>I agree to some extent Björn , especially in the case of structures like >ISS where we see obvious shadowing from the large solar arrays....but that >shadowing is only noticed when we look at images taken at high >magnification.From the ground the naked eye observer wouldnt really be >aware I don't follow your argument here - if (a substantial) part of the satellite is (more than usual) shadowed, the total magnitude would be reduced. > . > > L5 and possibly 3 and 4 seem to have a more "on / off" ability to change > brightness. > > In some reports it is muted that MISTY used some sort of inflatable device > to cloak itself....I think that highly unlikely....but rather it used a > simply mechanical system and so too Lacrosse . Perhaps light absorbing , > non reflective panels which encase the outer structure when required. Of > course if that was the case , why not leave the panels in situ all the > time to stop the satellite reflecting at all. > If the casing is non-reflective, it absorbs light AND heat, and if close to the satellite, how would the satellite be cooled? A detached panel, shading the Sun, would serve both purposes (and it could even be the solar panel - or radar antenna) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Frequently Asked Questions, SeeSat-L archive: http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 11 2008 - 08:56:32 UTC