ISS To Become Second Brightest-Object In the Sky

Matt_dk writes "Move over, Morning Star. Once Canadarm2 helps install the fourth and final set of solar array wings to the International Space Station later this month, the Station will surpass Venus as the brightest object in the night sky, second only to the Moon. The Space Shuttle Discovery is set to deliver the power-generating solar panels and Starboard 6 (S6) truss segment to the ISS on the 125th mission in the Shuttle program, known as STS-119/15A (slated for launch on March 11)."

2nd brightest? not quite.

[lecithin]

Yes, the ISS is bright and will be brighter.

This still doesn't rival the brightness of an Iridium flare.

Predictions of the ISS and Iridium flares are provided at http://www.heavens-above.com/ [heavens-above.com]

Then there have been comets and supernova that have been visible during daylight. Yea, I think the ISS is cool to observe, but don't call it 2nd brightest after the moon.

Re:2nd brightest? not quite.

[interkin3tic]

Plus, you know, THE SUN. (I know the summary was more specific, but the title was not.)

Re:It doesn't matter for me

[polar red]

you couldn't count all the stars

there are more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the world.

Re:bright enough to see in daylight?

[berend botje]

Venus can be (and often is) visible during the day. The Moon also, and I'm sure you've seen that some time.

The only problem is that ISS isn't stationary, so you have to know where to look and at the right time as well!

Re:Second only to the Moon?

[osu-neko]

No, he didn't necessarily stop reading there, but... people compose their first reply in their heads as soon as they read the title, and displaying the usual level of /. impulse control, they hit read more, hit reply, and post it. Then they read the summary, make another reply. Then, maybe, they read the actual article. If they haven't already gotten distracted by all the other clueless posts and arguments over first reactions and speculating that's so much more fun than actually learning the facts. :p

Re:2nd brightest? not quite.

[pongo000]

Sadly, Mike Tyrrell's page is gone

Is this [astrospider.com] not his site?

Re:2nd brightest? not quite.

[violet16]

No, either way, it's wrong. The heading says, "Second Brightest-Object In the Sky," which is incorrect, because the Sun is the brightest object in the sky and the second-brightest is the Moon.

The summary says, "the brightest object in the night sky," which is incorrect, because that would be the Moon.

I know you're joking, but this is Slashdot, and I expect the jokes to be funny AND measurably correct.