Talk:Satellite flare

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Iridium Satellites

message: Where is the satellite?? I can't see anything at the spot where the arrow points. Crakkpot 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Left picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Therefore satellites whole night illuminated by the sun, and can flare up.--1valdis (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: sunset

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. --1valdis (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency of Iridium flares 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture a satellite flare or a comet? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Orthografy

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Structure + info 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Geostationary satellite flares 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Width of Iridium flare 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: 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)
replies: text: Closing, given the consistent uncontested objections. Klbrain (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "deorbited" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "indigenous people"?