. You just got flashed by a reflective surface on the move (as the wind blew it open). The Sun was just low in the right position for all this to happen.

Have you ever experienced this in real life? I know I have. Would you consider this rare? For you, possibly, for 7 billion people? Not really.

This is the line-up and events that have to happen for you to get flashed. And it goes someway to describe "seasonal" because the Sun needs to be low in the sky for the window to reflect the light.

It may seem odd that a small satellite can do this night after night. Well, at 1000s of miles, the "flash" is many miles across the Earth's surface. And you only notice it when it gets bright enough relative to the dark sky background. It could have been flaring up/fading in for 20 seconds. You just never noticed it because it was too dim.

So what you're seeing may well be seasonal. Only time and more observations will tell.

 

[Mendel]

Before we started our session:
7:07 - 3 flashes same position, approx 30 second separation. Approx. between Crux and Canopus

What did that tell you?

 

[JMartJr]

The planet's pretty big, NZ covers about a twentieth of a percent of it, but there are nearly 1.5% of satellites visible in that one part of the sky? Am I missing something there?

This is me trying to visualize it -- short form is, you see beyond the edges of New Zealand. Demonstrated (I hope) by the use of a "New Zealand" analog in the image below.



Nothing is to scale, no attempt made to account for refraction or the like, just trying to visualize the concept... you can see a larger portion of the orbit of a satellite (and thus of the aggregate orbits of all satellites) than the portion of the surface of the Earth you are using as a vantage point.

 

[Mendel]

Nothing is to scale, no attempt made to account for refraction or the like, just trying to visualize the concept... you can see a larger portion of the orbit of a satellite (and thus of the aggregate orbits of all satellites) than the portion of the surface of the Earth you are using as a vantage point.

Depends on the orbit, though: for LEO, visibility isn't that much extended. If you had a circle at 400 km in your diagram, it'd be obvious.

 

[davo27]

Yes, these short-duration type flashes have been happening for years, and I've noticed a slight increase.

Yeah - I picked up that you'd been seeing these; my question was more directed at frequency. Have you ever noticed half a dozen or so in a 30 minute window?

I disagree, I don't believe they were rare.

I think they were - I was talking about the observations, rather than the phenomenon.

For most low earth orbit that is approximately 90 mins after sunset or 90 minutes before sunrise, your sky must be dark and the satellite illuminated

So, would you predict that if we started a couple of hours after sunset, our observations would evaporate/thin? Anecdotally, they happen in the middle of the night too. If you'd expect that we wouldn't see them then, this may be quite a good test - at least eliminating LEO objects.

What did that tell you?

Believe me - it was noted. I am however, an adept mental gymnast.

This is me trying to visualize it -- short form is, you see beyond the edges of New Zealand. Demonstrated (I hope) by the use of a "New Zealand" analog in the image below.

Hmm, I think if the picture you provided were to scale, it would illustrate why that map wa confusing. However, as Creamy has pointed out, it contains a whole lot of junk objects too, which makes it more understandable. There were approximately 20-30 times more objects than I was expecting to see - and I didn't think the additional perimeter of the arc we were seeing matched up to that.

 

[Creamy Pasta]

Yeah - I picked up that you'd been seeing these; my question was more directed at frequency. Have you ever noticed half a dozen or so in a 30 minute window?

No. I haven't seen them on this frequency, but I haven't been actively looking for them either. When not looking through binoculars or a computer screen/camera at a target satellite, I'm generally preparing for the next one. But I'm pretty sure they are not at the frequency you are talking about.

So, would you predict that if we started a couple of hours after sunset, our observations would evaporate/thin? Anecdotally, they happen in the middle of the night too. If you'd expect that we wouldn't see them then, this may be quite a good test - at least eliminating LEO objects.

The +/-90 minutes are for LEO satellites. MEO and GEO are probably sunlight for longer periods during the night. However, they are further away and, therefore, much dimmer and to see them need binoculars or a telescope. Unless they "flash/flare", as I've previously described.

What did that tell you?
Believe me - it was noted. I am however, an adept mental gymnast.

"What did that tell you?" wasn't my comment, so I won't respond to that.

This is me trying to visualize it -- short form is, you see beyond the edges of New Zealand. Demonstrated (I hope) by the use of a "New Zealand" analog in the image below.

Hmm, I think if the picture you provided were to scale, it would illustrate why that map wa confusing. However, as Creamy has pointed out, it contains a whole lot of junk objects too, which makes it more understandable. There were approximately 20-30 times more objects than I was expecting to see - and I didn't think the additional perimeter of the arc we were seeing matched up to that.

Again, this is not my comment, but you did mention me. Yes, there's a lot of junk. But there are two types of "junk". One type is spent rocket bodies that launch satellites and, although often visible when sunlit, don't have highly reflective surfaces (solar panels or antennas). The other type of junk is retired decommissioned satellites with reflective surfaces. But again, until we ID what you are seeing, it's anyone's guess as to what causes the flash or flare. I'm only here to point out what is in your line of sight in the sky when you observe these flashes and help see if they align with "known things" (satellites). The previous Stellarium image that showed many satellites in your FOV (field of view) demonstrated it could be a satellite. More precision in the observation is required, and you are working on achieving that. It takes practice and experience.

The great thing is you are doing your best to understand the night sky better and taking guidance. No one can ask for more than that from anyone.

 

[John J.]

Hmm, I must admit I can't offer any good prosaic explanations for your sightings, @davo27.
As other posters have theorised, I suspect some of the flashes are probably reflected sunlight from satellites or LEO debris.

As of January 2019, more than 128 million pieces of debris smaller than 1 cm (0.4 in), about 900,000 pieces of debris 1–10 cm, and around 34,000 of pieces larger than 10 cm (3.9 in) were estimated to be in orbit around the Earth.

Content from External Source

-Wikipedia, Space debris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris

I would guess that most of this material isn't visible to the naked eye, though, even if illuminated by the sun.
Perhaps most of us have seen the odd isolated flash in the night sky, or maybe a couple of flashes in quick succession, and put it down to a satellite "flare" or a high-flying aircraft at the edge of visibility. I don't think I've ever seen a series of inexplicable flashes.

My one observation is that time intervals of 1 minute or 30 minutes are very human time intervals- minutes and seconds weren't based on physical constants per se. Maybe someone operating a drone? Admittedly this probably isn't a good explanation for your experience, but it's possibly more likely than a spacecraft intentionally sending beams of light down.

Found an article describing drone use to monitor the kākāpō flightless parrot, this wouldn't apply to the Pukemokemoke Reserve (the kākāpō live on offshore islands) but it's hinted that drones might find wider uses in NZ,

Digby said drones could have myriad other uses in wildlife conservation in New Zealand where the terrain is often challenging for humans to travail. Māori conservation advisers had also been pleased with how they left precious cultural landscapes untouched.

Content from External Source

https://www.uasvision.com/2020/06/10/tracking-new-zealands-flightless-parrot-by-drone/

Again, perhaps an unlikely candidate.

What you describe doesn't sound at all like a misidentification of meteors,

While this occasion was different, anecdotally, a lot of these observations seem to be made in the vicinity of Orion.

-but the Orionids meteor shower has been ongoing for 2 or 3 weeks (and peaks in the next day or two).

Most would appear to radiate from Orion, which is (if I've got this right) pretty much in the opposite direction of where you were looking (and of course the "static" flashes you describe don't have the appearance of meteors); anyway,

Orionids Meteor Shower 2023 on the "timeanddate" website; location set to Hamilton, NZ
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/meteor-shower/orionid.html



I noticed that there's something called the Te Awamutu Space Centre (actually in Kihikihi, just south of Te Awamutu) not too far from your viewing location,




...I don't know, but maybe a member of staff or volunteer there might be able to help.
If nothing else, I'd guess they might have some contacts with some amateur astronomers in New Zealand, it would be interesting to find out if any other skywatchers have had similar experiences.
Website, https://www.spacecentre.nz/

(The Te Awamutu Space Centre website also has a meteor shower calendar, edited capture below



...but I'm confident that meteors don't explain your sightings).

The creator of the Te Awamutu Space Centre is a guy called Dave Owen ("Space Dave") who also runs a website,
UniverseMonitor.com
https://www.universemonitor.com/home/about/
It has links to a number of astronomy and spaceflight-related feeds as well as a launch schedule.
Maybe he'll have some ideas?

Ever since acclaimed director Peter Jackson's terrifying documentary horror-comedy film "Bad Taste" (1987) we've been aware that first contact might occur in New Zealand, and the consequences might not be good



Derek:
"There's no glowing fingers on these bastards. We've got a bunch of Extra-Terrestrial psychopaths on our hands."

 

[Scaramanga]

We finished, and started looking at the sky. After just a few minutes, we again heard "Flashbulb" from the same person, pointing to the same part of the sky (he'd used a strong laser pointer both times). After about another 30 seconds, we all saw the same thing. We were in a rural area with no light pollution, and the sky was very clear with amazing visibility of the stars. This 'flashbulb' flashed for approximately half a second to a second, was the size of a star, or possibly slightly larger, was approximately 3 to 4 times brighter than any star in the sky, and about 30 degrees up in the sky (from our high vantage on a hill). About a minute later it flashed again, but with reduced intensity. While 'flash' is a good description, it also looked like a directed beam of light from a really long distance (ie. no 'beam' visible, but that sort of appearance of focussed light or glare.)

As an amateur astronomer who has spent thousands of hours looking at the sky, I've seen such flashes often. There used to be extremely bright ones ( up to magnitude -9, which is 100 times brighter than Venus ) when the Iridium satellites were being used. The phenomenon is satellite 'flares'...often lasting just a few seconds, sometimes longer. It is caused by sunlight reflecting off satellites at just the right angle. That is why, in the northern hemisphere, most such flares will be observed looking in a northerly direction and are most common in the summer months when the sun is less far below the horizon. These days, without the Iridium satellites, the brightest flares are about magnitude -4 or -5....about as bright as Venus. People who don't know about such flares can easily think they have seen UFO evidence.

 

[Mendel]

Believe me - it was noted. I am however, an adept mental gymnast.

That's an unusual amount of self-awareness, bravo!

My observation is that when there's mental gymnastics involved, we tend to not be "following the evidence where it leads", but rather defending a belief. Examples abound on this website.

Evidence: two large aircraft flew into the World Trade Center, huge fires ensued, and the towers collapsed a short time later.
Conclusion: the damage and the fires caused the collapse
Gymnastics: two large aircraft flew into the World Trade Center, and a short time later someone unknown triggered some undetected set of explosives that collapsed the tower.

Evidence: some (but not all) features on an ancient Egyptian vase line up very precisely
Conclusion: hard stone can be polished to a high degree of precision, and Egyptians were good at geometry
Gymnastics: the vase was produced by a CNC machine
Conclusion 2: the vase is a modern fake
Gymnastics: some ancient culture had CNC machines, but left no evidence of them

Evidence: a photo of an oil drilling rig shows it slightly higher than globe geometry predicts it should be
Conclusion: under certain conditions, atmospheric refraction, especially close to water, distorts what we see
Gymnastics: the Earth is flat, the moon landing was faked, etc.

Evidence: a stationary fiber-optic gyroscope records a 15⁰/hour rotation.
Conclusion: the Earth rotates
Gymnastics: by an unknown process, the rotation of the stars caused a rotation to register on the gyroscope.

Your own group's premise was "Greer's meditations cause C5E encounters that manifest as 'flashbulbs'". But if the flashbulbs are not caused by the meditation, there is no longer any evidence that ties the flashbulb sighting to a non-human entity. And that remains true even if those flashbulb sightings remain unidentified "possible satellites".

Many metabunk investigations end that way. They start with a claim of evidence: "A proves B". Metabunk investigates, and shows that A is easily possible without B. Have we disproven B? No, but there's no longer any evidence for it.
Often we can explain that B was not involved with that particular A, which is very satisfying. But that's just the cherry on top, and not necessary to consider a claim debunked.

 

[Scaramanga]

Does the south easterly aspect of the observation point toward or away from this being a flare? Although at least one of the observations was also in the south west...

What matters most is the angle relative to the Sun. To have a flare, the satellite has to be lit by the sun and at the same time be visible from the night side of Earth. Most lower orbit satellites will pass quickly into the Earth's shadow...so the best time to see flares is usually in the summer ( when the Sun is not so far below the horizon ) or within an hour or two of sunset. Flares can occur in almost any area of the sky ( as can the International Space Station if its orbit goes both north and south of your latitude ) but the dynamics of it all mean that most will be to the north and nearer the horizon...because the rest will be in the Earth's shadow.

Stellarium software used to have a little predictor app for Iridum flares....I used to get quite excited looking forward to flares predicted to be magnitude -8 or -9. And sure enough, they would appear right on time. I think they have removed the 'Iridium Flares' section from Stellarium now....I'm not sure if there is just a general 'Flares' predictor instead. These days I am more into comets.

 

[Mendel]

the dynamics of it all mean that most will be to the north and nearer the horizon...because the rest will be in the Earth's shadow.

to the south in NZ and other parts of the southern hemisphere

 

[Scaramanga]

to the south in NZ and other parts of the southern hemisphere

Yes that goes without saying...or rather I was too lazy to add that

 

[Scaramanga]

I don't think I'm preferring the spookier explanation here unduly. That's why I keep asking for input around probability - if this type of observation (including all the listed factors) isn't as unusual as I think it is, it'd be a relief to know. If it is as rare as I'm assuming, and we have repeat nights of this, does that become any more interesting? (I know - interesting doesn't allow any spooky conclusions to be drawn!)

They are not rare at all. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia states.....

"Starlink flares can flare repeatedly in one area of the sky. This is due to the large number of Starlink satellites that are orbiting the Earth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare#Other_satellite_flares

 

[Ann K]

My observation is that when there's mental gymnastics involved, we tend to not be "following the evidence where it leads", but rather defending a belief. Examples abound on this website.

Nicely summarized, Mendel. Thanks.

 

[davo27]

The creator of the Te Awamutu Space Centre is a guy called Dave Owen ("Space Dave")

The Te Awamutu Space Centre. Of course. How could I have possibly missed this.

This actually might be quite a good lead if we can drag ol' Space Dave out with us one night.

Ever since acclaimed director Peter Jackson's terrifying documentary horror-comedy film "Bad Taste" (1987) we've been aware that first contact might occur in New Zealand, and the consequences might not be good

Props. Very few outside NZ are aware of Peter Jackson's finest work. He went steeply downhill after this masterpiece.

Your own group's premise was "Greer's meditations cause C5E encounters that manifest as 'flashbulbs'". But if the flashbulbs are not caused by the meditation, there is no longer any evidence that ties the flashbulb sighting to a non-human entity. And that remains true even if those flashbulb sightings remain unidentified "possible satellites".

Kinda. It's a process that was used before, and then popularised by Greer. While it appears useful, I've not heard it described as a definitive method. I think the process has more to do with intention than meditation (meditation seems to be a useful component), but as we've all heard 'contact' events don't even require intent. We have a member in our group who has these sightings frequently at home, by just looking up.

While I've heard a stack of useful and plausible explanations here, none seem to match up to all the factors I've described. So, I'm still leaning to spooky, but open either way.

They are not rare at all.

Starlink flares may not be rare. The multiple factors described in our observations do seem rare. I'd imagine the contributors here look at the sky more than the average person. So far, no one has chipped in with experiences of making similar observations to the ones we have made - in two outings on the trot.

 

[Alien Chess Fiend]

So far, no one has chipped in with experiences of making similar observations to the ones we have made - in two outings on the trot.

My experience during meteor observing sessions matches what @Scaramanga said. There's nothing unusual in what you've seen.