/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9663371
Well of course there are, you silly troll. I would ask why you're not searching on your own, but we know the answer: you're having a laugh and don't give a whit about whether photos were taken.

For others here though, the ISS moves really fast for a telescope to track. But there are a few amateur astronomers who have taken the challenge to image the ISS for fun. Some wait for a predicted transit and capture its silhouette as it crosses the Moon or Sun, some actually track it with high-speed (for a scope) computer-controlled slew motors.

>>9613879
I wonder what you call a "real pic," given your ilk's propensity to label all imagery that goes against your trolling as fake. But I'll bite for now.

Satellites move very fast, are typically not very bright, and are very tiny. So you need a largish telescope to image the beasties, and you need orbital elements that can be programmed into your telescope's guidance system to track them for the duration of the exposure. That's pretty specialized and expensive equipment, given most amateur astronomer want to see stars, and professional want to get grants. Protip: grants are not awarded to people who take ground-based images of satellites to satisfy the obstinate cravings of lunatics.

Not to say it doesn't happen. There are two common instances: the inadvertent streak of an interloping satellite photobombing an otherwise wonderful astrophoto that took hours to set up, and the ISS, which is very bright indeed. So bright, it is easily visible to the naked eye from any brightly-lit city's downtown. Tracking is still needed, but it's a common target because the results are easier than with a much dimmer object.

Now, you *could* Google or DuckDuckGo or Yahoo search for such images, but I'm quite sure you have no interest in actually seeing 'real' images, you just want to get a (You). So here you go, and have a good wank at being acknowledged.