A non-technological, repeating, visible object in the sky, holding its position in the sky for hours
$begingroup$
Is this physically possible?
A non-technological phenomena visible in the same position of the sky, for 18 hours of a day using the other 6 to do whatever, rise and set, just be impossible to see, it doesn't matter.
What matters is the 18 hours of constant position in the sky, on a repeating cycle.
For an observer that is assumed to be watching from the same place, each cycle.
The viewer's planet is not Earth, just has enough similarities for humans to live on it.
If it is possible, how complex a system would I need to make such a thing happen, and how stable would that system be?
The cause can be in the atmosphere, as long as it cycles, and has the same visibility.
I'd like planets, but if that's not possible, then use whatever is possible.
planets hard-science
asked 2 hours ago
MalandyMalandy
2,06211243
$endgroup$
This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Is this physically possible?
A non-technological phenomena visible in the same position of the sky, for 18 hours of a day using the other 6 to do whatever, rise and set, just be impossible to see, it doesn't matter.
What matters is the 18 hours of constant position in the sky, on a repeating cycle.
For an observer that is assumed to be watching from the same place, each cycle.
The viewer's planet is not Earth, just has enough similarities for humans to live on it.
If it is possible, how complex a system would I need to make such a thing happen, and how stable would that system be?
The cause can be in the atmosphere, as long as it cycles, and has the same visibility.
I'd like planets, but if that's not possible, then use whatever is possible.
planets hard-science
asked 2 hours ago
MalandyMalandy
2,06211243
$endgroup$
This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.
$begingroup$
Does it have to be visible from everywhere on earth at some point (or at least, all around some great circle of the earth's surface), or is having it only visible from one part of the globe acceptable?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime - Observer of single position. Can you help me think of how to add that into the title, while not going over 150 characters?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What does "int the same position for 18 hours a day" mean? Is it in the same position with respect to the fixed stars? Or is it immobile, that is, it does not rise and does not set, and in this case what happens during the other 6 hours? Must it be visible in daylight? What does "in the sky" mean? In outer space, or is an object flying in the atmosphere acceptable?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
This is an interesting question, but so far all the comments are asking for clarifications which indicates to me you're not exactly clear what it is you're asking. I've voted to put your question on hold until you edit it. If you clarify before it actually gets closed, I'll happily retract the VTC!
$endgroup$
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@elemtilas - How's this? ... My title's getting too long... Do you know any terminology to shorten it?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Is this physically possible?
A non-technological phenomena visible in the same position of the sky, for 18 hours of a day using the other 6 to do whatever, rise and set, just be impossible to see, it doesn't matter.
What matters is the 18 hours of constant position in the sky, on a repeating cycle.
For an observer that is assumed to be watching from the same place, each cycle.
The viewer's planet is not Earth, just has enough similarities for humans to live on it.
If it is possible, how complex a system would I need to make such a thing happen, and how stable would that system be?
The cause can be in the atmosphere, as long as it cycles, and has the same visibility.
I'd like planets, but if that's not possible, then use whatever is possible.
planets hard-science
asked 2 hours ago
MalandyMalandy
2,06211243
$endgroup$
Is this physically possible?
A non-technological phenomena visible in the same position of the sky, for 18 hours of a day using the other 6 to do whatever, rise and set, just be impossible to see, it doesn't matter.
What matters is the 18 hours of constant position in the sky, on a repeating cycle.
For an observer that is assumed to be watching from the same place, each cycle.
The viewer's planet is not Earth, just has enough similarities for humans to live on it.
If it is possible, how complex a system would I need to make such a thing happen, and how stable would that system be?
The cause can be in the atmosphere, as long as it cycles, and has the same visibility.
I'd like planets, but if that's not possible, then use whatever is possible.
planets hard-science
planets hard-science
asked 2 hours ago
MalandyMalandy
2,06211243
asked 2 hours ago
MalandyMalandy
2,06211243
edited 9 mins ago
Malandy
asked 2 hours ago
MalandyMalandy
2,06211243
asked 2 hours ago
MalandyMalandy
2,06211243
asked 2 hours ago
MalandyMalandy
2,06211243
2,06211243
This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.
This question asks for hard science. All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See the tag description for more information.
$begingroup$
Does it have to be visible from everywhere on earth at some point (or at least, all around some great circle of the earth's surface), or is having it only visible from one part of the globe acceptable?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime - Observer of single position. Can you help me think of how to add that into the title, while not going over 150 characters?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What does "int the same position for 18 hours a day" mean? Is it in the same position with respect to the fixed stars? Or is it immobile, that is, it does not rise and does not set, and in this case what happens during the other 6 hours? Must it be visible in daylight? What does "in the sky" mean? In outer space, or is an object flying in the atmosphere acceptable?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
This is an interesting question, but so far all the comments are asking for clarifications which indicates to me you're not exactly clear what it is you're asking. I've voted to put your question on hold until you edit it. If you clarify before it actually gets closed, I'll happily retract the VTC!
$endgroup$
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@elemtilas - How's this? ... My title's getting too long... Do you know any terminology to shorten it?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Does it have to be visible from everywhere on earth at some point (or at least, all around some great circle of the earth's surface), or is having it only visible from one part of the globe acceptable?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime - Observer of single position. Can you help me think of how to add that into the title, while not going over 150 characters?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What does "int the same position for 18 hours a day" mean? Is it in the same position with respect to the fixed stars? Or is it immobile, that is, it does not rise and does not set, and in this case what happens during the other 6 hours? Must it be visible in daylight? What does "in the sky" mean? In outer space, or is an object flying in the atmosphere acceptable?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
This is an interesting question, but so far all the comments are asking for clarifications which indicates to me you're not exactly clear what it is you're asking. I've voted to put your question on hold until you edit it. If you clarify before it actually gets closed, I'll happily retract the VTC!
$endgroup$
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@elemtilas - How's this? ... My title's getting too long... Do you know any terminology to shorten it?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Does it have to be visible from everywhere on earth at some point (or at least, all around some great circle of the earth's surface), or is having it only visible from one part of the globe acceptable?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Does it have to be visible from everywhere on earth at some point (or at least, all around some great circle of the earth's surface), or is having it only visible from one part of the globe acceptable?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime - Observer of single position. Can you help me think of how to add that into the title, while not going over 150 characters?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime - Observer of single position. Can you help me think of how to add that into the title, while not going over 150 characters?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What does "int the same position for 18 hours a day" mean? Is it in the same position with respect to the fixed stars? Or is it immobile, that is, it does not rise and does not set, and in this case what happens during the other 6 hours? Must it be visible in daylight? What does "in the sky" mean? In outer space, or is an object flying in the atmosphere acceptable?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What does "int the same position for 18 hours a day" mean? Is it in the same position with respect to the fixed stars? Or is it immobile, that is, it does not rise and does not set, and in this case what happens during the other 6 hours? Must it be visible in daylight? What does "in the sky" mean? In outer space, or is an object flying in the atmosphere acceptable?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
This is an interesting question, but so far all the comments are asking for clarifications which indicates to me you're not exactly clear what it is you're asking. I've voted to put your question on hold until you edit it. If you clarify before it actually gets closed, I'll happily retract the VTC!
$endgroup$
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
This is an interesting question, but so far all the comments are asking for clarifications which indicates to me you're not exactly clear what it is you're asking. I've voted to put your question on hold until you edit it. If you clarify before it actually gets closed, I'll happily retract the VTC!
$endgroup$
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@elemtilas - How's this? ... My title's getting too long... Do you know any terminology to shorten it?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@elemtilas - How's this? ... My title's getting too long... Do you know any terminology to shorten it?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
|
show 6 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's physically possible.
Put a spherical object in a geostationary orbit, make it rotate about its own axis at a rate suited to your own visibility/non-visibility requirements, and make a portion of it have very low albedo.
Staying at a single point in the sky, the object will only be visible while the higher albedo portion is facing the planet and become invisible while the low albedo portion rotates into view.
It could technically happen by chance but would only be stable for as long as the orbit is stable, which really depends on your planetary system.
answered 50 mins ago
SamuelSamuel
44.8k8126220
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Difficult to imagine another possible answer. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
46 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user10915156 What's technological about a spherical object with different colors?
$endgroup$
– Samuel
40 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I read "put" and "make" as something happening inside the story. I see that you mean that the author might "put" an object into the world they are making up.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
21 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@ben It's entirely possible that the planet in question has no precession. I was thinking about a way for the orbital mechanics to work such that solar pressure/off-gassing corrected the orbit, but that's unlikely to add much more time without violating the other precepts of the question.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
20 mins ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
A geostationary satellite follows an orbit which keeps it over the same point on the Earth.
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/
The streaks are stars which are elongated by the rotation of the earth and the long exposure. The satellites are rotating with the earth and so they look like dots. I was surprised that the satellites this blogger photographed did not track out an analemma like the sun, but he says they stay put.
Unlike the ISS and the many objects in low Earth object, geostationary
satellites are visible all night long every night of the year.
Satellites are technological objects but a thing can be in orbit and not be technological.
If something were bright and in orbit you might be able to see it all the time. You could have it get bright alternately. With satellites these are called satellite flares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
Satellite flare, also known as satellite glint, is the visible
phenomenon caused by the reflective surfaces of passing satellites
(such as antennas, SAR or solar panels), reflecting sunlight toward
the Earth below and appearing as a brief, bright "flare".
The satellites that are famous for this apparently rotate so as to present their reflective surfaces. Something in orbit could be slowly rotating, and when the non reflective side was presented it would seem to disappear to the viewer on the ground.
answered 47 mins ago
WillkWillk
120k28225499
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great minds... But you did include a picture, so I suspect you'll be the winner by votes.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You didn't say how far up in the sky you need your object and what type of object you want, so I suggest the plume of a volcano.
Some volcanos and geysers are quite regular in their eruptions. Your volcano will erupt not long after midnight every 24 hours and emit only a short burst of gaseous matter and fine dust-like particles that will drift upward in the still air and remain visible for 18 hours, until the evening wind scatters the cloud and it disappears.
If the eruption is just a short puff, the plume will be a small near-spherical cloud, as this one over Popocatepetl:
Etna even does smoke rings:
answered 26 mins ago
user10915156user10915156
2613
New contributor
user10915156 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f145912%2fa-non-technological-repeating-visible-object-in-the-sky-holding-its-position%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It's physically possible.
Put a spherical object in a geostationary orbit, make it rotate about its own axis at a rate suited to your own visibility/non-visibility requirements, and make a portion of it have very low albedo.
Staying at a single point in the sky, the object will only be visible while the higher albedo portion is facing the planet and become invisible while the low albedo portion rotates into view.
It could technically happen by chance but would only be stable for as long as the orbit is stable, which really depends on your planetary system.
answered 50 mins ago
SamuelSamuel
44.8k8126220
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Difficult to imagine another possible answer. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
46 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user10915156 What's technological about a spherical object with different colors?
$endgroup$
– Samuel
40 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I read "put" and "make" as something happening inside the story. I see that you mean that the author might "put" an object into the world they are making up.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
21 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@ben It's entirely possible that the planet in question has no precession. I was thinking about a way for the orbital mechanics to work such that solar pressure/off-gassing corrected the orbit, but that's unlikely to add much more time without violating the other precepts of the question.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
20 mins ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
It's physically possible.
Put a spherical object in a geostationary orbit, make it rotate about its own axis at a rate suited to your own visibility/non-visibility requirements, and make a portion of it have very low albedo.
Staying at a single point in the sky, the object will only be visible while the higher albedo portion is facing the planet and become invisible while the low albedo portion rotates into view.
It could technically happen by chance but would only be stable for as long as the orbit is stable, which really depends on your planetary system.
answered 50 mins ago
SamuelSamuel
44.8k8126220
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Difficult to imagine another possible answer. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
46 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user10915156 What's technological about a spherical object with different colors?
$endgroup$
– Samuel
40 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I read "put" and "make" as something happening inside the story. I see that you mean that the author might "put" an object into the world they are making up.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
21 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@ben It's entirely possible that the planet in question has no precession. I was thinking about a way for the orbital mechanics to work such that solar pressure/off-gassing corrected the orbit, but that's unlikely to add much more time without violating the other precepts of the question.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
20 mins ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
It's physically possible.
Put a spherical object in a geostationary orbit, make it rotate about its own axis at a rate suited to your own visibility/non-visibility requirements, and make a portion of it have very low albedo.
Staying at a single point in the sky, the object will only be visible while the higher albedo portion is facing the planet and become invisible while the low albedo portion rotates into view.
It could technically happen by chance but would only be stable for as long as the orbit is stable, which really depends on your planetary system.
answered 50 mins ago
SamuelSamuel
44.8k8126220
$endgroup$
It's physically possible.
Put a spherical object in a geostationary orbit, make it rotate about its own axis at a rate suited to your own visibility/non-visibility requirements, and make a portion of it have very low albedo.
Staying at a single point in the sky, the object will only be visible while the higher albedo portion is facing the planet and become invisible while the low albedo portion rotates into view.
It could technically happen by chance but would only be stable for as long as the orbit is stable, which really depends on your planetary system.
answered 50 mins ago
SamuelSamuel
44.8k8126220
answered 50 mins ago
SamuelSamuel
44.8k8126220
answered 50 mins ago
SamuelSamuel
44.8k8126220
answered 50 mins ago
SamuelSamuel
44.8k8126220
44.8k8126220
1
$begingroup$
Difficult to imagine another possible answer. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
46 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user10915156 What's technological about a spherical object with different colors?
$endgroup$
– Samuel
40 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I read "put" and "make" as something happening inside the story. I see that you mean that the author might "put" an object into the world they are making up.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
21 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@ben It's entirely possible that the planet in question has no precession. I was thinking about a way for the orbital mechanics to work such that solar pressure/off-gassing corrected the orbit, but that's unlikely to add much more time without violating the other precepts of the question.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
20 mins ago
|
show 4 more comments
1
$begingroup$
Difficult to imagine another possible answer. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
46 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user10915156 What's technological about a spherical object with different colors?
$endgroup$
– Samuel
40 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I read "put" and "make" as something happening inside the story. I see that you mean that the author might "put" an object into the world they are making up.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
21 mins ago
1
$begingroup$
@ben It's entirely possible that the planet in question has no precession. I was thinking about a way for the orbital mechanics to work such that solar pressure/off-gassing corrected the orbit, but that's unlikely to add much more time without violating the other precepts of the question.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
20 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Difficult to imagine another possible answer. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
46 mins ago
$begingroup$
Difficult to imagine another possible answer. +1
$endgroup$
– Agrajag
46 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user10915156 What's technological about a spherical object with different colors?
$endgroup$
– Samuel
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@user10915156 What's technological about a spherical object with different colors?
$endgroup$
– Samuel
40 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I read "put" and "make" as something happening inside the story. I see that you mean that the author might "put" an object into the world they are making up.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
21 mins ago
$begingroup$
I'm sorry, I read "put" and "make" as something happening inside the story. I see that you mean that the author might "put" an object into the world they are making up.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
21 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@ben It's entirely possible that the planet in question has no precession. I was thinking about a way for the orbital mechanics to work such that solar pressure/off-gassing corrected the orbit, but that's unlikely to add much more time without violating the other precepts of the question.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
20 mins ago
$begingroup$
@ben It's entirely possible that the planet in question has no precession. I was thinking about a way for the orbital mechanics to work such that solar pressure/off-gassing corrected the orbit, but that's unlikely to add much more time without violating the other precepts of the question.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
20 mins ago
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
A geostationary satellite follows an orbit which keeps it over the same point on the Earth.
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/
The streaks are stars which are elongated by the rotation of the earth and the long exposure. The satellites are rotating with the earth and so they look like dots. I was surprised that the satellites this blogger photographed did not track out an analemma like the sun, but he says they stay put.
Unlike the ISS and the many objects in low Earth object, geostationary
satellites are visible all night long every night of the year.
Satellites are technological objects but a thing can be in orbit and not be technological.
If something were bright and in orbit you might be able to see it all the time. You could have it get bright alternately. With satellites these are called satellite flares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
Satellite flare, also known as satellite glint, is the visible
phenomenon caused by the reflective surfaces of passing satellites
(such as antennas, SAR or solar panels), reflecting sunlight toward
the Earth below and appearing as a brief, bright "flare".
The satellites that are famous for this apparently rotate so as to present their reflective surfaces. Something in orbit could be slowly rotating, and when the non reflective side was presented it would seem to disappear to the viewer on the ground.
answered 47 mins ago
WillkWillk
120k28225499
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great minds... But you did include a picture, so I suspect you'll be the winner by votes.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A geostationary satellite follows an orbit which keeps it over the same point on the Earth.
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/
The streaks are stars which are elongated by the rotation of the earth and the long exposure. The satellites are rotating with the earth and so they look like dots. I was surprised that the satellites this blogger photographed did not track out an analemma like the sun, but he says they stay put.
Unlike the ISS and the many objects in low Earth object, geostationary
satellites are visible all night long every night of the year.
Satellites are technological objects but a thing can be in orbit and not be technological.
If something were bright and in orbit you might be able to see it all the time. You could have it get bright alternately. With satellites these are called satellite flares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
Satellite flare, also known as satellite glint, is the visible
phenomenon caused by the reflective surfaces of passing satellites
(such as antennas, SAR or solar panels), reflecting sunlight toward
the Earth below and appearing as a brief, bright "flare".
The satellites that are famous for this apparently rotate so as to present their reflective surfaces. Something in orbit could be slowly rotating, and when the non reflective side was presented it would seem to disappear to the viewer on the ground.
answered 47 mins ago
WillkWillk
120k28225499
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great minds... But you did include a picture, so I suspect you'll be the winner by votes.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A geostationary satellite follows an orbit which keeps it over the same point on the Earth.
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/
The streaks are stars which are elongated by the rotation of the earth and the long exposure. The satellites are rotating with the earth and so they look like dots. I was surprised that the satellites this blogger photographed did not track out an analemma like the sun, but he says they stay put.
Unlike the ISS and the many objects in low Earth object, geostationary
satellites are visible all night long every night of the year.
Satellites are technological objects but a thing can be in orbit and not be technological.
If something were bright and in orbit you might be able to see it all the time. You could have it get bright alternately. With satellites these are called satellite flares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
Satellite flare, also known as satellite glint, is the visible
phenomenon caused by the reflective surfaces of passing satellites
(such as antennas, SAR or solar panels), reflecting sunlight toward
the Earth below and appearing as a brief, bright "flare".
The satellites that are famous for this apparently rotate so as to present their reflective surfaces. Something in orbit could be slowly rotating, and when the non reflective side was presented it would seem to disappear to the viewer on the ground.
answered 47 mins ago
WillkWillk
120k28225499
$endgroup$
A geostationary satellite follows an orbit which keeps it over the same point on the Earth.
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/
The streaks are stars which are elongated by the rotation of the earth and the long exposure. The satellites are rotating with the earth and so they look like dots. I was surprised that the satellites this blogger photographed did not track out an analemma like the sun, but he says they stay put.
Unlike the ISS and the many objects in low Earth object, geostationary
satellites are visible all night long every night of the year.
Satellites are technological objects but a thing can be in orbit and not be technological.
If something were bright and in orbit you might be able to see it all the time. You could have it get bright alternately. With satellites these are called satellite flares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
Satellite flare, also known as satellite glint, is the visible
phenomenon caused by the reflective surfaces of passing satellites
(such as antennas, SAR or solar panels), reflecting sunlight toward
the Earth below and appearing as a brief, bright "flare".
The satellites that are famous for this apparently rotate so as to present their reflective surfaces. Something in orbit could be slowly rotating, and when the non reflective side was presented it would seem to disappear to the viewer on the ground.
answered 47 mins ago
WillkWillk
120k28225499
answered 47 mins ago
WillkWillk
120k28225499
answered 47 mins ago
WillkWillk
120k28225499
answered 47 mins ago
WillkWillk
120k28225499
120k28225499
$begingroup$
Great minds... But you did include a picture, so I suspect you'll be the winner by votes.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Great minds... But you did include a picture, so I suspect you'll be the winner by votes.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
Great minds... But you did include a picture, so I suspect you'll be the winner by votes.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
Great minds... But you did include a picture, so I suspect you'll be the winner by votes.
$endgroup$
– Samuel
45 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
$begingroup$
I believe they said "non-technological" in their question.
$endgroup$
– user10915156
42 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You didn't say how far up in the sky you need your object and what type of object you want, so I suggest the plume of a volcano.
Some volcanos and geysers are quite regular in their eruptions. Your volcano will erupt not long after midnight every 24 hours and emit only a short burst of gaseous matter and fine dust-like particles that will drift upward in the still air and remain visible for 18 hours, until the evening wind scatters the cloud and it disappears.
If the eruption is just a short puff, the plume will be a small near-spherical cloud, as this one over Popocatepetl:
Etna even does smoke rings:
answered 26 mins ago
user10915156user10915156
2613
New contributor
user10915156 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You didn't say how far up in the sky you need your object and what type of object you want, so I suggest the plume of a volcano.
Some volcanos and geysers are quite regular in their eruptions. Your volcano will erupt not long after midnight every 24 hours and emit only a short burst of gaseous matter and fine dust-like particles that will drift upward in the still air and remain visible for 18 hours, until the evening wind scatters the cloud and it disappears.
If the eruption is just a short puff, the plume will be a small near-spherical cloud, as this one over Popocatepetl:
Etna even does smoke rings:
answered 26 mins ago
user10915156user10915156
2613
New contributor
user10915156 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You didn't say how far up in the sky you need your object and what type of object you want, so I suggest the plume of a volcano.
Some volcanos and geysers are quite regular in their eruptions. Your volcano will erupt not long after midnight every 24 hours and emit only a short burst of gaseous matter and fine dust-like particles that will drift upward in the still air and remain visible for 18 hours, until the evening wind scatters the cloud and it disappears.
If the eruption is just a short puff, the plume will be a small near-spherical cloud, as this one over Popocatepetl:
Etna even does smoke rings:
answered 26 mins ago
user10915156user10915156
2613
New contributor
user10915156 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
You didn't say how far up in the sky you need your object and what type of object you want, so I suggest the plume of a volcano.
Some volcanos and geysers are quite regular in their eruptions. Your volcano will erupt not long after midnight every 24 hours and emit only a short burst of gaseous matter and fine dust-like particles that will drift upward in the still air and remain visible for 18 hours, until the evening wind scatters the cloud and it disappears.
If the eruption is just a short puff, the plume will be a small near-spherical cloud, as this one over Popocatepetl:
Etna even does smoke rings:
answered 26 mins ago
user10915156user10915156
2613
New contributor
user10915156 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 17 mins ago
answered 26 mins ago
user10915156user10915156
2613
New contributor
user10915156 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 26 mins ago
user10915156user10915156
2613
answered 26 mins ago
user10915156user10915156
2613
2613
New contributor
user10915156 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
user10915156 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
user10915156 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f145912%2fa-non-technological-repeating-visible-object-in-the-sky-holding-its-position%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Does it have to be visible from everywhere on earth at some point (or at least, all around some great circle of the earth's surface), or is having it only visible from one part of the globe acceptable?
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@StarfishPrime - Observer of single position. Can you help me think of how to add that into the title, while not going over 150 characters?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
What does "int the same position for 18 hours a day" mean? Is it in the same position with respect to the fixed stars? Or is it immobile, that is, it does not rise and does not set, and in this case what happens during the other 6 hours? Must it be visible in daylight? What does "in the sky" mean? In outer space, or is an object flying in the atmosphere acceptable?
$endgroup$
– AlexP
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
This is an interesting question, but so far all the comments are asking for clarifications which indicates to me you're not exactly clear what it is you're asking. I've voted to put your question on hold until you edit it. If you clarify before it actually gets closed, I'll happily retract the VTC!
$endgroup$
– elemtilas
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@elemtilas - How's this? ... My title's getting too long... Do you know any terminology to shorten it?
$endgroup$
– Malandy
1 hour ago