Victorian astronomer detecting artificial satellites

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












To make it short, time-space shenanigans transported everything in a 60 kilometers circumference around an old space-based particle collider to the year 1855.



The particle collider was in geosynchronous orbit with Earth, in a region of space that was heavily packed with space junk: Pieces of old ships, discarded satellites, remains of an orbital shipyard.



Most pieces are no larger than a baseball, some are as big as modules of the ISS, and there are three big pieces that are the remains of the space shipyard and the fragmented particle-collider that are each as big as the whole ISS.



Could anyone on Earth, on the year 1855, detect the anomaly?










share|improve this question























  • In 1855, there were around 1.2 billion people on the earth. If the station were in geosynchronous earth, a great deal of the answer would depend on exactly what part of the earth it was geosynchronous over. It would have to be somewhere over the equator, which really limits the available land mass, unless you include casual accidental observations from ocean-going ships. Steam ships were just coming into their own, Optical instruments were also quite good, and there were many good observatories. See queensu.ca/encyclopedia/o/observatory for instance.
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago










  • @JustinThyme geosynchronous orbits don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
    – Renan
    1 hour ago














up vote
2
down vote

favorite












To make it short, time-space shenanigans transported everything in a 60 kilometers circumference around an old space-based particle collider to the year 1855.



The particle collider was in geosynchronous orbit with Earth, in a region of space that was heavily packed with space junk: Pieces of old ships, discarded satellites, remains of an orbital shipyard.



Most pieces are no larger than a baseball, some are as big as modules of the ISS, and there are three big pieces that are the remains of the space shipyard and the fragmented particle-collider that are each as big as the whole ISS.



Could anyone on Earth, on the year 1855, detect the anomaly?










share|improve this question























  • In 1855, there were around 1.2 billion people on the earth. If the station were in geosynchronous earth, a great deal of the answer would depend on exactly what part of the earth it was geosynchronous over. It would have to be somewhere over the equator, which really limits the available land mass, unless you include casual accidental observations from ocean-going ships. Steam ships were just coming into their own, Optical instruments were also quite good, and there were many good observatories. See queensu.ca/encyclopedia/o/observatory for instance.
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago










  • @JustinThyme geosynchronous orbits don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
    – Renan
    1 hour ago












up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











To make it short, time-space shenanigans transported everything in a 60 kilometers circumference around an old space-based particle collider to the year 1855.



The particle collider was in geosynchronous orbit with Earth, in a region of space that was heavily packed with space junk: Pieces of old ships, discarded satellites, remains of an orbital shipyard.



Most pieces are no larger than a baseball, some are as big as modules of the ISS, and there are three big pieces that are the remains of the space shipyard and the fragmented particle-collider that are each as big as the whole ISS.



Could anyone on Earth, on the year 1855, detect the anomaly?










share|improve this question















To make it short, time-space shenanigans transported everything in a 60 kilometers circumference around an old space-based particle collider to the year 1855.



The particle collider was in geosynchronous orbit with Earth, in a region of space that was heavily packed with space junk: Pieces of old ships, discarded satellites, remains of an orbital shipyard.



Most pieces are no larger than a baseball, some are as big as modules of the ISS, and there are three big pieces that are the remains of the space shipyard and the fragmented particle-collider that are each as big as the whole ISS.



Could anyone on Earth, on the year 1855, detect the anomaly?







science-based space time-travel






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 mins ago









a4android

30.8k340120




30.8k340120










asked 3 hours ago









Sasha

4,4631235




4,4631235











  • In 1855, there were around 1.2 billion people on the earth. If the station were in geosynchronous earth, a great deal of the answer would depend on exactly what part of the earth it was geosynchronous over. It would have to be somewhere over the equator, which really limits the available land mass, unless you include casual accidental observations from ocean-going ships. Steam ships were just coming into their own, Optical instruments were also quite good, and there were many good observatories. See queensu.ca/encyclopedia/o/observatory for instance.
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago










  • @JustinThyme geosynchronous orbits don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
    – Renan
    1 hour ago
















  • In 1855, there were around 1.2 billion people on the earth. If the station were in geosynchronous earth, a great deal of the answer would depend on exactly what part of the earth it was geosynchronous over. It would have to be somewhere over the equator, which really limits the available land mass, unless you include casual accidental observations from ocean-going ships. Steam ships were just coming into their own, Optical instruments were also quite good, and there were many good observatories. See queensu.ca/encyclopedia/o/observatory for instance.
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago










  • @JustinThyme geosynchronous orbits don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
    – Renan
    1 hour ago















In 1855, there were around 1.2 billion people on the earth. If the station were in geosynchronous earth, a great deal of the answer would depend on exactly what part of the earth it was geosynchronous over. It would have to be somewhere over the equator, which really limits the available land mass, unless you include casual accidental observations from ocean-going ships. Steam ships were just coming into their own, Optical instruments were also quite good, and there were many good observatories. See queensu.ca/encyclopedia/o/observatory for instance.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago




In 1855, there were around 1.2 billion people on the earth. If the station were in geosynchronous earth, a great deal of the answer would depend on exactly what part of the earth it was geosynchronous over. It would have to be somewhere over the equator, which really limits the available land mass, unless you include casual accidental observations from ocean-going ships. Steam ships were just coming into their own, Optical instruments were also quite good, and there were many good observatories. See queensu.ca/encyclopedia/o/observatory for instance.
– Justin Thyme
1 hour ago












@JustinThyme geosynchronous orbits don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
– Renan
1 hour ago




@JustinThyme geosynchronous orbits don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
– Renan
1 hour ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote













Absolutely not, because it would not even be close to the earth. Literally light years would separate where the same co-ordinates were today vs 1855. But if you hand wave that inconvenient detail aside, the orbital velocity would not be the same between the two periods of time, and things would scatter. But if you hand wave that away, the sun and moon would not be in the same position. And if you hand wave that away,...



Well, you get the picture.



Lots and lots of handwaving the inconvenient details away.



But once all is said and done, and the details tucked away, dismissed, or taken care of, Sputnick was visible by the naked eye. Or at least the booster was.






share|improve this answer




















  • If moving through time keeps your position fixed compared to any body in space, then yes. But remember, there is no universal rest frame of reference.
    – Renan
    2 hours ago










  • @Renan Let's see, now, seems to me the origin of the universe, the center of the big bang, has always been a good point of reference. OOOps, Einstein conveniently ignored that.
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago











  • That's not how the universe works according to modern science.
    – Renan
    1 hour ago










  • @Renan O Since when is the Physics stack exchange supposed to be a credible reference? The place is so full of inaccuracies my students used it for satire. The physics textbook they use is so thin, it is like a magazine.
    – Justin Thyme
    59 mins ago

















up vote
2
down vote













Have a look at this question in Space.SE, a sister site of World Building:



Are any geosynchronous satellites visible with the naked eye?



And the answers:




If you're extremely lucky with weather and other conditions from where you're observing (especially the light pollution, described e.g. by Bortle scale, should be as low as possible to detect such faint objects), you might be able to see some [satellites in geosynchronous orbit] with powerful binoculars or a hobbyist-grade telescope...




And




...they [satellites in geosynchronous orbit] are easily seen with a small telescope on a sturdy mount. March and September are the best times. Use an app to help you. My favorite way is to keep M11, the Wild Duck Cluster, in view with a medium power eyepiece. Every few minutes, a "star" will slowly track through the southern edge!




Victorian telescopes were comparable to nowadays amateur telescopes, and on top of that light pollution was less intense in victorian times than nowadays.



However, it would still take some luck to find even the larger pieces. Space is huge and you can't just scan the whole night sky with a telescope. Once a competent astronomer finds them, though, they will be able to take note of their keplerian orbital elements (see graphic below) and thus predict their position at anytime with great accuracy.



I spend too much time playing KSP






share|improve this answer






















  • There was not a lot of light pollution OR atmospheric pollution in 1855. The sky was pretty clear, mostly, in the country.
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago










  • Oh, and aren't geostationary orbits all around the equator?
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago










  • @JustinThyme geostatiinary, yes, but the question is about geosynchronous ones. Those don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
    – Renan
    1 hour ago

















up vote
1
down vote













Absolutely, yes, objects as large as your criteria could have been observed in 1855.



There were several very good observatories at the time, for instance



this



Or this reference




Sydney Observatory began operations in 1858 on a small hill located
near Sydney Harbour. It is best known for its involvement in the
observations of the 1874 transit of Venus and for its participation in
the International Astrographic Catalogue project. The Observatory
remained a working observatory until 1982 when it came under the
auspices of the Powerhouse Museum and became a museum of astronomy and
a public observatory.




Light and atmospheric pollution was minimal in the country.



The population was around 1.2 billion people, so lots of observers.



The critical factor would be where in geostationary orbit it was. it would have to be somewhere over the equator, and over a land mass. Not too many choices. Chances of it being seen diminish the closer it gets to the middle of either ocean.



The advantage is, that it would have to be over the equator, and the equator is primarily in the planetary elliptic plane of the solar system. The planets would be a very good target for astronomers, and so a lot of the time they would be looking roughly in the same plane as the debris. This greatly increases the chances of them seeing it.






share|improve this answer






















    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127426%2fvictorian-astronomer-detecting-artificial-satellites%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Absolutely not, because it would not even be close to the earth. Literally light years would separate where the same co-ordinates were today vs 1855. But if you hand wave that inconvenient detail aside, the orbital velocity would not be the same between the two periods of time, and things would scatter. But if you hand wave that away, the sun and moon would not be in the same position. And if you hand wave that away,...



    Well, you get the picture.



    Lots and lots of handwaving the inconvenient details away.



    But once all is said and done, and the details tucked away, dismissed, or taken care of, Sputnick was visible by the naked eye. Or at least the booster was.






    share|improve this answer




















    • If moving through time keeps your position fixed compared to any body in space, then yes. But remember, there is no universal rest frame of reference.
      – Renan
      2 hours ago










    • @Renan Let's see, now, seems to me the origin of the universe, the center of the big bang, has always been a good point of reference. OOOps, Einstein conveniently ignored that.
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago











    • That's not how the universe works according to modern science.
      – Renan
      1 hour ago










    • @Renan O Since when is the Physics stack exchange supposed to be a credible reference? The place is so full of inaccuracies my students used it for satire. The physics textbook they use is so thin, it is like a magazine.
      – Justin Thyme
      59 mins ago














    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Absolutely not, because it would not even be close to the earth. Literally light years would separate where the same co-ordinates were today vs 1855. But if you hand wave that inconvenient detail aside, the orbital velocity would not be the same between the two periods of time, and things would scatter. But if you hand wave that away, the sun and moon would not be in the same position. And if you hand wave that away,...



    Well, you get the picture.



    Lots and lots of handwaving the inconvenient details away.



    But once all is said and done, and the details tucked away, dismissed, or taken care of, Sputnick was visible by the naked eye. Or at least the booster was.






    share|improve this answer




















    • If moving through time keeps your position fixed compared to any body in space, then yes. But remember, there is no universal rest frame of reference.
      – Renan
      2 hours ago










    • @Renan Let's see, now, seems to me the origin of the universe, the center of the big bang, has always been a good point of reference. OOOps, Einstein conveniently ignored that.
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago











    • That's not how the universe works according to modern science.
      – Renan
      1 hour ago










    • @Renan O Since when is the Physics stack exchange supposed to be a credible reference? The place is so full of inaccuracies my students used it for satire. The physics textbook they use is so thin, it is like a magazine.
      – Justin Thyme
      59 mins ago












    up vote
    2
    down vote










    up vote
    2
    down vote









    Absolutely not, because it would not even be close to the earth. Literally light years would separate where the same co-ordinates were today vs 1855. But if you hand wave that inconvenient detail aside, the orbital velocity would not be the same between the two periods of time, and things would scatter. But if you hand wave that away, the sun and moon would not be in the same position. And if you hand wave that away,...



    Well, you get the picture.



    Lots and lots of handwaving the inconvenient details away.



    But once all is said and done, and the details tucked away, dismissed, or taken care of, Sputnick was visible by the naked eye. Or at least the booster was.






    share|improve this answer












    Absolutely not, because it would not even be close to the earth. Literally light years would separate where the same co-ordinates were today vs 1855. But if you hand wave that inconvenient detail aside, the orbital velocity would not be the same between the two periods of time, and things would scatter. But if you hand wave that away, the sun and moon would not be in the same position. And if you hand wave that away,...



    Well, you get the picture.



    Lots and lots of handwaving the inconvenient details away.



    But once all is said and done, and the details tucked away, dismissed, or taken care of, Sputnick was visible by the naked eye. Or at least the booster was.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 hours ago









    Justin Thyme

    7,6901940




    7,6901940











    • If moving through time keeps your position fixed compared to any body in space, then yes. But remember, there is no universal rest frame of reference.
      – Renan
      2 hours ago










    • @Renan Let's see, now, seems to me the origin of the universe, the center of the big bang, has always been a good point of reference. OOOps, Einstein conveniently ignored that.
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago











    • That's not how the universe works according to modern science.
      – Renan
      1 hour ago










    • @Renan O Since when is the Physics stack exchange supposed to be a credible reference? The place is so full of inaccuracies my students used it for satire. The physics textbook they use is so thin, it is like a magazine.
      – Justin Thyme
      59 mins ago
















    • If moving through time keeps your position fixed compared to any body in space, then yes. But remember, there is no universal rest frame of reference.
      – Renan
      2 hours ago










    • @Renan Let's see, now, seems to me the origin of the universe, the center of the big bang, has always been a good point of reference. OOOps, Einstein conveniently ignored that.
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago











    • That's not how the universe works according to modern science.
      – Renan
      1 hour ago










    • @Renan O Since when is the Physics stack exchange supposed to be a credible reference? The place is so full of inaccuracies my students used it for satire. The physics textbook they use is so thin, it is like a magazine.
      – Justin Thyme
      59 mins ago















    If moving through time keeps your position fixed compared to any body in space, then yes. But remember, there is no universal rest frame of reference.
    – Renan
    2 hours ago




    If moving through time keeps your position fixed compared to any body in space, then yes. But remember, there is no universal rest frame of reference.
    – Renan
    2 hours ago












    @Renan Let's see, now, seems to me the origin of the universe, the center of the big bang, has always been a good point of reference. OOOps, Einstein conveniently ignored that.
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago





    @Renan Let's see, now, seems to me the origin of the universe, the center of the big bang, has always been a good point of reference. OOOps, Einstein conveniently ignored that.
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago













    That's not how the universe works according to modern science.
    – Renan
    1 hour ago




    That's not how the universe works according to modern science.
    – Renan
    1 hour ago












    @Renan O Since when is the Physics stack exchange supposed to be a credible reference? The place is so full of inaccuracies my students used it for satire. The physics textbook they use is so thin, it is like a magazine.
    – Justin Thyme
    59 mins ago




    @Renan O Since when is the Physics stack exchange supposed to be a credible reference? The place is so full of inaccuracies my students used it for satire. The physics textbook they use is so thin, it is like a magazine.
    – Justin Thyme
    59 mins ago










    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Have a look at this question in Space.SE, a sister site of World Building:



    Are any geosynchronous satellites visible with the naked eye?



    And the answers:




    If you're extremely lucky with weather and other conditions from where you're observing (especially the light pollution, described e.g. by Bortle scale, should be as low as possible to detect such faint objects), you might be able to see some [satellites in geosynchronous orbit] with powerful binoculars or a hobbyist-grade telescope...




    And




    ...they [satellites in geosynchronous orbit] are easily seen with a small telescope on a sturdy mount. March and September are the best times. Use an app to help you. My favorite way is to keep M11, the Wild Duck Cluster, in view with a medium power eyepiece. Every few minutes, a "star" will slowly track through the southern edge!




    Victorian telescopes were comparable to nowadays amateur telescopes, and on top of that light pollution was less intense in victorian times than nowadays.



    However, it would still take some luck to find even the larger pieces. Space is huge and you can't just scan the whole night sky with a telescope. Once a competent astronomer finds them, though, they will be able to take note of their keplerian orbital elements (see graphic below) and thus predict their position at anytime with great accuracy.



    I spend too much time playing KSP






    share|improve this answer






















    • There was not a lot of light pollution OR atmospheric pollution in 1855. The sky was pretty clear, mostly, in the country.
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago










    • Oh, and aren't geostationary orbits all around the equator?
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago










    • @JustinThyme geostatiinary, yes, but the question is about geosynchronous ones. Those don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
      – Renan
      1 hour ago














    up vote
    2
    down vote













    Have a look at this question in Space.SE, a sister site of World Building:



    Are any geosynchronous satellites visible with the naked eye?



    And the answers:




    If you're extremely lucky with weather and other conditions from where you're observing (especially the light pollution, described e.g. by Bortle scale, should be as low as possible to detect such faint objects), you might be able to see some [satellites in geosynchronous orbit] with powerful binoculars or a hobbyist-grade telescope...




    And




    ...they [satellites in geosynchronous orbit] are easily seen with a small telescope on a sturdy mount. March and September are the best times. Use an app to help you. My favorite way is to keep M11, the Wild Duck Cluster, in view with a medium power eyepiece. Every few minutes, a "star" will slowly track through the southern edge!




    Victorian telescopes were comparable to nowadays amateur telescopes, and on top of that light pollution was less intense in victorian times than nowadays.



    However, it would still take some luck to find even the larger pieces. Space is huge and you can't just scan the whole night sky with a telescope. Once a competent astronomer finds them, though, they will be able to take note of their keplerian orbital elements (see graphic below) and thus predict their position at anytime with great accuracy.



    I spend too much time playing KSP






    share|improve this answer






















    • There was not a lot of light pollution OR atmospheric pollution in 1855. The sky was pretty clear, mostly, in the country.
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago










    • Oh, and aren't geostationary orbits all around the equator?
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago










    • @JustinThyme geostatiinary, yes, but the question is about geosynchronous ones. Those don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
      – Renan
      1 hour ago












    up vote
    2
    down vote










    up vote
    2
    down vote









    Have a look at this question in Space.SE, a sister site of World Building:



    Are any geosynchronous satellites visible with the naked eye?



    And the answers:




    If you're extremely lucky with weather and other conditions from where you're observing (especially the light pollution, described e.g. by Bortle scale, should be as low as possible to detect such faint objects), you might be able to see some [satellites in geosynchronous orbit] with powerful binoculars or a hobbyist-grade telescope...




    And




    ...they [satellites in geosynchronous orbit] are easily seen with a small telescope on a sturdy mount. March and September are the best times. Use an app to help you. My favorite way is to keep M11, the Wild Duck Cluster, in view with a medium power eyepiece. Every few minutes, a "star" will slowly track through the southern edge!




    Victorian telescopes were comparable to nowadays amateur telescopes, and on top of that light pollution was less intense in victorian times than nowadays.



    However, it would still take some luck to find even the larger pieces. Space is huge and you can't just scan the whole night sky with a telescope. Once a competent astronomer finds them, though, they will be able to take note of their keplerian orbital elements (see graphic below) and thus predict their position at anytime with great accuracy.



    I spend too much time playing KSP






    share|improve this answer














    Have a look at this question in Space.SE, a sister site of World Building:



    Are any geosynchronous satellites visible with the naked eye?



    And the answers:




    If you're extremely lucky with weather and other conditions from where you're observing (especially the light pollution, described e.g. by Bortle scale, should be as low as possible to detect such faint objects), you might be able to see some [satellites in geosynchronous orbit] with powerful binoculars or a hobbyist-grade telescope...




    And




    ...they [satellites in geosynchronous orbit] are easily seen with a small telescope on a sturdy mount. March and September are the best times. Use an app to help you. My favorite way is to keep M11, the Wild Duck Cluster, in view with a medium power eyepiece. Every few minutes, a "star" will slowly track through the southern edge!




    Victorian telescopes were comparable to nowadays amateur telescopes, and on top of that light pollution was less intense in victorian times than nowadays.



    However, it would still take some luck to find even the larger pieces. Space is huge and you can't just scan the whole night sky with a telescope. Once a competent astronomer finds them, though, they will be able to take note of their keplerian orbital elements (see graphic below) and thus predict their position at anytime with great accuracy.



    I spend too much time playing KSP







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 1 hour ago

























    answered 2 hours ago









    Renan

    35.8k1184185




    35.8k1184185











    • There was not a lot of light pollution OR atmospheric pollution in 1855. The sky was pretty clear, mostly, in the country.
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago










    • Oh, and aren't geostationary orbits all around the equator?
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago










    • @JustinThyme geostatiinary, yes, but the question is about geosynchronous ones. Those don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
      – Renan
      1 hour ago
















    • There was not a lot of light pollution OR atmospheric pollution in 1855. The sky was pretty clear, mostly, in the country.
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago










    • Oh, and aren't geostationary orbits all around the equator?
      – Justin Thyme
      1 hour ago










    • @JustinThyme geostatiinary, yes, but the question is about geosynchronous ones. Those don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
      – Renan
      1 hour ago















    There was not a lot of light pollution OR atmospheric pollution in 1855. The sky was pretty clear, mostly, in the country.
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago




    There was not a lot of light pollution OR atmospheric pollution in 1855. The sky was pretty clear, mostly, in the country.
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago












    Oh, and aren't geostationary orbits all around the equator?
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago




    Oh, and aren't geostationary orbits all around the equator?
    – Justin Thyme
    1 hour ago












    @JustinThyme geostatiinary, yes, but the question is about geosynchronous ones. Those don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
    – Renan
    1 hour ago




    @JustinThyme geostatiinary, yes, but the question is about geosynchronous ones. Those don't have to be coplanar with the equator.
    – Renan
    1 hour ago










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Absolutely, yes, objects as large as your criteria could have been observed in 1855.



    There were several very good observatories at the time, for instance



    this



    Or this reference




    Sydney Observatory began operations in 1858 on a small hill located
    near Sydney Harbour. It is best known for its involvement in the
    observations of the 1874 transit of Venus and for its participation in
    the International Astrographic Catalogue project. The Observatory
    remained a working observatory until 1982 when it came under the
    auspices of the Powerhouse Museum and became a museum of astronomy and
    a public observatory.




    Light and atmospheric pollution was minimal in the country.



    The population was around 1.2 billion people, so lots of observers.



    The critical factor would be where in geostationary orbit it was. it would have to be somewhere over the equator, and over a land mass. Not too many choices. Chances of it being seen diminish the closer it gets to the middle of either ocean.



    The advantage is, that it would have to be over the equator, and the equator is primarily in the planetary elliptic plane of the solar system. The planets would be a very good target for astronomers, and so a lot of the time they would be looking roughly in the same plane as the debris. This greatly increases the chances of them seeing it.






    share|improve this answer


























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      Absolutely, yes, objects as large as your criteria could have been observed in 1855.



      There were several very good observatories at the time, for instance



      this



      Or this reference




      Sydney Observatory began operations in 1858 on a small hill located
      near Sydney Harbour. It is best known for its involvement in the
      observations of the 1874 transit of Venus and for its participation in
      the International Astrographic Catalogue project. The Observatory
      remained a working observatory until 1982 when it came under the
      auspices of the Powerhouse Museum and became a museum of astronomy and
      a public observatory.




      Light and atmospheric pollution was minimal in the country.



      The population was around 1.2 billion people, so lots of observers.



      The critical factor would be where in geostationary orbit it was. it would have to be somewhere over the equator, and over a land mass. Not too many choices. Chances of it being seen diminish the closer it gets to the middle of either ocean.



      The advantage is, that it would have to be over the equator, and the equator is primarily in the planetary elliptic plane of the solar system. The planets would be a very good target for astronomers, and so a lot of the time they would be looking roughly in the same plane as the debris. This greatly increases the chances of them seeing it.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        Absolutely, yes, objects as large as your criteria could have been observed in 1855.



        There were several very good observatories at the time, for instance



        this



        Or this reference




        Sydney Observatory began operations in 1858 on a small hill located
        near Sydney Harbour. It is best known for its involvement in the
        observations of the 1874 transit of Venus and for its participation in
        the International Astrographic Catalogue project. The Observatory
        remained a working observatory until 1982 when it came under the
        auspices of the Powerhouse Museum and became a museum of astronomy and
        a public observatory.




        Light and atmospheric pollution was minimal in the country.



        The population was around 1.2 billion people, so lots of observers.



        The critical factor would be where in geostationary orbit it was. it would have to be somewhere over the equator, and over a land mass. Not too many choices. Chances of it being seen diminish the closer it gets to the middle of either ocean.



        The advantage is, that it would have to be over the equator, and the equator is primarily in the planetary elliptic plane of the solar system. The planets would be a very good target for astronomers, and so a lot of the time they would be looking roughly in the same plane as the debris. This greatly increases the chances of them seeing it.






        share|improve this answer














        Absolutely, yes, objects as large as your criteria could have been observed in 1855.



        There were several very good observatories at the time, for instance



        this



        Or this reference




        Sydney Observatory began operations in 1858 on a small hill located
        near Sydney Harbour. It is best known for its involvement in the
        observations of the 1874 transit of Venus and for its participation in
        the International Astrographic Catalogue project. The Observatory
        remained a working observatory until 1982 when it came under the
        auspices of the Powerhouse Museum and became a museum of astronomy and
        a public observatory.




        Light and atmospheric pollution was minimal in the country.



        The population was around 1.2 billion people, so lots of observers.



        The critical factor would be where in geostationary orbit it was. it would have to be somewhere over the equator, and over a land mass. Not too many choices. Chances of it being seen diminish the closer it gets to the middle of either ocean.



        The advantage is, that it would have to be over the equator, and the equator is primarily in the planetary elliptic plane of the solar system. The planets would be a very good target for astronomers, and so a lot of the time they would be looking roughly in the same plane as the debris. This greatly increases the chances of them seeing it.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 1 hour ago

























        answered 1 hour ago









        Justin Thyme

        7,6901940




        7,6901940



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f127426%2fvictorian-astronomer-detecting-artificial-satellites%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Comments

            Popular posts from this blog

            What does second last employer means? [closed]

            Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

            One-line joke