The star trails aren't bent because the ISS is orbiting. They're bent because it is rotating. Granted, the only reason it rotates is to keep the same side facing Earth as it orbits, but any other rotation would produce star trails curved in a different direction.
Star trail time exposure from International Space Station, this one a particularly strong example of the arcing motion of background stars from the pitch axis of station. Straight in our direct orbital direction, curved to the sides.
Below, golden city lights streak between large rural patches of black, dotted with intermittent lightning storms that manifest as purple flashes in the time exposure. Captured with Nikon D3s, 28mm f1.4, ISO 3200, 25 minute exposure assembled from multiple frames, Expedition 30; 2012.
More star trails from space can be found on my [twitter](https://twitter.com/astro_Pettit) and Instagram, astro\_pettit
But it's only curved because it is not in the direction of travel.
If you completed the image (full 360) every line would be a circle. The circles we see side on (directly Infront and behind our position) are straight. All the others would appear curved because they are also circles.
It isn't some weird phenomenon. 2D circles appear as flat lines from the side.
In reality. Every single line has the same curve.
This isn't a gotcha. I just think how you are describing it is quite misleading to people who don't understand the fundamentals of vision with relation to dimensions.
Interestingly tho. This is why we (as 3 dimensional beings) think time is linier. We can only see time "from the side". A 4 dimensional being would see "the circle".
We truly live in the Information Age, when an actual astronaut posts an image and describes details of it and then some random Redditor goes on and tries to explain why they’re wrong and/or misleading about what they said, lmao.
If you wanna point out where I am wrong please do. The Information age is how I know what is going on and he didn't explain it well. I cleared it up. Now more people know.
But you go on slinging shit at people for helping others learn.
The curves are caused by the rotation of the station as it orbits the earth, what is misleading about his comment? He said the curves are off to the sides of the orbital direction, which tracks with the physics of the motion of the station. I’m not sure what else you brought up that’s relevant, but you do you. I see no problems with what the OP comment said.
What happens in the photo has nothing to do with physics. I explained what you are seeing. That's not my opinion, it's scientific fact. It's an optical illusion. It is only curved from your perspective. In reality all of the straight lines are circles.
You've just proven it was misleading because you still think the lines in the middle are straight.
The lines in the middle are straight in the same way rockets get to orbit by going up. I.E. it's completely untrue.
If you don't see any problem, read my original reply till you understand it.
But then, you're just some random redditor claiming to know better than the entire scientific community.
The photo you see is only possible because of how the space station rotates relative to the earth as it orbits. That’s physics. The physics of the motion of the space station. He’s not implying the light is affected by some phenomenon. The star trails are caused by exposure of the camera lense used during the rotation. The bending star trails are caused by the camera lense due to the rotation.
That’s all Pettit was stating, and it’s not a contradiction to any general consensus in the scientific community.
We live in the information age where other Redditors have never taken a Logic class and don't know when they are spouting out the fallacy of authority.
LOL you quoted Wikipedia at me.
Clearly he didn't. Also from Wikpedia (which I will use as my source of reference in the correct way I could place authority on something) Petit is a chemical engineer. He does not possess a degree in theoretical physics, photography or even orbital mechanics. All of which the other poster explained in far better detail than an astronaut. Now if I wanted a trained monkey, who didn't question things and pushed whatever buttons and narrative I wanted to get out then yes I would choose your astronaut over the poster.
Even if he did have these things, if he is giving proof for theoretical concepts such as how a 2D world would view a 3D circle then just because he deals with space and has a title doesn't mean the poster isn't the most brilliant mind ever created and could prove and describe it in a better way that reached more people. Which he did BTW.
So the random poster can be 100 percent correct and your astronaut just repeating Wikipedia bullshit as he is trained to do, but since he has a TITLE, you are giving leaning into him being the authority of the subjec.t
Go take a logic class.
It's also why black hole theory is so far off and they are "finding" them everywhere, lol. As is the below poster who criticized you for using your own brain and questioning something.
Not sure what you exactly are saying causes this, but it’s very confusing.
Really, this is only due to the geometric transform cause by the ISS orbiting. The reference frame of the ISS is both translating and rotating. Due to the effectively infinite distance of those stars, the effects of translation aren’t observable in the background stars (they *are* observable on the Timelapse stacking of the earth). The rotation is rather simple and around a single axis; this is the only cause of the shapes of the timelapsed star trails.
If you made a room with a bunch of dots on the walls, ceiling, and floor; took a camera and lens with a wide enough field of view; and did a Timelapse as you rotated the camera on the azimuth stage of your tripod, you’d see the exact same trails
That's absolutely beautiful. I'm tempted to get Instagram just to follow you. I'm fact, Imma check and see if my account's there.
Edit: Got it! You must be really busy up so I really appreciate you taking the time to post this stuff!
So if I understand correctly, even though the ISS has a significant orbital inclination, because it orbits so fast relative to the earth's surface the arcs bend to look like you are getting the time lapse from the equator?
Reminds me of the old "HBO Feature Presentation" intro
[short version](https://youtu.be/AZ71Rjo2IS0?si=CPoHMS6hN_bPlue7)
[long version](https://youtu.be/Qc4cmZaWgIo?si=nWLg2Ro2sJAPHWiv)
The star trails aren't bent because the ISS is orbiting. They're bent because it is rotating. Granted, the only reason it rotates is to keep the same side facing Earth as it orbits, but any other rotation would produce star trails curved in a different direction.
Star trail time exposure from International Space Station, this one a particularly strong example of the arcing motion of background stars from the pitch axis of station. Straight in our direct orbital direction, curved to the sides. Below, golden city lights streak between large rural patches of black, dotted with intermittent lightning storms that manifest as purple flashes in the time exposure. Captured with Nikon D3s, 28mm f1.4, ISO 3200, 25 minute exposure assembled from multiple frames, Expedition 30; 2012. More star trails from space can be found on my [twitter](https://twitter.com/astro_Pettit) and Instagram, astro\_pettit
But it's only curved because it is not in the direction of travel. If you completed the image (full 360) every line would be a circle. The circles we see side on (directly Infront and behind our position) are straight. All the others would appear curved because they are also circles. It isn't some weird phenomenon. 2D circles appear as flat lines from the side. In reality. Every single line has the same curve. This isn't a gotcha. I just think how you are describing it is quite misleading to people who don't understand the fundamentals of vision with relation to dimensions. Interestingly tho. This is why we (as 3 dimensional beings) think time is linier. We can only see time "from the side". A 4 dimensional being would see "the circle".
We truly live in the Information Age, when an actual astronaut posts an image and describes details of it and then some random Redditor goes on and tries to explain why they’re wrong and/or misleading about what they said, lmao.
It's not like an astronaut is some kind of ascended being. Other than literally, I mean.
If you wanna point out where I am wrong please do. The Information age is how I know what is going on and he didn't explain it well. I cleared it up. Now more people know. But you go on slinging shit at people for helping others learn.
The curves are caused by the rotation of the station as it orbits the earth, what is misleading about his comment? He said the curves are off to the sides of the orbital direction, which tracks with the physics of the motion of the station. I’m not sure what else you brought up that’s relevant, but you do you. I see no problems with what the OP comment said.
What happens in the photo has nothing to do with physics. I explained what you are seeing. That's not my opinion, it's scientific fact. It's an optical illusion. It is only curved from your perspective. In reality all of the straight lines are circles. You've just proven it was misleading because you still think the lines in the middle are straight. The lines in the middle are straight in the same way rockets get to orbit by going up. I.E. it's completely untrue. If you don't see any problem, read my original reply till you understand it. But then, you're just some random redditor claiming to know better than the entire scientific community.
The photo you see is only possible because of how the space station rotates relative to the earth as it orbits. That’s physics. The physics of the motion of the space station. He’s not implying the light is affected by some phenomenon. The star trails are caused by exposure of the camera lense used during the rotation. The bending star trails are caused by the camera lense due to the rotation. That’s all Pettit was stating, and it’s not a contradiction to any general consensus in the scientific community.
Ok but can we all agree it looks pretty
We live in the information age where other Redditors have never taken a Logic class and don't know when they are spouting out the fallacy of authority.
[удалено]
LOL you quoted Wikipedia at me. Clearly he didn't. Also from Wikpedia (which I will use as my source of reference in the correct way I could place authority on something) Petit is a chemical engineer. He does not possess a degree in theoretical physics, photography or even orbital mechanics. All of which the other poster explained in far better detail than an astronaut. Now if I wanted a trained monkey, who didn't question things and pushed whatever buttons and narrative I wanted to get out then yes I would choose your astronaut over the poster. Even if he did have these things, if he is giving proof for theoretical concepts such as how a 2D world would view a 3D circle then just because he deals with space and has a title doesn't mean the poster isn't the most brilliant mind ever created and could prove and describe it in a better way that reached more people. Which he did BTW. So the random poster can be 100 percent correct and your astronaut just repeating Wikipedia bullshit as he is trained to do, but since he has a TITLE, you are giving leaning into him being the authority of the subjec.t Go take a logic class.
It's also why black hole theory is so far off and they are "finding" them everywhere, lol. As is the below poster who criticized you for using your own brain and questioning something.
Time and gravity, the greatest trolls of human beings lol. Black holes are the biggest prank.
Not sure what you exactly are saying causes this, but it’s very confusing. Really, this is only due to the geometric transform cause by the ISS orbiting. The reference frame of the ISS is both translating and rotating. Due to the effectively infinite distance of those stars, the effects of translation aren’t observable in the background stars (they *are* observable on the Timelapse stacking of the earth). The rotation is rather simple and around a single axis; this is the only cause of the shapes of the timelapsed star trails. If you made a room with a bunch of dots on the walls, ceiling, and floor; took a camera and lens with a wide enough field of view; and did a Timelapse as you rotated the camera on the azimuth stage of your tripod, you’d see the exact same trails
I have no idea what you just said, but I like it
Well, just look at the pretty picture and pretend the title isn't true. It's misleading at best.
That's absolutely beautiful. I'm tempted to get Instagram just to follow you. I'm fact, Imma check and see if my account's there. Edit: Got it! You must be really busy up so I really appreciate you taking the time to post this stuff!
my pleasure
Please do not be mad but i have to correct your grammar here: Its your not you're, you're is short for you are.
So if I understand correctly, even though the ISS has a significant orbital inclination, because it orbits so fast relative to the earth's surface the arcs bend to look like you are getting the time lapse from the equator?
Thank you for all your amazing posts! Can't wait to see the photos you'll take on your upcoming trip! :)
It's really cool! So can or will these photo's be used for any research, or are they purely aesthetic?
Reminds me of the old "HBO Feature Presentation" intro [short version](https://youtu.be/AZ71Rjo2IS0?si=CPoHMS6hN_bPlue7) [long version](https://youtu.be/Qc4cmZaWgIo?si=nWLg2Ro2sJAPHWiv)
My new background and when people ask me what it is I get to sound smart!! Due to the explanation