I've used Google Photos which is easy to use, but if someone wants to download the picture, the resolution isn't very high which may be fine for looking at on a screen, but for prints is not good at all. I now have a Smugmug account which I can give access to whomever I wish and sell the photos or just let people download as they wish. I've not sold photos before and have my "buy photos" button turned off, but can't remove it from being displayed since it is a Smugmug feature. Though Smugmug isn't free, it isn't expensive and you aren't limited on the number or size of your images. Those with a link to an album (called folders in Smugmug) can download any number of photos. You can set up folders with as many or as few pictures as you want and you can make a gallery of folders if you wish. The resolution of the pictures is not reduced like they are in Google Photos either.

Yes, the ISS is very bright. It does take about 90 minutes per orbit, but that second time wouldn't be over you if the first one was. The various satellite trackers will tell you what day and time to look, where they will appear and disappear as well as how long you will have the opportunity to view whatever satellite you choose.

Panning is a real skill and I've starting trying the same, but it takes a lot of effort or practice to get good. I've recently been trying to capture robots in competitions that I work as a mentor (and photographer) for. While their speed isn't excessive, I'm generally very close to them as they pass and they aren't predictable, so I get about 1 shot in 10 maybe that is really useful. I know someone who does professional work shooting race cars. He does some incredible panning shots. You really have to know how to stay with your subject to get those shots. Here is a link to one of my bot shots:
https://ericmanneschmidt.smugmug.com/Smoky-Mountain-Regional-2022/n-5k9zCM/i-ZkvwVbd/A

While I see the trail just above the tree and going up to the right, I doubt it was the ISS just do to how dim it is. As someone else commented and shared a link to a picture they made of the ISS passing, it was much brighter than your capture. You also stated that you could barely see it with your naked eyes. The ISS is probably the 3rd brightest thing in the sky following the the sun, moon and Venus. I think I'm correct on that. I do know that there will be no question as to whether you can see it or not. What you captured is probably a satellite which sometimes are very faint. One way to know when to look for the ISS or any satellite is to go to https://www.satview.org/?sat_id=46055U. You can look at what satellites will be passing, get notifications of when and where to look, etc.

Satellites are always silent, don't blink, move fairly rapidly across the sky, and may appear (or disappear) in the middle of the sky as opposed to starting/finishing at the horizon. All the light you see is reflected sunlight and not a light on the satellite. So as soon as they go into the shadow from the earth, they become invisible.

I had focus issues with my Canon 24-105 L lens and from doing a little detective work, I realized that it was something more than I was capable of attempting. I sent it to Canon and they fixed the problem, cleaned everything (you can feel a definite difference in the action of the barrel) and returned it promptly. The cost was just under $400. I figure it was money well spent.

I agree with the original post. Typically, when I am looking through the topics that folks have posted in, if the subject isn't something I'm curious about, a place I want to see, I'll not look at it further. Whereas in the critique section, I almost always look there regardless of the subject. I want to see if my critique is the same as others, what I might have missed and if I could possibly help. Likewise, when I post to UHH, it has always been in the critique section because I DON'T need to hear how much someone likes my pics. I want to know what they DON'T like about it and why (and what they do like and why). Maybe there needs to be a new section for the critique section to be in called "needing help". Not sure what a good title for a section containing everything else. I CAN think of some not so good names.

I've used Mpix for many prints and have always had good results and service. They are competitive in price and their order to delivery time is VERY short. They offer all the the different types, metallic, canvas, on aluminum, etc. I sent them a picture that was B&W and they suggested that I print on paper specific for B&W which isn't something I specified or thought of (I seldom ever do anything in B&W). The resulting image was incredible.

I think you have done well considering what you had to work with. I've been in places where the lighting was low and I didn't have much choice as to be in a better place, just had to work what I had. I'm not a professional, but was mentored by one for such situations and this is what I do in these situations. Since you must have certain shutter speed and aperture settings to stop motion and get the needed DOF, then the only thing left to adjust is the ISO. Therefore, I would jack up the ISO till you the faces or features of importance are correct or a little to the right on the histogram (shooting to the right as it's called), then when you are in PP, you can turn it down a little if needed.
If you shoot a little dark and then try to turn it up, the graininess gets amplified. If you, on the other hand, shoot to the right (a little bright) you are then turning down the graininess in PP or at least not starting off with more.
As it is, I think you aren't at a loss other than you didn't get as many as you might normally expect.
Low light, artificial, different kinds (colors) of lights, it's all part of the game that those outside of photography don't realize is a problem.

#2 is a little better, but I would ask what it is you are trying to show? If it is the farm in the distance, then the golf course in foreground is distracting. I would be tempted to remove the flag and turn the sand trap into just grass.

Manglesphoto mentioned cropping out the sky. I don't see how you can crop it any closer or how it would help.

May be a controlled burn as you mentioned. I know that a little east of there they have been culling and burning piles to reduce the fuel on the ground that has been building up for many years. They had fire in 2018, the Ute Park Fire that took out over 36,000 acres. It was burning at a rate of about 1,000 acres per hour for some of it. That was a little east of Eagle Nest Lake.

Your picture is excellent. Was it in the a.m. or p.m.?
You had me concerned regarding your siting a fire near Angel Fire. I had to check fire watch maps, but fortunately it doesn't list any current fires in that area. I've spent several summers not far from there and fires are always a huge concern for all the southwest being as dry as it is and since many areas have a very high fuel load in the forests.

Thanks. I worked in NE NM many moons ago, near Cimarron.

Where in NM is this, assuming it is in NM?

Yes, this is better. I had to go back and see the original post. When you have something like the car in the picture, it draws question as to why it is in there. It becomes a distraction if it is not supposed to be part of the story. Cropping down the picture helped not only eliminate the car, but enlarged the subject(s).

If there are plans for any night shots, the wide would be my go to lens if it has a low f.