Will it be possible to see BFR approaching the moon from earth, with naked eye?
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
The title pretty much sums it up. I'm not old enough to have experienced any of the previous manned moon landings. Given that Big Falcon Rocket will go around the moon in 2023, I'm wondering if one will be able to see the whole rocket or at least its second stage from earth when it's approaching the moon - but with my plain eyes (I know camera technology's good).
I'm not expecting to see it like a plane or something, but maybe reflections, thrusters, ...? A tiny dot getting closer and closer to the moon, knowing there are humans in there - that'd be cool...
Thanks in advance!
spacex the-moon bfr visibility-of-spacecraft
New contributor
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
The title pretty much sums it up. I'm not old enough to have experienced any of the previous manned moon landings. Given that Big Falcon Rocket will go around the moon in 2023, I'm wondering if one will be able to see the whole rocket or at least its second stage from earth when it's approaching the moon - but with my plain eyes (I know camera technology's good).
I'm not expecting to see it like a plane or something, but maybe reflections, thrusters, ...? A tiny dot getting closer and closer to the moon, knowing there are humans in there - that'd be cool...
Thanks in advance!
spacex the-moon bfr visibility-of-spacecraft
New contributor
2
Thank you for the accept, but don't feel you have to accept right away. It's possible other good answers will be posted as well.
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
Sure - I got used to accepting quite fast from SO, but you're right, on many other SE sites there's often way more room for multiple correct and good answers, let's see :)
– linusg
2 days ago
1
Yep, this is a different galaxy than SO! ;-)
– uhoh
2 days ago
Hi new user! The simple answer is no, not a chance. Not even close. It would be like trying to see a cellphone from about 100 miles away.
– Fattie
2 days ago
You may enjoy this, OP .. what-if.xkcd.com/13
– Fattie
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
The title pretty much sums it up. I'm not old enough to have experienced any of the previous manned moon landings. Given that Big Falcon Rocket will go around the moon in 2023, I'm wondering if one will be able to see the whole rocket or at least its second stage from earth when it's approaching the moon - but with my plain eyes (I know camera technology's good).
I'm not expecting to see it like a plane or something, but maybe reflections, thrusters, ...? A tiny dot getting closer and closer to the moon, knowing there are humans in there - that'd be cool...
Thanks in advance!
spacex the-moon bfr visibility-of-spacecraft
New contributor
The title pretty much sums it up. I'm not old enough to have experienced any of the previous manned moon landings. Given that Big Falcon Rocket will go around the moon in 2023, I'm wondering if one will be able to see the whole rocket or at least its second stage from earth when it's approaching the moon - but with my plain eyes (I know camera technology's good).
I'm not expecting to see it like a plane or something, but maybe reflections, thrusters, ...? A tiny dot getting closer and closer to the moon, knowing there are humans in there - that'd be cool...
Thanks in advance!
spacex the-moon bfr visibility-of-spacecraft
spacex the-moon bfr visibility-of-spacecraft
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 2 days ago
linusg
1766
1766
New contributor
New contributor
2
Thank you for the accept, but don't feel you have to accept right away. It's possible other good answers will be posted as well.
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
Sure - I got used to accepting quite fast from SO, but you're right, on many other SE sites there's often way more room for multiple correct and good answers, let's see :)
– linusg
2 days ago
1
Yep, this is a different galaxy than SO! ;-)
– uhoh
2 days ago
Hi new user! The simple answer is no, not a chance. Not even close. It would be like trying to see a cellphone from about 100 miles away.
– Fattie
2 days ago
You may enjoy this, OP .. what-if.xkcd.com/13
– Fattie
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
Thank you for the accept, but don't feel you have to accept right away. It's possible other good answers will be posted as well.
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
Sure - I got used to accepting quite fast from SO, but you're right, on many other SE sites there's often way more room for multiple correct and good answers, let's see :)
– linusg
2 days ago
1
Yep, this is a different galaxy than SO! ;-)
– uhoh
2 days ago
Hi new user! The simple answer is no, not a chance. Not even close. It would be like trying to see a cellphone from about 100 miles away.
– Fattie
2 days ago
You may enjoy this, OP .. what-if.xkcd.com/13
– Fattie
2 days ago
2
2
Thank you for the accept, but don't feel you have to accept right away. It's possible other good answers will be posted as well.
– uhoh
2 days ago
Thank you for the accept, but don't feel you have to accept right away. It's possible other good answers will be posted as well.
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
1
Sure - I got used to accepting quite fast from SO, but you're right, on many other SE sites there's often way more room for multiple correct and good answers, let's see :)
– linusg
2 days ago
Sure - I got used to accepting quite fast from SO, but you're right, on many other SE sites there's often way more room for multiple correct and good answers, let's see :)
– linusg
2 days ago
1
1
Yep, this is a different galaxy than SO! ;-)
– uhoh
2 days ago
Yep, this is a different galaxy than SO! ;-)
– uhoh
2 days ago
Hi new user! The simple answer is no, not a chance. Not even close. It would be like trying to see a cellphone from about 100 miles away.
– Fattie
2 days ago
Hi new user! The simple answer is no, not a chance. Not even close. It would be like trying to see a cellphone from about 100 miles away.
– Fattie
2 days ago
You may enjoy this, OP .. what-if.xkcd.com/13
– Fattie
2 days ago
You may enjoy this, OP .. what-if.xkcd.com/13
– Fattie
2 days ago
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
17
down vote
accepted
tl;dr: at an apparent magnitude of about +18.5 you need a several meter telescope and a dark sky. Hubble can do it too. So by reflected sunlight, definitely not by eye. The exhaust from a Methalox (CH4 + LOX) engine barely makes any light in the visible, so no help there.
Starting with the math from this answer:
I'm going to characterize the 55 x 9 meter white 2nd stage as a 22 meter diffuse sphere(ical cow) with albedo 0.3 for order of magnitude estimation.
The expression for absolute magnitude $M_{Abs}$ by rearranging the equation here is:
$$M_{Abs} = 5 left(log_{10}(1329) -frac{1}{2}log_{10}(text{albedo}) -log_{10}(D_{km})right)$$
For the "spherical cow" spacecraft that turns out to be an absolute magnitude of +25.
Knowing the absolute magnitude of an object, you calculate the apparent magnitude $m$ using:
$$ m = M_{Abs} + 2.5 log_{10}left(frac{d_{SR} d_{RE}}{1 text{AU}^2 O(1)}right), $$
where $d_{SR}$ and $d_{RE}$ are the Sun-Roadster and Roadster-Earth distances, each normalized by 1 AU, and the factor $O(1)$ is the phase integral, of order unity, taking into account the angular difference between the direction of illumination and the direction of viewing. In an order of magnitude calculation, this only becomes really significant when the body moves between the Sun and the viewer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude#Solar_System_bodies_(H).
In this case, replace Roadster with BFR. Since $d_{SR}$ and $d_{RE}$ are 1.0 and 0.0025 AU respectively, and ignoring the phase integral, the apparent magnitude is about -6.5 lower or +18.5 magnitude.
I think that can be seen with the Hubble Space Telescope above the atmosphere in a fairly short exposure. On the ground you'd need a several meter telescope and a dark night, but you can do it. If you want to use your eye, better find one of these telescopes that has an active eyepiece!
BFR's Raptor engines burn "methalox" (methane and liquid oxygen) CH4 + O2. The products are CO2 and H2O both gases. The brightness from the exhaust from many launches are from carbon soot glowing when kerosene (RP-1) is burned, not methane.
Here is a screenshot from the video Blue Origin BE-4 Engine Compilation during the daytime, so you can have a reference to brightness. I haven't found an outdoor firing of the Raptor yet:
1
Thanks for the detailed answer, especially your addition about the engine chemistry! I'm not a native english speaker, but after I look up some of the physics vocabulary used I'll have a more in depth look on the formulas!
– linusg
2 days ago
1
Feel free to ask me to make something clearer here, or you can post a new question about the calculations after checking the links. Welcome to Space!
– uhoh
2 days ago
2
The shuttle main engines burned liquid hydrogen, not methane
– matteol
2 days ago
@matteol I knew something felt strange there, thanks!
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
Doesn't New Shepard use the BE-3, which is hydrolox? Did they test it with the BE-4?
– DylanSp
2 days ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
14
down vote
If you want an easy way to think about it, imagine how bright it might be in low Earth orbit, 240 miles up (which is just a bit lower than the International Space Station). However bright that is, it will be only a millionth as bright when it’s near the Moon, 240,000 miles away (and so a thousand times the distance). Is it likely that it will be bright enough in low orbit that you can still see it when it’s a millionth as bright as that?
New contributor
Good one Mike. I figure you can "see a cellphone" from about 1/10th of a mile. So I said it would be like trying to see a cellphone at 100 miles. Sounds about right?
– Fattie
2 days ago
@Fattie It’s about right, but the crucial point is that something a thousand times further away isn’t a thousand times dimmer, it’s a million times dimmer. Inverse square law.
– Mike Scott
2 days ago
5
You got the same answer as I did with about a thousand times less work, congratulations! One million times dimmer is 15 magnitudes dimmer. Start with 3rd magnitude and add 15 and you get 18.+1
– uhoh
2 days ago
4
@linusg I think that this is a better answer than mine, because it's just as correct, but a lot more accessible.
– uhoh
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Rocket engines burning in vacuum produce large exhaust plumes that rapidly spread outward to 'fill' the vacuum. This means that for a distance of many dozens of meters - or more - they produce a visible cloud of gas that can catch sunlight and produce very large, visible artifacts in a clear night sky. So - engine burns near Earth (departure, or arrivals burning into orbit) will be quite easily visible to those who are in night and under the burns.
For example, this GLONASS launch trail taken from a thread full of rocket plume images.
Mid course burns may be visible as well, though much less dramatic. Arrival and departure burns happening in the vicinity of the moon are not likely to be visible at all to the naked eye due to great distance.
2
I am not sure that CO2 + H2O exhaust in vacuum would ever form a visible plume. Without a buffer gas (i.e. low pressure atmosphere) to slow it quickly, wouldn't the molecules expand to large separation distances and have no chance to recombine into droplets?
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
I can't find suitable evidence for my hunch they will remain visible. Gaseous nitrogen thrusters produce visible plumes. Fuel dumps are visible, though that contains liquid fuel. I believe water vapor will produce visible ice crystals, but this is just my hunch.
– Saiboogu
yesterday
1
@uhoh Wouldn't they flash-freeze into tiny crystals with pressure drop in vacuum?
– Eth
10 hours ago
@Eth It's a race. If the molecules bump into each other frequently enough, they can stick and start forming particles, but if their relative velocity moves them far enough apart fast enough so that collisions are infrequent, then they won't. They won't slow down in vacuum. Watch launch videos and especially the views behind 2nd stages where you see the red-hot nozzle and the path back to Earth, RP-1/LOX engines don't seem to leave any trail behind themselves at all, and that's very similar chemistry to methalox.
– uhoh
5 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
17
down vote
accepted
tl;dr: at an apparent magnitude of about +18.5 you need a several meter telescope and a dark sky. Hubble can do it too. So by reflected sunlight, definitely not by eye. The exhaust from a Methalox (CH4 + LOX) engine barely makes any light in the visible, so no help there.
Starting with the math from this answer:
I'm going to characterize the 55 x 9 meter white 2nd stage as a 22 meter diffuse sphere(ical cow) with albedo 0.3 for order of magnitude estimation.
The expression for absolute magnitude $M_{Abs}$ by rearranging the equation here is:
$$M_{Abs} = 5 left(log_{10}(1329) -frac{1}{2}log_{10}(text{albedo}) -log_{10}(D_{km})right)$$
For the "spherical cow" spacecraft that turns out to be an absolute magnitude of +25.
Knowing the absolute magnitude of an object, you calculate the apparent magnitude $m$ using:
$$ m = M_{Abs} + 2.5 log_{10}left(frac{d_{SR} d_{RE}}{1 text{AU}^2 O(1)}right), $$
where $d_{SR}$ and $d_{RE}$ are the Sun-Roadster and Roadster-Earth distances, each normalized by 1 AU, and the factor $O(1)$ is the phase integral, of order unity, taking into account the angular difference between the direction of illumination and the direction of viewing. In an order of magnitude calculation, this only becomes really significant when the body moves between the Sun and the viewer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude#Solar_System_bodies_(H).
In this case, replace Roadster with BFR. Since $d_{SR}$ and $d_{RE}$ are 1.0 and 0.0025 AU respectively, and ignoring the phase integral, the apparent magnitude is about -6.5 lower or +18.5 magnitude.
I think that can be seen with the Hubble Space Telescope above the atmosphere in a fairly short exposure. On the ground you'd need a several meter telescope and a dark night, but you can do it. If you want to use your eye, better find one of these telescopes that has an active eyepiece!
BFR's Raptor engines burn "methalox" (methane and liquid oxygen) CH4 + O2. The products are CO2 and H2O both gases. The brightness from the exhaust from many launches are from carbon soot glowing when kerosene (RP-1) is burned, not methane.
Here is a screenshot from the video Blue Origin BE-4 Engine Compilation during the daytime, so you can have a reference to brightness. I haven't found an outdoor firing of the Raptor yet:
1
Thanks for the detailed answer, especially your addition about the engine chemistry! I'm not a native english speaker, but after I look up some of the physics vocabulary used I'll have a more in depth look on the formulas!
– linusg
2 days ago
1
Feel free to ask me to make something clearer here, or you can post a new question about the calculations after checking the links. Welcome to Space!
– uhoh
2 days ago
2
The shuttle main engines burned liquid hydrogen, not methane
– matteol
2 days ago
@matteol I knew something felt strange there, thanks!
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
Doesn't New Shepard use the BE-3, which is hydrolox? Did they test it with the BE-4?
– DylanSp
2 days ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
17
down vote
accepted
tl;dr: at an apparent magnitude of about +18.5 you need a several meter telescope and a dark sky. Hubble can do it too. So by reflected sunlight, definitely not by eye. The exhaust from a Methalox (CH4 + LOX) engine barely makes any light in the visible, so no help there.
Starting with the math from this answer:
I'm going to characterize the 55 x 9 meter white 2nd stage as a 22 meter diffuse sphere(ical cow) with albedo 0.3 for order of magnitude estimation.
The expression for absolute magnitude $M_{Abs}$ by rearranging the equation here is:
$$M_{Abs} = 5 left(log_{10}(1329) -frac{1}{2}log_{10}(text{albedo}) -log_{10}(D_{km})right)$$
For the "spherical cow" spacecraft that turns out to be an absolute magnitude of +25.
Knowing the absolute magnitude of an object, you calculate the apparent magnitude $m$ using:
$$ m = M_{Abs} + 2.5 log_{10}left(frac{d_{SR} d_{RE}}{1 text{AU}^2 O(1)}right), $$
where $d_{SR}$ and $d_{RE}$ are the Sun-Roadster and Roadster-Earth distances, each normalized by 1 AU, and the factor $O(1)$ is the phase integral, of order unity, taking into account the angular difference between the direction of illumination and the direction of viewing. In an order of magnitude calculation, this only becomes really significant when the body moves between the Sun and the viewer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude#Solar_System_bodies_(H).
In this case, replace Roadster with BFR. Since $d_{SR}$ and $d_{RE}$ are 1.0 and 0.0025 AU respectively, and ignoring the phase integral, the apparent magnitude is about -6.5 lower or +18.5 magnitude.
I think that can be seen with the Hubble Space Telescope above the atmosphere in a fairly short exposure. On the ground you'd need a several meter telescope and a dark night, but you can do it. If you want to use your eye, better find one of these telescopes that has an active eyepiece!
BFR's Raptor engines burn "methalox" (methane and liquid oxygen) CH4 + O2. The products are CO2 and H2O both gases. The brightness from the exhaust from many launches are from carbon soot glowing when kerosene (RP-1) is burned, not methane.
Here is a screenshot from the video Blue Origin BE-4 Engine Compilation during the daytime, so you can have a reference to brightness. I haven't found an outdoor firing of the Raptor yet:
1
Thanks for the detailed answer, especially your addition about the engine chemistry! I'm not a native english speaker, but after I look up some of the physics vocabulary used I'll have a more in depth look on the formulas!
– linusg
2 days ago
1
Feel free to ask me to make something clearer here, or you can post a new question about the calculations after checking the links. Welcome to Space!
– uhoh
2 days ago
2
The shuttle main engines burned liquid hydrogen, not methane
– matteol
2 days ago
@matteol I knew something felt strange there, thanks!
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
Doesn't New Shepard use the BE-3, which is hydrolox? Did they test it with the BE-4?
– DylanSp
2 days ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
17
down vote
accepted
up vote
17
down vote
accepted
tl;dr: at an apparent magnitude of about +18.5 you need a several meter telescope and a dark sky. Hubble can do it too. So by reflected sunlight, definitely not by eye. The exhaust from a Methalox (CH4 + LOX) engine barely makes any light in the visible, so no help there.
Starting with the math from this answer:
I'm going to characterize the 55 x 9 meter white 2nd stage as a 22 meter diffuse sphere(ical cow) with albedo 0.3 for order of magnitude estimation.
The expression for absolute magnitude $M_{Abs}$ by rearranging the equation here is:
$$M_{Abs} = 5 left(log_{10}(1329) -frac{1}{2}log_{10}(text{albedo}) -log_{10}(D_{km})right)$$
For the "spherical cow" spacecraft that turns out to be an absolute magnitude of +25.
Knowing the absolute magnitude of an object, you calculate the apparent magnitude $m$ using:
$$ m = M_{Abs} + 2.5 log_{10}left(frac{d_{SR} d_{RE}}{1 text{AU}^2 O(1)}right), $$
where $d_{SR}$ and $d_{RE}$ are the Sun-Roadster and Roadster-Earth distances, each normalized by 1 AU, and the factor $O(1)$ is the phase integral, of order unity, taking into account the angular difference between the direction of illumination and the direction of viewing. In an order of magnitude calculation, this only becomes really significant when the body moves between the Sun and the viewer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude#Solar_System_bodies_(H).
In this case, replace Roadster with BFR. Since $d_{SR}$ and $d_{RE}$ are 1.0 and 0.0025 AU respectively, and ignoring the phase integral, the apparent magnitude is about -6.5 lower or +18.5 magnitude.
I think that can be seen with the Hubble Space Telescope above the atmosphere in a fairly short exposure. On the ground you'd need a several meter telescope and a dark night, but you can do it. If you want to use your eye, better find one of these telescopes that has an active eyepiece!
BFR's Raptor engines burn "methalox" (methane and liquid oxygen) CH4 + O2. The products are CO2 and H2O both gases. The brightness from the exhaust from many launches are from carbon soot glowing when kerosene (RP-1) is burned, not methane.
Here is a screenshot from the video Blue Origin BE-4 Engine Compilation during the daytime, so you can have a reference to brightness. I haven't found an outdoor firing of the Raptor yet:
tl;dr: at an apparent magnitude of about +18.5 you need a several meter telescope and a dark sky. Hubble can do it too. So by reflected sunlight, definitely not by eye. The exhaust from a Methalox (CH4 + LOX) engine barely makes any light in the visible, so no help there.
Starting with the math from this answer:
I'm going to characterize the 55 x 9 meter white 2nd stage as a 22 meter diffuse sphere(ical cow) with albedo 0.3 for order of magnitude estimation.
The expression for absolute magnitude $M_{Abs}$ by rearranging the equation here is:
$$M_{Abs} = 5 left(log_{10}(1329) -frac{1}{2}log_{10}(text{albedo}) -log_{10}(D_{km})right)$$
For the "spherical cow" spacecraft that turns out to be an absolute magnitude of +25.
Knowing the absolute magnitude of an object, you calculate the apparent magnitude $m$ using:
$$ m = M_{Abs} + 2.5 log_{10}left(frac{d_{SR} d_{RE}}{1 text{AU}^2 O(1)}right), $$
where $d_{SR}$ and $d_{RE}$ are the Sun-Roadster and Roadster-Earth distances, each normalized by 1 AU, and the factor $O(1)$ is the phase integral, of order unity, taking into account the angular difference between the direction of illumination and the direction of viewing. In an order of magnitude calculation, this only becomes really significant when the body moves between the Sun and the viewer. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude#Solar_System_bodies_(H).
In this case, replace Roadster with BFR. Since $d_{SR}$ and $d_{RE}$ are 1.0 and 0.0025 AU respectively, and ignoring the phase integral, the apparent magnitude is about -6.5 lower or +18.5 magnitude.
I think that can be seen with the Hubble Space Telescope above the atmosphere in a fairly short exposure. On the ground you'd need a several meter telescope and a dark night, but you can do it. If you want to use your eye, better find one of these telescopes that has an active eyepiece!
BFR's Raptor engines burn "methalox" (methane and liquid oxygen) CH4 + O2. The products are CO2 and H2O both gases. The brightness from the exhaust from many launches are from carbon soot glowing when kerosene (RP-1) is burned, not methane.
Here is a screenshot from the video Blue Origin BE-4 Engine Compilation during the daytime, so you can have a reference to brightness. I haven't found an outdoor firing of the Raptor yet:
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
uhoh
32.3k16112399
32.3k16112399
1
Thanks for the detailed answer, especially your addition about the engine chemistry! I'm not a native english speaker, but after I look up some of the physics vocabulary used I'll have a more in depth look on the formulas!
– linusg
2 days ago
1
Feel free to ask me to make something clearer here, or you can post a new question about the calculations after checking the links. Welcome to Space!
– uhoh
2 days ago
2
The shuttle main engines burned liquid hydrogen, not methane
– matteol
2 days ago
@matteol I knew something felt strange there, thanks!
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
Doesn't New Shepard use the BE-3, which is hydrolox? Did they test it with the BE-4?
– DylanSp
2 days ago
|
show 4 more comments
1
Thanks for the detailed answer, especially your addition about the engine chemistry! I'm not a native english speaker, but after I look up some of the physics vocabulary used I'll have a more in depth look on the formulas!
– linusg
2 days ago
1
Feel free to ask me to make something clearer here, or you can post a new question about the calculations after checking the links. Welcome to Space!
– uhoh
2 days ago
2
The shuttle main engines burned liquid hydrogen, not methane
– matteol
2 days ago
@matteol I knew something felt strange there, thanks!
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
Doesn't New Shepard use the BE-3, which is hydrolox? Did they test it with the BE-4?
– DylanSp
2 days ago
1
1
Thanks for the detailed answer, especially your addition about the engine chemistry! I'm not a native english speaker, but after I look up some of the physics vocabulary used I'll have a more in depth look on the formulas!
– linusg
2 days ago
Thanks for the detailed answer, especially your addition about the engine chemistry! I'm not a native english speaker, but after I look up some of the physics vocabulary used I'll have a more in depth look on the formulas!
– linusg
2 days ago
1
1
Feel free to ask me to make something clearer here, or you can post a new question about the calculations after checking the links. Welcome to Space!
– uhoh
2 days ago
Feel free to ask me to make something clearer here, or you can post a new question about the calculations after checking the links. Welcome to Space!
– uhoh
2 days ago
2
2
The shuttle main engines burned liquid hydrogen, not methane
– matteol
2 days ago
The shuttle main engines burned liquid hydrogen, not methane
– matteol
2 days ago
@matteol I knew something felt strange there, thanks!
– uhoh
2 days ago
@matteol I knew something felt strange there, thanks!
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
1
Doesn't New Shepard use the BE-3, which is hydrolox? Did they test it with the BE-4?
– DylanSp
2 days ago
Doesn't New Shepard use the BE-3, which is hydrolox? Did they test it with the BE-4?
– DylanSp
2 days ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
14
down vote
If you want an easy way to think about it, imagine how bright it might be in low Earth orbit, 240 miles up (which is just a bit lower than the International Space Station). However bright that is, it will be only a millionth as bright when it’s near the Moon, 240,000 miles away (and so a thousand times the distance). Is it likely that it will be bright enough in low orbit that you can still see it when it’s a millionth as bright as that?
New contributor
Good one Mike. I figure you can "see a cellphone" from about 1/10th of a mile. So I said it would be like trying to see a cellphone at 100 miles. Sounds about right?
– Fattie
2 days ago
@Fattie It’s about right, but the crucial point is that something a thousand times further away isn’t a thousand times dimmer, it’s a million times dimmer. Inverse square law.
– Mike Scott
2 days ago
5
You got the same answer as I did with about a thousand times less work, congratulations! One million times dimmer is 15 magnitudes dimmer. Start with 3rd magnitude and add 15 and you get 18.+1
– uhoh
2 days ago
4
@linusg I think that this is a better answer than mine, because it's just as correct, but a lot more accessible.
– uhoh
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
If you want an easy way to think about it, imagine how bright it might be in low Earth orbit, 240 miles up (which is just a bit lower than the International Space Station). However bright that is, it will be only a millionth as bright when it’s near the Moon, 240,000 miles away (and so a thousand times the distance). Is it likely that it will be bright enough in low orbit that you can still see it when it’s a millionth as bright as that?
New contributor
Good one Mike. I figure you can "see a cellphone" from about 1/10th of a mile. So I said it would be like trying to see a cellphone at 100 miles. Sounds about right?
– Fattie
2 days ago
@Fattie It’s about right, but the crucial point is that something a thousand times further away isn’t a thousand times dimmer, it’s a million times dimmer. Inverse square law.
– Mike Scott
2 days ago
5
You got the same answer as I did with about a thousand times less work, congratulations! One million times dimmer is 15 magnitudes dimmer. Start with 3rd magnitude and add 15 and you get 18.+1
– uhoh
2 days ago
4
@linusg I think that this is a better answer than mine, because it's just as correct, but a lot more accessible.
– uhoh
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
If you want an easy way to think about it, imagine how bright it might be in low Earth orbit, 240 miles up (which is just a bit lower than the International Space Station). However bright that is, it will be only a millionth as bright when it’s near the Moon, 240,000 miles away (and so a thousand times the distance). Is it likely that it will be bright enough in low orbit that you can still see it when it’s a millionth as bright as that?
New contributor
If you want an easy way to think about it, imagine how bright it might be in low Earth orbit, 240 miles up (which is just a bit lower than the International Space Station). However bright that is, it will be only a millionth as bright when it’s near the Moon, 240,000 miles away (and so a thousand times the distance). Is it likely that it will be bright enough in low orbit that you can still see it when it’s a millionth as bright as that?
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
Mike Scott
24113
24113
New contributor
New contributor
Good one Mike. I figure you can "see a cellphone" from about 1/10th of a mile. So I said it would be like trying to see a cellphone at 100 miles. Sounds about right?
– Fattie
2 days ago
@Fattie It’s about right, but the crucial point is that something a thousand times further away isn’t a thousand times dimmer, it’s a million times dimmer. Inverse square law.
– Mike Scott
2 days ago
5
You got the same answer as I did with about a thousand times less work, congratulations! One million times dimmer is 15 magnitudes dimmer. Start with 3rd magnitude and add 15 and you get 18.+1
– uhoh
2 days ago
4
@linusg I think that this is a better answer than mine, because it's just as correct, but a lot more accessible.
– uhoh
2 days ago
add a comment |
Good one Mike. I figure you can "see a cellphone" from about 1/10th of a mile. So I said it would be like trying to see a cellphone at 100 miles. Sounds about right?
– Fattie
2 days ago
@Fattie It’s about right, but the crucial point is that something a thousand times further away isn’t a thousand times dimmer, it’s a million times dimmer. Inverse square law.
– Mike Scott
2 days ago
5
You got the same answer as I did with about a thousand times less work, congratulations! One million times dimmer is 15 magnitudes dimmer. Start with 3rd magnitude and add 15 and you get 18.+1
– uhoh
2 days ago
4
@linusg I think that this is a better answer than mine, because it's just as correct, but a lot more accessible.
– uhoh
2 days ago
Good one Mike. I figure you can "see a cellphone" from about 1/10th of a mile. So I said it would be like trying to see a cellphone at 100 miles. Sounds about right?
– Fattie
2 days ago
Good one Mike. I figure you can "see a cellphone" from about 1/10th of a mile. So I said it would be like trying to see a cellphone at 100 miles. Sounds about right?
– Fattie
2 days ago
@Fattie It’s about right, but the crucial point is that something a thousand times further away isn’t a thousand times dimmer, it’s a million times dimmer. Inverse square law.
– Mike Scott
2 days ago
@Fattie It’s about right, but the crucial point is that something a thousand times further away isn’t a thousand times dimmer, it’s a million times dimmer. Inverse square law.
– Mike Scott
2 days ago
5
5
You got the same answer as I did with about a thousand times less work, congratulations! One million times dimmer is 15 magnitudes dimmer. Start with 3rd magnitude and add 15 and you get 18.
+1
– uhoh
2 days ago
You got the same answer as I did with about a thousand times less work, congratulations! One million times dimmer is 15 magnitudes dimmer. Start with 3rd magnitude and add 15 and you get 18.
+1
– uhoh
2 days ago
4
4
@linusg I think that this is a better answer than mine, because it's just as correct, but a lot more accessible.
– uhoh
2 days ago
@linusg I think that this is a better answer than mine, because it's just as correct, but a lot more accessible.
– uhoh
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Rocket engines burning in vacuum produce large exhaust plumes that rapidly spread outward to 'fill' the vacuum. This means that for a distance of many dozens of meters - or more - they produce a visible cloud of gas that can catch sunlight and produce very large, visible artifacts in a clear night sky. So - engine burns near Earth (departure, or arrivals burning into orbit) will be quite easily visible to those who are in night and under the burns.
For example, this GLONASS launch trail taken from a thread full of rocket plume images.
Mid course burns may be visible as well, though much less dramatic. Arrival and departure burns happening in the vicinity of the moon are not likely to be visible at all to the naked eye due to great distance.
2
I am not sure that CO2 + H2O exhaust in vacuum would ever form a visible plume. Without a buffer gas (i.e. low pressure atmosphere) to slow it quickly, wouldn't the molecules expand to large separation distances and have no chance to recombine into droplets?
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
I can't find suitable evidence for my hunch they will remain visible. Gaseous nitrogen thrusters produce visible plumes. Fuel dumps are visible, though that contains liquid fuel. I believe water vapor will produce visible ice crystals, but this is just my hunch.
– Saiboogu
yesterday
1
@uhoh Wouldn't they flash-freeze into tiny crystals with pressure drop in vacuum?
– Eth
10 hours ago
@Eth It's a race. If the molecules bump into each other frequently enough, they can stick and start forming particles, but if their relative velocity moves them far enough apart fast enough so that collisions are infrequent, then they won't. They won't slow down in vacuum. Watch launch videos and especially the views behind 2nd stages where you see the red-hot nozzle and the path back to Earth, RP-1/LOX engines don't seem to leave any trail behind themselves at all, and that's very similar chemistry to methalox.
– uhoh
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Rocket engines burning in vacuum produce large exhaust plumes that rapidly spread outward to 'fill' the vacuum. This means that for a distance of many dozens of meters - or more - they produce a visible cloud of gas that can catch sunlight and produce very large, visible artifacts in a clear night sky. So - engine burns near Earth (departure, or arrivals burning into orbit) will be quite easily visible to those who are in night and under the burns.
For example, this GLONASS launch trail taken from a thread full of rocket plume images.
Mid course burns may be visible as well, though much less dramatic. Arrival and departure burns happening in the vicinity of the moon are not likely to be visible at all to the naked eye due to great distance.
2
I am not sure that CO2 + H2O exhaust in vacuum would ever form a visible plume. Without a buffer gas (i.e. low pressure atmosphere) to slow it quickly, wouldn't the molecules expand to large separation distances and have no chance to recombine into droplets?
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
I can't find suitable evidence for my hunch they will remain visible. Gaseous nitrogen thrusters produce visible plumes. Fuel dumps are visible, though that contains liquid fuel. I believe water vapor will produce visible ice crystals, but this is just my hunch.
– Saiboogu
yesterday
1
@uhoh Wouldn't they flash-freeze into tiny crystals with pressure drop in vacuum?
– Eth
10 hours ago
@Eth It's a race. If the molecules bump into each other frequently enough, they can stick and start forming particles, but if their relative velocity moves them far enough apart fast enough so that collisions are infrequent, then they won't. They won't slow down in vacuum. Watch launch videos and especially the views behind 2nd stages where you see the red-hot nozzle and the path back to Earth, RP-1/LOX engines don't seem to leave any trail behind themselves at all, and that's very similar chemistry to methalox.
– uhoh
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Rocket engines burning in vacuum produce large exhaust plumes that rapidly spread outward to 'fill' the vacuum. This means that for a distance of many dozens of meters - or more - they produce a visible cloud of gas that can catch sunlight and produce very large, visible artifacts in a clear night sky. So - engine burns near Earth (departure, or arrivals burning into orbit) will be quite easily visible to those who are in night and under the burns.
For example, this GLONASS launch trail taken from a thread full of rocket plume images.
Mid course burns may be visible as well, though much less dramatic. Arrival and departure burns happening in the vicinity of the moon are not likely to be visible at all to the naked eye due to great distance.
Rocket engines burning in vacuum produce large exhaust plumes that rapidly spread outward to 'fill' the vacuum. This means that for a distance of many dozens of meters - or more - they produce a visible cloud of gas that can catch sunlight and produce very large, visible artifacts in a clear night sky. So - engine burns near Earth (departure, or arrivals burning into orbit) will be quite easily visible to those who are in night and under the burns.
For example, this GLONASS launch trail taken from a thread full of rocket plume images.
Mid course burns may be visible as well, though much less dramatic. Arrival and departure burns happening in the vicinity of the moon are not likely to be visible at all to the naked eye due to great distance.
answered 2 days ago
Saiboogu
3,4021627
3,4021627
2
I am not sure that CO2 + H2O exhaust in vacuum would ever form a visible plume. Without a buffer gas (i.e. low pressure atmosphere) to slow it quickly, wouldn't the molecules expand to large separation distances and have no chance to recombine into droplets?
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
I can't find suitable evidence for my hunch they will remain visible. Gaseous nitrogen thrusters produce visible plumes. Fuel dumps are visible, though that contains liquid fuel. I believe water vapor will produce visible ice crystals, but this is just my hunch.
– Saiboogu
yesterday
1
@uhoh Wouldn't they flash-freeze into tiny crystals with pressure drop in vacuum?
– Eth
10 hours ago
@Eth It's a race. If the molecules bump into each other frequently enough, they can stick and start forming particles, but if their relative velocity moves them far enough apart fast enough so that collisions are infrequent, then they won't. They won't slow down in vacuum. Watch launch videos and especially the views behind 2nd stages where you see the red-hot nozzle and the path back to Earth, RP-1/LOX engines don't seem to leave any trail behind themselves at all, and that's very similar chemistry to methalox.
– uhoh
5 hours ago
add a comment |
2
I am not sure that CO2 + H2O exhaust in vacuum would ever form a visible plume. Without a buffer gas (i.e. low pressure atmosphere) to slow it quickly, wouldn't the molecules expand to large separation distances and have no chance to recombine into droplets?
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
I can't find suitable evidence for my hunch they will remain visible. Gaseous nitrogen thrusters produce visible plumes. Fuel dumps are visible, though that contains liquid fuel. I believe water vapor will produce visible ice crystals, but this is just my hunch.
– Saiboogu
yesterday
1
@uhoh Wouldn't they flash-freeze into tiny crystals with pressure drop in vacuum?
– Eth
10 hours ago
@Eth It's a race. If the molecules bump into each other frequently enough, they can stick and start forming particles, but if their relative velocity moves them far enough apart fast enough so that collisions are infrequent, then they won't. They won't slow down in vacuum. Watch launch videos and especially the views behind 2nd stages where you see the red-hot nozzle and the path back to Earth, RP-1/LOX engines don't seem to leave any trail behind themselves at all, and that's very similar chemistry to methalox.
– uhoh
5 hours ago
2
2
I am not sure that CO2 + H2O exhaust in vacuum would ever form a visible plume. Without a buffer gas (i.e. low pressure atmosphere) to slow it quickly, wouldn't the molecules expand to large separation distances and have no chance to recombine into droplets?
– uhoh
2 days ago
I am not sure that CO2 + H2O exhaust in vacuum would ever form a visible plume. Without a buffer gas (i.e. low pressure atmosphere) to slow it quickly, wouldn't the molecules expand to large separation distances and have no chance to recombine into droplets?
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
1
I can't find suitable evidence for my hunch they will remain visible. Gaseous nitrogen thrusters produce visible plumes. Fuel dumps are visible, though that contains liquid fuel. I believe water vapor will produce visible ice crystals, but this is just my hunch.
– Saiboogu
yesterday
I can't find suitable evidence for my hunch they will remain visible. Gaseous nitrogen thrusters produce visible plumes. Fuel dumps are visible, though that contains liquid fuel. I believe water vapor will produce visible ice crystals, but this is just my hunch.
– Saiboogu
yesterday
1
1
@uhoh Wouldn't they flash-freeze into tiny crystals with pressure drop in vacuum?
– Eth
10 hours ago
@uhoh Wouldn't they flash-freeze into tiny crystals with pressure drop in vacuum?
– Eth
10 hours ago
@Eth It's a race. If the molecules bump into each other frequently enough, they can stick and start forming particles, but if their relative velocity moves them far enough apart fast enough so that collisions are infrequent, then they won't. They won't slow down in vacuum. Watch launch videos and especially the views behind 2nd stages where you see the red-hot nozzle and the path back to Earth, RP-1/LOX engines don't seem to leave any trail behind themselves at all, and that's very similar chemistry to methalox.
– uhoh
5 hours ago
@Eth It's a race. If the molecules bump into each other frequently enough, they can stick and start forming particles, but if their relative velocity moves them far enough apart fast enough so that collisions are infrequent, then they won't. They won't slow down in vacuum. Watch launch videos and especially the views behind 2nd stages where you see the red-hot nozzle and the path back to Earth, RP-1/LOX engines don't seem to leave any trail behind themselves at all, and that's very similar chemistry to methalox.
– uhoh
5 hours ago
add a comment |
linusg is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
linusg is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
linusg is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
linusg is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
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%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32064%2fwill-it-be-possible-to-see-bfr-approaching-the-moon-from-earth-with-naked-eye%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
2
Thank you for the accept, but don't feel you have to accept right away. It's possible other good answers will be posted as well.
– uhoh
2 days ago
1
Sure - I got used to accepting quite fast from SO, but you're right, on many other SE sites there's often way more room for multiple correct and good answers, let's see :)
– linusg
2 days ago
1
Yep, this is a different galaxy than SO! ;-)
– uhoh
2 days ago
Hi new user! The simple answer is no, not a chance. Not even close. It would be like trying to see a cellphone from about 100 miles away.
– Fattie
2 days ago
You may enjoy this, OP .. what-if.xkcd.com/13
– Fattie
2 days ago