Do we know the PRESENT  position of astronomical objects?
410740
yes if not a astroid would have crashed into us all ready!
991212
If you follow astronomy like I do they are discovering everyday that the Solar System is not what we thought it was!  Our Universe actually may look round/spiral but if you tip it on its side it is pretty flat.  The answers relating to gravity are sort of right as well, but scientists have found just recently (few weeks) that some of our planets aren't perfectly round like everybody thought.  As we send more cameras into space the more we realize that what we thought was fact...is wrong!  Scientists are saying "oops" quite a lot this past year or two!  But yes, gravity plays a role, but when you look closely, they are not perfectly round and flat.  They have gigantic craters, mountains pointing up so high we can't even imagine it.  Our telescopes are getting more powerful as the computer age expands our capability.to see so much better.  Its a great field of study, especially today and tomorrow.  Things are changing our perspective on what we thought and what we are learning is the truth.  The sun may appear round, but it is gaseous so bellows, in and out, with flares and cool spots, same with the storms on Jupiter, they just recently realized that the Big Red Spot MOVES! Yep, science was shocked to learn that the Red Spot moves all over the planet!  So study and explore, the Digital Science Channel, and Discovery Channel is what every one should be watching, not The Simpsons, although Bart is a lot more funny.  But science is always changing, nothing ever remains the same!  Become an exployer of the Universe, and get paid for having fun in discovering new stuff all the time!
314759
Yes, it would be more accurate, but the calculations are much harder. Whether it is worth it depends on what you have to do with the information. One thing that happens is 'frame dragging', where a rotating mass drags along space and time with the rotation. We now have a probe in orbit around the earth to measure exactly this phenomenon.
98059
The short answer is: No one really knows, since the details are classified. Also, the current satellite performance is probably not as good as what it CAN be. \n\nI think that comparing what astronomers are able to do with what the best satellites are able to do can be a bit misleading. \n\n1. The space telescope does not have to look through the air, with the water vapor and turbulence and dust. The space telescope has only the very outer reaches of the atmosphere to look through. \n\n2. The space telescope and ground-based astronomers do not have at their disposal anywhere near the resources that governmental organizations do. For example, the space telescope was not even calibrated, because there was so little money! It was only because of heroic efforts and a few minor miracles that the space telescope was brought into focus. The space telescope is basically a toy, and has barely been able to get funded for the last few years, and might be soon decommissioned. \n\n3. Astronomers just do not have the interest, the background, the training, the knowledge, or the resources to command the type of bleeding-edge technology that governments do. Astronomers for the most part are mired in phenomenology, and do not worry much about the details of pedestrian things like optics. Optics is, in general, disparaged by astronomers and left to the "engineers" and other lesser beings like mathematicians, physicists, statisticians, computer scientists, etc. Basically, astronomers hurt themselves with their attitudes and their culture. \n\n4. No responsible government is going to announce what they are capable of seeing with their satellites. All of this material is very closely held at best, and most likely highly classified. \n\n5. It is well known (or at least often reported in the newspapers, so it might not be correct) that spy satellites are so big and so heavy because they bring a large reserve of fuel with them so that they can be lowered and raised as needed to see various features and details. Apparently, they do not always orbit at the same altitude. \n\n6. It is quite possible to combine imagery from platforms such as multiple satellites, planes, high altitude balloons, etc. to improve resolution considerably. It is hard to know the extent to which this is done, or if it is done, because of course the area is shrouded in secrecy, so we do not know. But the question was, how detailed CAN it be? Well you COULD use multiple sensors on multiple platforms, unlike the Hubble telescope (in fact, multiple sensors on the ground are able to beat Hubble now). \n \n7. As a gross upper bound on resolution limits, look at the mutually agreed upon limits on size of warheads etc by the Russians/FSU/USSR and the USA, for example (typically, the silo doors would reportedly be opened to permit treaty inspections, according to newspaper accounts anyway). These specifications in the treaties imply MUCH higher resolution than the some of the numbers given here by others. And remember, these are the mutually agreed-upon resolutions by two very suspicious adversaries, who do not want to give anything away. Both have to be able to achieve these resolutions, and probably are capable of far better resolution. \n\n8. Having looked at Dawe's limit, and knowing a bit about resolution, I can tell you that it is not particularly useful as an indicator of achievable resolution. How close we are able to come to ultimate resolutions depends on how many resources we are willing to spend, and again since it is classified, it is difficult to know.\n\nTherefore, to answer the question how detailed can satellite imagery be? The answer is, VERY. How detailed is it? We do not know, since it is classified.
508585
There have been many systems identified, some with multiple planets and a few with asteroid belts. The problem is that they are mostly discovered by measuring the minute movements of the star caused by gravitational influences of nearby orbiting objects, so most of the discoveries to date have been systems with relatively large planets (many times larger than our Jupiter) and quite close to the star so that the movement is more easily detected. Recently however, there have been more sensitive sensor arrays which have been able to resolve more "normal" configurations using sophisticated imagery, so there is hope for discoveries of systems more similar to our own in the near future. In any event, given the tremendous distances involved, the resolution of optical telescopes available in the foreseeable future would pretty much preclude any traditional photograph of such a system if it were to be found. There have been some rather blurry computer images generated from these other imaging systems, but I'd hardly call them photographs. Try monitoring <space.com>
902786
Imagine how hard it is to try to teach High Schoolers anything about the planets when one of them has a name like this! But anyway, go to NASA's website. There is a place there where you can find anything worth seeing at any location. It will even tell you when stuff like the Space Station will fly overhead. And most telescopes come with locating software if you ever get that involved. I hope you will. It seems like we never learn much about space, but it has taken a long time to get as far as we are now.
1183464
Sky and Telescope and Night Sky
679974
Telescopes!  When we can see various forms of light energy coming from stars and figure out how far away based on redshift and spectra, we can get an idea of how far away stars "can" be and how they are moving away from each other.  From that we determine the topology of the universe.
453979
They might be able to obtain some paralax measurements of the stars and/or planets as they move around the Earth in their orbit, so they could deduce that they were orbiting something, though they might not know just what it was.
217356
Either get a starguide book or google for on the internet and it will tell you the position of the stars and planets in the sky.  It should let you figure out there exact position for the sky where you live any for any day and time you want to look.  There are also many programs that you can get for your computer that do that and more!  Google has great maps of the moon and there are many astronomy web sites or forums where you can learn lots about the planets, stars, how to use your telescope and lots of other cool stuff!  Hope you have fun with your new toy!!
643922
No doubt, it's a fact. Besides all evidence already discussed by other answerers (earthquakes, fossil record, continent shapes, geological models), today there are *direct measurements* of the changing distance between tectonic plates, using laser or radio interferometry (see reference).
868699
Check at a site called neo (near earth objects)!!
1071951
NASA/JPL lists a detailed ephemeris for this object with celestial coordinates ==> http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/db_shm?sstr=2004%20XP14
1116036
that is the date? what is its longitude and latitude? this will be required to compute the suns position in the sky
1017333
No, because the speed of light is constant and the distance to stars can be accurately calculated by measuring the time it takes their light to reach us.
559911
Go to skyandtelescope.com and scroll down until you see the link for the interactive sky chart. It will open up a window that will ask you for a location and a date. You can then move through different points in time and it will show you the relative position in the sky of the sun from the location you enter.
379988
No.  There is no scientific basis to the belief that the position of various stars and planets has a direct influence on human activity.\n\nHowever, one could definitely perform a scientific, sociological or anthropological examination of the beliefs, history, development, spread, or pervasiveness of astrological belief in society, or sub-sections of society.