Re: 3 out of 6

From: Stephmon@aol.com
Date: Fri Apr 28 2000 - 19:28:58 PDT

  • Next message: Jim Scotti: "Re: Apollo Flight Plan"

    In a message dated 4/28/00 9:51:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
    chracker@mail.uni-mainz.de writes:
    
    > Jay Respler wrote:
    >  > It's exactly the same as looking at the stars. Whatever your stellar mag 
    > limit
    >  > is, it is the same for sats.
    >  
    >  I don't think it's the same. Photo receptors in the retina have to be hit 
    >  by a minimum amount of photons per second to yield a perceptible 
    >  output to the brain. If you look at a star at the magnitude limit its 
    light 
    >  will concentrate on one spot of the retina. An equally bright (fast 
    >  moving) satellite will not be visible because its light does not stimulate 
    >  an individual receptor long enough. Of course you might succeed to 
    >  exactly follow the satellite with your eyes but I can't imaginge that 
    >  this works precisely enough.
    >  
    >  Christian
    
    The same lack of precision applies to observing a star with the naked eye. 
    Unless of course, you secure your head in a vise and immobilize the eyes with 
    a muscle relaxant. Your ability to focus a point source onto a specific set 
    of rods and cones, is measured in mili-seconds.
    _______________________________________
    Regards,
    Stephen 28.37612N 81.35404W Orlando, FL
    
    Satellite Hunting™ visible pass
    prediction shareware v2.0.2
    http://stephen.fathom.org/sathunt.html
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
    in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org
    http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 28 2000 - 19:29:57 PDT