PAGEOS had a diameter of exactly 100 feet (30.48 m), consisted of a 0.5 mils (12.7 μm) thick mylar plastic film coated with vapour deposited aluminum enclosing a volume of about 524,000 cubic feet (14,800 m3)[8][9] The metal coating both reflected sunlight and protected the satellite from damaging ultraviolet waves. The satellite was launched in a canister, which explosively separated as it was ejected from the rocket. Then, the balloon was inflated through a combination of residual internal air and a mixture of benzoic acid and anthraquinone placed inside, which turned to gas when the satellite was exposed to the heat of the sun.[9]
It was the first satellite specifically launched for use in geodetic surveying,[3] or measuring the shape of the earth, by serving as a reflective and photographic tracking target. At the time, it improved on terrestrial triangulations of the globe by about an order of magnitude.[4] The satellite, which carried no instrumentation, broke up between 1975 and 1976.
Over five years, 16 groups conducted observations at 45 globally distributed stations, about 3000-4000 km apart from each other.[4][7][12] 12 mobile tracking stations were used, which observed during favorable weather conditions during a few minutes of twilight each evening.[7][why?][clarification needed] BC4 cameras were used to photograph the satellite.[12] Observations were taken when the satellite was visible simultaneously to multiple stations at the same time.[12] This resulted in the fixing of the precise locations of 38 different points around the world.[4] This could be used to help determine the precise locations of the continents relative to each other, and to help determine the precise shape and size of the earth.
I really like the book - I think it's one of his best. Subtle 'unreliable narrator' mind-fuck from beginning to end, nicely written and characterised. The film of it is an abomination, though.
Could be a tilt shift lens which can distort perspective and make a photo look as if it's being taken from a slightly different angle. Not sure what to look for to disprove that hypothesis though.
i noticed that in the OP too and it confused me a bit. then i noticed the dark corner bottom left, which is probably a bit of the wall of the dark room the picture was taken out of. that's why the photographer isn't in the reflection.
I don't know what it is about the 1960s but I love the vibe of the technology. planes, cars, spaceships tended to have that chrome/bare metal look. i love it
If my understanding of physics is correct, they'd have to be slap bang in the centre of the reflected image (assuming a perfect sphere), so somewhere on the framework of the corner of the building.
The center line of lights in the reflection is higher than the location on the wall, which leads me to believe that the photographer is just above vertical center. * Due to the nature of photographing a sphere horizontally they would have to be exactly centered.
i noticed that in the OP too and it confused me a bit. then i noticed the dark corner bottom left, which is probably a bit of the wall of the dark room the picture was taken out of. that's why the photographer isn't in the reflection.
I think they're on the end of the catwalk right above the small building in the corner, which would make sense since they'd have to appear in the middle of the sphere unless the image is cropped. Hard to be sure with this resolution, but I'd bet those few lighter pixels are the person holding the camera.