Airplane in front of the moon

Shot on the 22th of april from Enschede, The Netherlands

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• moon

[kimmiejknuffel]

It's Real but believe whatever you want. It's not like the plane is in space like some people think this is shot trough a telescope. The plane flew across the field of view!

[NEEDCARS]

FAKE!! its just a ufo

[moglijs]

MAYDAY! Did you see the smoke? =O

[moglijs]

@JustWickedSwede I know man! That was a joke.

[JustWickedSwede]

@moglijs It's vapour.. Caused by all planes that fly at high altitude.

[Neueregel]

@kanakTheGold Not reallly many details even with , 10x 35/60 arcsecs = 5.83 arcmin about 1/5 of the Moon diameter. For example Jupiter is about 35 arcsecs across but even with 10x binoculars you can hardly resolve anything except one bright symmetric little disk. No Jupiter bands can be seen with 10x, you need at least 30x zoom to do that, and about 50 x to resolve the Jupiterian Great Red Spot - its Great storm

[kanakTheGold]

@Neueregel True,with d crude method we're talking of,one can't be sure of exactness of results even upon conviction.However,thinking of probability distribution,we can say dat d probability of it being in range 5.5-6.5(units in arcmins) is highest with lesser probability of it being in range 4.5-5.5 or 6.5-7.5 and much lesser in range 3.5-4.5 or 7.5-8.5 and so on.Also dat u mention bare resolution to be ~35 arcsecs, wonder how detailed an object about 10 times it's size would appear to nakedeye!

[Jimbob13rocks]

oh my gosh that is funy

[Neueregel]

@kanakTheGold Correctly. As I imagined. However, the use of a ruler entails a lot of of approximations errors at least. plus-minus 1-2mm. So, you can't really be sure if the ration [wingspan over moon diameter] is more or less than 20%. Also, I suggest not to use decimals but arcminutes, so let's say that that plane had a ~6 arcminute diamater. The human eye can even barely resolve between 2 objects half of an arcminute apart. (approximately Jupiter's diameter size = 35-40 arcseconds)

[kanakTheGold]

@Neueregel Yes, I used a ruler to measure images over the screen. Measurements were double checked to be correct to the last millimeter, the smallest unit of distance marked over a ruler. So, no round off or approximation was required. That said, atmospheric refraction could have very slightly distorted Moon's disk or the craft's image, thus yielding "not THE EXACT" measurements. Again, such inherent discrepancies wouldn't significantly alter the observed values.

[Neueregel]

@kanakTheGold And how do you measure that? I mean, do you apply a ruler to the image and measure the distances? That would involve many approximation errors. Did you round your values?

[kanakTheGold]

@Neueregel And of course, measurements taken again will result in values slightly different than 66 millimeters or 325 millimeters, but the idea is the ratio-

[(length of airplane's wingspan in millimeters) / (diameter of Moon's disk in millimeters)]

would remain almost the same as given by (66/325), which is approximately 1/5 or 0.2 .

[kanakTheGold]

@Neueregel For this,one can pause the video @ 0:05,with the plane appearing against Moon's disk. Using some geometry, I obtained diameter of Moon's circular disk= 325 mm (as appearing on my monitor's screen).On how to measure diameter without viewing entire circle, you could refer the explanation in 'PART1'.

Similarly,the aircraft's wingspan measured 66 mm. At the small angles we are dealing(less than 1 degree), if 325 mm corresponds to 0.5 deg,then 66 mm corresponds to [(66/325)x(0.5)]=0.1 deg.