HeadHunter67 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Did you miss the picture I just posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeefTenderloin Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 AFAIK it is rendered.90% sure Harvester said otherwise in a similar thread as to why we can't view satellites. He said the planets that you aren't in the SOI of are not actually rendered, they're just 2d images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMagic Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Did you miss the picture I just posted?Well, yeah, of course the moon is brighter than an artificial satellite; it's also a whole lot bigger. And, while you're right that a solar panel would be more efficient if it absorbed most light instead of reflecting so much, it's obvious that they don't do that. I'm guessing that whatever semiconductor layer (or combination of layers) is used has a limited absorption spectrum and so reflects most of the wavelengths that can't knock electrons out of their orbits. And given the low efficiency of most solar panels, they probably reflect most of the photons that do have the right wavelength, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vetrox Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Look up at the sky at near dusk and dawn. You will see a few satellites moving about. They look like moving stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rage097 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Look up at the sky at near dusk and dawn. You will see a few satellites moving about. They look like moving stars.They also can be planes, choppers, or other aircraft. But certain satellites can be seen.Also. Kerbal vision my just be screwed up instead of these theories based off human vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadHunter67 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Well, yeah, of course the moon is brighter than an artificial satellite; it's also a whole lot bigger.The OP has already rejected this point in an effort to defend his non-scientific expectation of visibility. My point is that the reflective quality of an object is far less significant than its apparent size compared to its distance, as Burninate has so ably and mathematically illustrated. And, while you're right that a solar panel would be more efficient if it absorbed most light instead of reflecting so much, it's obvious that they don't do that.Look at where the reflection is visible in his picture. It's off the glass, right? Wait a minute, isn't glass transparent, which means photons can pass through it both ways? Of course it is - the reflection is only visible when light strikes its surface at what's called the "critical angle". Like any such reflection, it's thus only visible from certain angles - this is why you can, as Vetrox says, sometimes see an artificial satellite at dawn or dusk. The point I'm trying to make is, a solar panel is not a mirror - in fact, it's as far from it as possible, or else it wouldn't work. It does not, in and of itself, turn a spacecraft or satellite or station into a beacon that can be spotted under all circumstances.Each of the OP's claims has been refuted appropriately - concerns about how it "should be" possible in the game have been answered by how the game actually works, and attempts at justifying it according to his perception of how it "should be" in real life have now been answered likewise. The picture of the Moon is intended specifically to illustrate that "reflectivity" (i.e., albedo) has little to do with an object's visibility under reflected light, as lunar rock is about as reflective as asphalt. Still, the Moon (not any artificial satellite) is "significantly brighter than anything in the solar system than the sun".The defense rests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphire Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 -snip-You could also use the point that OP's space station doesn't appear to have solar panels on it.http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50661-Showcase-Showcase-your-Orbital-Dry-Docks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rage097 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 You could also use the point that OP's space station doesn't appear to have solar panels on it.http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50661-Showcase-Showcase-your-Orbital-Dry-DocksThe plot thickens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadHunter67 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Indeed - it's scarcely visible from the distance at which the screenshot was taken, let alone the planetary surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenM3 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) The other day I was going to Duna and looked out the window at a few million km in altitude and saw Duna and Ike. I went to cockpit view and zoomed all the way in to take a peek and saw a twinkling little spec between the two. And that little spec of a pixel is actually Kerbin. Amazing how they lined up like that lol. Verified in map view that kerbin was what I was seeing. Click to get full res Edited October 3, 2013 by AllenM3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vetrox Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 They also can be planes, choppers, or other aircraft. But certain satellites can be seen.Also. Kerbal vision my just be screwed up instead of these theories based off human vision.Nah, Satellites dont look like planes and other misc aircraft. They litterally look like moving stars wheras arcraft will be green and red and will flash. Also sattellites will look like they have a wobble to them every now and then depending on atmospheric conditions. They are also silent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadHunter67 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Yet, still, faraway planets can be at least as bright, depending on the conditions. Jupiter and Venus, in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vetrox Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Jupiter and venus dont move through the sky at night, they sort of sit there As a side note jupiter is pretty visable around 1am in the northern hemisphere atm. It will get earlier as the winter sets in. Ive yet to get a good view of venus as everywhere on my horizon has got trees in the way Although this does raise the point that you cant see distant planets at night or when in space in ksp. Just a small starry object thats easy to differentiate between the background would be quite cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odo Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Since you can only zoom in like that inside of the cockpit..Maybe the kerbals HAVE a telescope inside of their capsules? It would make sense...Furthermore, I dont understand the point of this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadHunter67 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Jupiter and venus dont move through the sky at night, they sort of sit there I know - but they're "significantly brighter" than any man-made satellite, don't you agree?Furthermore, I dont understand the point of this thread Neither do we... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUDUFU Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) You can see objects in space with the unaided eye. http://iss.astroviewer.net/STS75 also streamed a long tethered satellite that was visible from earth.INB4 UFO Edited October 3, 2013 by JUDUFU Added a link to track ISS location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAstronut Posted October 4, 2013 Author Share Posted October 4, 2013 God god can nobody read that this isn't about not being able to see spacecraft. Admins please lock the thread, it's getting nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerdog2000 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Something we all seem to have forgotten about is how much smaller the KSP solar system is compared to a real one. That level of detail might be completely appropriate for a celestial object that close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
were71 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 I just discovered that you can zoom in a iva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiWint Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 I'm everytime happy when I see minmus ^^ such a beautiful,shiny,white dot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoomtrainInc Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Whatever the technical reasons or the concessions made to achieve the effect. I find the end result in game to be very pleasing. Its always fun when i go to rub a spot off my monitor only to realize its a celestial body in the distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Requiem762 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Planet descriptions do say most we're discovered by squinting really hard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMagic Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 I know - but they're "significantly brighter" than any man-made satellite, don't you agree?Actually it's not really even close. Iridium flares can be extremely bright, with an apparent magnitude down to -9.5, this is brighter than pretty much anything in the sky except the sun and the moon. Venus can only get to -4.9 and Jupiter to -2.9, which (if I'm calculating this right) means that Iridium flares can be almost 70X brighter than Venus and 430X brighter than Jupiter. I've seen a few in the -5 to -6 range using Iridium tracking apps and they are really impressive, every one should keep an eye out for them. The ISS can get pretty bright too (around -5.6) and you can follow it across the entire sky, unlike the Iridium satellites which only flash for a few seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vetrox Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 I know - but they're "significantly brighter" than any man-made satellite, don't you agree? I dunno, some of them satellites are pretty darn bright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borisvolodnikov Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Didn't you ever notice how big those Kerbal eyes are? Great visual accuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts