Talk:Satellite flare

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Bottom‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Starlink#Criticism and resistance|Starlink]] The anchor (#Criticism and resistance) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Iridium Satellites

According to the Iridium (satellite) article, there are not 88 Iridium satellites as originally stated in this article, but actually 66.

There are generally over 80 iridium satellites in orbit at any time, but a few have failed and are no longer in active service plus others have been launched to replace them. The usual number of Iridium satellites functioning on a daily basis is generally around the 66 level the service was designed for, but there are quite a few more in orbit either temporarily or permanently out of service.PrinceGaz (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This line seems wrong: "creating a predictable and quickly moving illuminated spot of about 10 km diameter..." I assume they meant meters?71.141.225.118 (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what it means is that the spot of light cast on the Earth by the reflection is approx. 10km in diameter. In other words, any observer on a clear night within a 10km circle should be able to view the flare. 168.9.120.8 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Left picture

Where is the satellite?? I can't see anything at the spot where the arrow points. Crakkpot 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arrows point to the locations where the satellite is located some time before and after the picture was taken. Due to the 10 second exposure time, the flare appears as a faint line between the arrow points. The picture is an animated GIF with three frames - possibly it does not work on your system. Muad 04:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also couldnt see anything until I clicked on the picture to enlarge it. In the larger size you can see the flare. Segat1 13:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this picture confusing. The arrows point to nothing obvious. Direction of motion is not obvious (need to look at the time). Animation is too fast. Also, why would anyone expect a link between "Satellite flare" and "Tübingen" ? For me the picture and text should be removed or replaced with a gallery of still pictures.82.229.209.33 09:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tübingen is a place name. Move on 124.188.210.44 06:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sunset

are these most visible right after sundown when the ground level is dark but the upper atmosphere might still be lit? That is my own experience in OR, USA...

72.0.187.239 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please mention in the article to not expect to see them 20:00 to 04:00 etc. Jidanni (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not so. In regions above 40 degrees of northern latitude in the summer satellites visible all night, as the sun does not go too low below the horizon.--1valdis (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore satellites whole night illuminated by the sun, and can flare up.--1valdis (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency of Iridium flares

The section about Iridium satellites is interesting, but it would benefit greatly from some indication of how frequent an occurrence these flares are. If I stand at a random point on the Earth's surface, and the skies are permanently clear, how often can I expect to see one? Credulity (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --1valdis (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture a satellite flare or a comet?

The picture caption says the object featured is both a comet and a satellite flare. Which is it? Can't be both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.174.17.194 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Iridium flare is the conspicuous bright streak. The comet is the faint orb by the tree branches (as the image caption states). Holmes was a pretty peculiar comet with a very large dust cloud (coma) surrounding it. As it's a long exposure photograph of some 30 seconds at most, there is simply no way for a comet to paint a streak like that. However, meteors may paint similar streaks on photos taken with a corresponding set up. Meteors and comets are two very different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.216.65 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orthografy

Please, somebody check my added text to errors because I have not very good with English. Sections: "Non-Iridium flares", "Flares from uncontrolled satellites", "Flares from controlled satellites" before "Iridium flares", on section "Iridium flares" first sentence and 2, 3 sentences from bottom, explanations for the notes, and the second part of sentence about observation. Thanks.--1valdis (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISS

Shouldn't there be coverage on SpaceStation Freedom's flares? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UFO

Shouldn't there be coverage about mistaken UFO sightings? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Structure + info

I believe this article still needs big changes in structure and adding more info. I can add info, but article will be very overloaded and ugly decorated. For example, this article needs info about geostationary satellites flares during equinoxes, about some UFO sightings that is really satellites, and more. But there's no place for that as structure needs to be reworked...1valdis (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geostationary satellite flares

Hi there. I believe this might be described there as another section. People should know about that during equinoxes geostatinary satellites can flare up to 1st magnitude for minutes against their usual 10+ magnitude. Maybe I'll write something about it soon.1valdis (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Width of Iridium flare

In the "Iridium flare" section, it says "... illuminated spot on the surface below of about 10 km (6.2 mi) diameter." Is this figure correct? When there is a flare of magnitude -1 here, the center can be 40km away, according to Heavens-Above. So it seems to me to be more like 100 kilometers in diameter. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading

Regarding:

"... were known to cause iridium flares"

That is misleading. The element is iridium (lowercase). At least "Iridium flares" (capitalised), but is that a real term?

--Mortense (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Besides the obvious overlap, the article on satellite flare is older than that on satellite watching -- 2004 vs. 2008. fgnievinski (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge per nom.~~ --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging satellite watching into satellite flare. The relative ages of the articles are irrelevant in determining which article should merge into the other. The topics are relevant. So the relevant question is, is the scope of "satellite watching" (approximately) a subset of the scope of "satellite flare"? I don't think so. It is easier to argue the opposite, in fact: the reasons someone may engage in satellite watching may include satellite flares, among other things. So if you are arguing for a merge involving these two articles, it would make more sense for it to be in the opposite direction of this request. I am neutral regarding a merge in the other direction (i.e. "satellite flare" merges into "satellite watching"). cathartid - talk 04:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly oppose. Satellites make flares whether anyone is watching or not. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose any blanket merging per cathartid. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, given the consistent uncontested objections. Klbrain (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"deorbited"

the article claims that all of the satellites have been "deorbited", but does not define that term; i feel like there's a pretty reasonable read here that would lead someone to believe that none of the sattelites that were in the iridium constellation are in orbit any more, but that's super not true, even according to wikipedia itself. i feel like clarifying that they're simply no longer oriented such that they focus a reflection at earth's surface would be a benefit here, but im not sure how exactly to phrase it in a correct and also helpful way 2A00:23C7:BDC2:D201:C350:EFB9:82D1:203 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"indigenous people"?

I'm not sure "indigenous people" is the correct term here. For example, I don't think Iridium flares were particularly troubling to the indigenous people of England or Germany. I also feel like the implication here is that "indigenous people" are so backwards and undeveloped that they can't understand these are manmade, which seems insulting. If that's the actual meaning here, then it's not "indigenous people" that are effected, but specifically people living in isolated, undeveloped communities, traditional tribal style living, etc. I don't know. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.Supertin (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]