I took my son out to watch the ISS (International Space Station) pass by
at 5:43 this evening. My son saw it first but we weren't sure because
something else was moving at the same speed. We quickly realized
yes both objects were moving across the sky. At arms length they were
about thumb to pinky (spread out) distance apart.
When we got home I started looking online to see what the second
object was. Turns out to be STS129, the space shuttle!
Open these in two different tabs and see how close they are to each other.
The ISS.
http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25544

The Space shuttle.
http://www.n2yo.com/?s=36094

I don't know how long they will track.
Well, I know not past 9:30 tommorrow,
the shuttle is supposed to land.
Mike

"amdx" wrote in message
...
I took my son out to watch the ISS (International Space Station) pass by
at 5:43 this evening. My son saw it first but we weren't sure because
something else was moving at the same speed. We quickly realized
yes both objects were moving across the sky. At arms length they were
about thumb to pinky (spread out) distance apart.
When we got home I started looking online to see what the second
object was. Turns out to be STS129, the space shuttle!
Open these in two different tabs and see how close they are to each other.
The ISS.
http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25544

The Space shuttle.
http://www.n2yo.com/?s=36094

I don't know how long they will track.
Well, I know not past 9:30 tommorrow,
the shuttle is supposed to land.
Mike
This must have been a rare occurance, look how close the were.
Maximum altitude is at ISS 17:44:57 STS 17:45:19 Within 22 seconds
Altitude ISS 37° STS 38°
Within 1°
Azimuth ISS 44° STS 44°
Same
Distance ISS 549 km STS 545 km
Within 4 km.

ISS = International Space Station STS= The Space shuttle- STS 129
Mike

On Nov 26, 5:47*pm, "amdx" wrote:
I took my son out to watch the ISS (International Space Station) pass by
at 5:43 this evening. My son saw it first but we weren't sure because
something else was moving at the same speed. We quickly realized
yes both objects were moving across the sky. At arms length they were
about thumb to pinky (spread out) distance apart.
*When we got home I started looking online to see what the second
object was. Turns out to be STS129, the space shuttle!
Open these in two different tabs and see how close they are to each other..
The ISS.http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25544

*The Space shuttle.http://www.n2yo.com/?s=36094

*I don't know how long they will track.
Well, I know not past 9:30 tommorrow,
the shuttle is supposed to land.
* * * * * * * * * * * Mike

http://www.heavens-above.com/
Try this. It shows other birds that will be in your view. Remember
brightness is an inverse scale. Something negative is very bright.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 5:47 pm, "amdx" wrote:
I took my son out to watch the ISS (International Space Station) pass by
at 5:43 this evening. My son saw it first but we weren't sure because
something else was moving at the same speed. We quickly realized
yes both objects were moving across the sky. At arms length they were
about thumb to pinky (spread out) distance apart.
When we got home I started looking online to see what the second
object was. Turns out to be STS129, the space shuttle!
Open these in two different tabs and see how close they are to each other.
The ISS.http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25544

The Space shuttle.http://www.n2yo.com/?s=36094

I don't know how long they will track.
Well, I know not past 9:30 tommorrow,
the shuttle is supposed to land.
Mike

http://www.heavens-above.com/
Try this. It shows other birds that will be in your view. Remember
brightness is an inverse scale. Something negative is very bright.

Yes, That's what I used to find the ISS would be coming over.
Then when we saw two objects, I tried to get back on that sight
and it was to busy for the next few hours.
Mike

On Nov 26, 7:54*pm, "amdx" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Nov 26, 5:47 pm, "amdx" wrote:



I took my son out to watch the ISS (International Space Station) pass by
at 5:43 this evening. My son saw it first but we weren't sure because
something else was moving at the same speed. We quickly realized
yes both objects were moving across the sky. At arms length they were
about thumb to pinky (spread out) distance apart.
When we got home I started looking online to see what the second
object was. Turns out to be STS129, the space shuttle!
Open these in two different tabs and see how close they are to each other.
The ISS.http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25544

The Space shuttle.http://www.n2yo.com/?s=36094

I don't know how long they will track.
Well, I know not past 9:30 tommorrow,
the shuttle is supposed to land.
Mike
http://www.heavens-above.com/
Try this. It shows other birds that will be in your view. Remember
brightness is an inverse scale. Something negative is very bright.

Yes, *That's what I used to find the ISS would be coming over.
Then when we saw two objects, I tried to get back on that sight
and it was to busy for the next few hours.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mike

It helps to have an "atomic clock" when you do this kind of stuff.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 7:54 pm, "amdx" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Nov 26, 5:47 pm, "amdx" wrote:



I took my son out to watch the ISS (International Space Station) pass by
at 5:43 this evening. My son saw it first but we weren't sure because
something else was moving at the same speed. We quickly realized
yes both objects were moving across the sky. At arms length they were
about thumb to pinky (spread out) distance apart.
When we got home I started looking online to see what the second
object was. Turns out to be STS129, the space shuttle!
Open these in two different tabs and see how close they are to each
other.
The ISS.http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25544

The Space shuttle.http://www.n2yo.com/?s=36094

I don't know how long they will track.
Well, I know not past 9:30 tommorrow,
the shuttle is supposed to land.
Mike
http://www.heavens-above.com/
Try this. It shows other birds that will be in your view. Remember
brightness is an inverse scale. Something negative is very bright.

Yes, That's what I used to find the ISS would be coming over.
Then when we saw two objects, I tried to get back on that sight
and it was to busy for the next few hours.
Mike

It helps to have an "atomic clock" when you do this kind of stuff.

My cellphone was close enough, but a compass would have helped
pinpoint the rising direction better. 4 hours later and I'm still excited!
Mike

On Nov 26, 8:10*pm, "amdx" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Nov 26, 7:54 pm, "amdx" wrote:



wrote in message

....
On Nov 26, 5:47 pm, "amdx" wrote:

I took my son out to watch the ISS (International Space Station) pass by
at 5:43 this evening. My son saw it first but we weren't sure because
something else was moving at the same speed. We quickly realized
yes both objects were moving across the sky. At arms length they were
about thumb to pinky (spread out) distance apart.
When we got home I started looking online to see what the second
object was. Turns out to be STS129, the space shuttle!
Open these in two different tabs and see how close they are to each
other.
The ISS.http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25544

The Space shuttle.http://www.n2yo.com/?s=36094

I don't know how long they will track.
Well, I know not past 9:30 tommorrow,
the shuttle is supposed to land.
Mike
http://www.heavens-above.com/
Try this. It shows other birds that will be in your view. Remember
brightness is an inverse scale. Something negative is very bright.

Yes, That's what I used to find the ISS would be coming over.
Then when we saw two objects, I tried to get back on that sight
and it was to busy for the next few hours.
Mike
It helps to have an "atomic clock" when you do this kind of stuff.

My cellphone was close enough, but a compass would have helped
pinpoint the rising direction better. 4 hours later and I'm still excited!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mike

http://www.cammenga.com/cammenga-pro...php?category=1
The phosphorus version is good enough. I "juice it" with a flashlight
since I'm not working SWAT or special ops. ;-) You can pay extra for
tritium, but it wears out. You shouldn't buy one used for that reason.
The phosphorus version is under $40 and it will last a lifetime, or
until it is lost or stolen.

I have a GPS with a compass in it, but you have to remember to
calibrate them. Really annoying.

Next up of course is that damn magnetic correction.

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:28:51 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

http://www.cammenga.com/cammenga-pro...php?category=1
The phosphorus version is good enough. I "juice it" with a flashlight
since I'm not working SWAT or special ops. ;-) You can pay extra for
tritium, but it wears out. You shouldn't buy one used for that reason.
The phosphorus version is under $40 and it will last a lifetime, or
until it is lost or stolen.

Yech. I do some TV antenna alignments and the usual point to point
wireless. I don't bother with a compass because they're not accurate
enough. What works best is a road map, a plywood board, and some
nails. Mark your position on the map with a nail, push pin, or pin.
Mark the position of a distant mountain, building, or landmark on the
map. Eyeball the line between the two nails to the distant mountain,
building or landmark. All maps have true north marked on them. The
direction of the map arrow is true north. I can usually locate true
north to within +/- 2 degrees depending on the size of the map and the
distance to the marker. Using multiple distant points improves the
accuracy.

If you're into astronomy, sighting the north star also works well.
Also, using a computer sky chart/map to locate easy to find stars.

One I establish true north, I like to mark it on the road, sidewalk,
or deck with a line or arrow. I have a brass marker arrow nailed to
my deck.

I have a GPS with a compass in it, but you have to remember to
calibrate them. Really annoying.

Calibrate? You have to be moving in order for it to work. Then, it
will only tell you the direction that you're moving. If you only go a
short distance, it's not going to be very accurate.

Next up of course is that damn magnetic correction.

I don't do no stinkin magnetic correction cause I don't use no stinkin
magnetic or fluxgate compass.

Incidentally, I have a really handy item for watching expensive birds.
I made a panorama (stitched) photo of the view from my rooftop at
home, at the office, and at my favorite astronomy meeting places. I
then marked the azimuths every 10 degrees on the JPG. Although
difficult to see the remote hilltops at night, I now have the azimuth
of anything in the sky or between me and the surrounding hills.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Nov 26, 9:25*pm, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:28:51 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:
http://www.cammenga.com/cammenga-pro...php?category=1
The phosphorus version is good enough. I "juice it" with a flashlight
since I'm not working SWAT or special ops. ;-) *You can pay extra for
tritium, but it wears out. You shouldn't buy one used for that reason.
The phosphorus version is under $40 and it will last a lifetime, or
until it is lost or stolen.

Yech. *I do some TV antenna alignments and the usual point to point
wireless. *I don't bother with a compass because they're not accurate
enough. *What works best is a road map, a plywood board, and some
nails. *Mark your position on the map with a nail, push pin, or pin.
Mark the position of a distant mountain, building, or landmark on the
map. *Eyeball the line between the two nails to the distant mountain,
building or landmark. *All maps have true north marked on them. *The
direction of the map arrow is true north. *I can usually locate true
north to within +/- 2 degrees depending on the size of the map and the
distance to the marker. *Using multiple distant points improves the
accuracy.

If you're into astronomy, sighting the north star also works well.
Also, using a computer sky chart/map to locate easy to find stars.

One I establish true north, I like to mark it on the road, sidewalk,
or deck with a line or arrow. *I have a brass marker arrow nailed to
my deck.

I have a GPS with a compass in it, but you have to remember to
calibrate them. Really annoying.

Calibrate? *You have to be moving in order for it to work. *Then, it
will only tell you the direction that you're moving. *If you only go a
short distance, it's not going to be very accurate.

Next up of course is that damn magnetic correction.

I don't do no stinkin magnetic correction cause I don't use no stinkin
magnetic or fluxgate compass.

Incidentally, I have a really handy item for watching expensive birds.
I made a panorama (stitched) photo of the view from my rooftop at
home, at the office, and at my favorite astronomy meeting places. *I
then marked the azimuths every 10 degrees on the JPG. *Although
difficult to see the remote hilltops at night, I now have the azimuth
of anything in the sky or between me and the surrounding hills.

--
Jeff Liebermann * *
150 Felker St #D * *http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann * * AE6KS * *831-336-2558

The "virtual" compass requires you to move since it bases direction on
differential GPS readings. OK in a car, semi-OK on foot, worthless if
the going is slow since the delta of distance is not significant
enough to get a good calculation.

The newer GPSs have sensors in them. To null out the nearby magnetic
field, you need to slow spin it around. Two revolutions generally. Or
you can spin your body around and look like an idiot. The trouble is
the GPS has to be level unless you have a 3-D compass. [Garmin
doesn't, Magellan does. Too many complaints about Magellan gear, so
you just put up with Garmin.] The GPS has a threshold where it will
shift from magnetic sensor to virtual compass. You can really screw
yourself up if you don't know about this.

Your technique is fine if you spot from the same location. If you are
on the move, you realy do need a compass. Occasionally I'll see
something off in the distance.[OK, OK, in denied access area.] Log
your position, take a vector, then study it on google earth or a map.
Other times I am DFing radio signals. Again, the compass does the log.
Log everything in magnetic, then use your mag in magnetic, and you
won't go crazy. Attempt to correct your readings and you are either
correct or you just added twice the adjustment factor to your reading.
Really not a good idea.

Aviation long ago decided on doing everything magnetic, probably to
get around the confusion. Of course, they still use AGL (above ground
level) and MSL (mean sea level) for altitude. You may recall either a
Thunderbird or Blue Angel getting into trouble with this.

I use your spotting technique at times too. It depends on if I can do
the preparation. Your scheme works better in mountain areas, which is
where I use it since I know the various peaks and where the campsite
is located.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:58:09 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

The "virtual" compass requires you to move since it bases direction on
differential GPS readings. OK in a car, semi-OK on foot, worthless if
the going is slow since the delta of distance is not significant
enough to get a good calculation.

Actually, it's not too horrible for determining the general direction
of travel. However, totally useless for determining the azimuth of
something from a fixed location.

The newer GPSs have sensors in them. To null out the nearby magnetic
field, you need to slow spin it around. Two revolutions generally. Or
you can spin your body around and look like an idiot. The trouble is
the GPS has to be level unless you have a 3-D compass. [Garmin
doesn't, Magellan does. Too many complaints about Magellan gear, so
you just put up with Garmin.] The GPS has a threshold where it will
shift from magnetic sensor to virtual compass. You can really screw
yourself up if you don't know about this.

I spent some time trying to get sane readings from the fluxgate
"magnetic" compass in a borrowed Garmin GPS. The rotation method
worked quite well, until I moved. When standing next to a vehicle, it
was nearly useless.

Your technique is fine if you spot from the same location. If you are
on the move, you realy do need a compass.

Ummm.... orbital satellite spotting from a moving vehicle is rather
uncommon and dangerous.

Occasionally I'll see
something off in the distance.[OK, OK, in denied access area.]

Sigh. I suppose the alien technology that they're hiding is better
than a compass.

Log
your position, take a vector, then study it on google earth or a map.
Other times I am DFing radio signals. Again, the compass does the log.
Log everything in magnetic, then use your mag in magnetic, and you
won't go crazy. Attempt to correct your readings and you are either
correct or you just added twice the adjustment factor to your reading.
Really not a good idea.

Ok. I'll admit to having added my declination instead subtracted more
than once. Still, some additional practice and a few sanity checks
against known locations should help.

Aviation long ago decided on doing everything magnetic, probably to
get around the confusion.

Mostly true. All US runways are magnetic. So is the VOR. However,
all sectional maps are based on true north. GPS navigation devices
can be either way. Magnetic is a big help when using a magnetic
compass for finding the runway.

Canadian aviation is really strange. The northern half uses true
north, while the southern half uses magnetic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_declination

Of course, they still use AGL (above ground
level) and MSL (mean sea level) for altitude. You may recall either a
Thunderbird or Blue Angel getting into trouble with this.

Dunno. However, I've screwed up a few HAAT calculations on FCC
license applications when I was doing them with just a calculator:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_above_average_terrain

I use your spotting technique at times too. It depends on if I can do
the preparation. Your scheme works better in mountain areas, which is
where I use it since I know the various peaks and where the campsite
is located.

It works with any decent road map. You don't even need to sight the
distant mountain peaks. Just align the map with the local roadways
and it's already better than a magnetic compass. The most difficult
part is finding a large flat area on which to place the map. When
desperate, I use corrugated box cardboard and pins for markers.

Incidentally, I have a crude system of doing TDOA (time difference of
arrival) hyperbolic RDF location on a paper map using two nails and
some string. I'm slowly scribbling a web page on the subject, so no
details until I'm done.

Oh, if you want high tech location and mapping assistance, there's GPS
augmented reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fl718QO_xQ


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558