NASA's Real-Life 'Gravity' Images Will Blow You Away (PICTURES).

page: 3
38
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by n00bUK
 
Michael Collins said you can't see stars!!! mmmmmmmmmm




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   

nomickeyshere
reply to
post by n00bUK

 

Michael Collins said you can't see stars!!! mmmmmmmmmm

It depended on where he was looking. When he was on the lit side of the moon, the brightness of the moon filled his field of view so much that his eyes would have adjusted to the brightness, and the stars would not be very visible -- if visible at all.

However, when he circled to the night-time side of the Moon, and his eyes no longer adjusted to the brightness of the moon, he saw stars.


In his autobiography "Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys," Collins wrote about his experience as the command module passed behind to the night side of the Moon, and left him in complete isolation (not even able to communicate with Earth for some of that time, due to the Moon being in the way):

"I feel this powerfully -- not as fear or loneliness -- but as awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation.

I like the feeling. Outside my window I can see stars -- and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void, the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars."

So he did see stars.


edit on 3/5/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 




So he did see stars.
ars.

If the orbiter window was facing the Moon, how could he see stars too? The Moon would fill the whole field of view.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by nomickeyshere
 


No.

What he said was that he didn't remember seeing any in response to a specific question asked by Patrick Moore about seeing stars in the solar corona. Stars (and planets) were successfully photographed in the solar corona in later missions.

Apollo astronauts navigated using them, so it kind of helped to be able to see them.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

GaryN
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 




So he did see stars.
ars.

If the orbiter window was facing the Moon, how could he see stars too? The Moon would fill the whole field of view.



Because it is possible to see the moon and the stars at the same time.




posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


As above, so below, right?





posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

GaryN
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 




So he did see stars.
ars.

If the orbiter window was facing the Moon, how could he see stars too? The Moon would fill the whole field of view.


I don't have an image from Apollo 11 that was obviously taken from the CM, but here is one from Apollo 12 (that was obviously taken from the CM, and taken obviously while in lunar orbit) that shows that both the Moon and space could be seen at the same time. I assume the orbit of Apollo 12 was at least at a similar altitude as Apollo 11.


Hi-res (and rotated) version:
history.nasa.gov...

I can link to images that are probably from the Apollo 11 CM showing both the Moon and space in the same image, but I could not confirm that they were definitely taken from the CM while in orbit (i.e., maybe they were taken by the LM, or taken while approaching or leaving the Moon).



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

PhotonEffect
reply to post by smurfy
 


As above, so below, right?




Pretty much so!



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

GaryN
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 




So he did see stars.
ars.

If the orbiter window was facing the Moon, how could he see stars too? The Moon would fill the whole field of view.


I don't have an image from Apollo 11 that was obviously taken from the CM, but here is one from Apollo 12 (that was obviously taken from the CM, and taken obviously while in lunar orbit) that shows that both the Moon and space could be seen at the same time. I assume the orbit of Apollo 12 was at least at a similar altitude as Apollo 11.


Hi-res (and rotated) version:
history.nasa.gov...

I can link to images that are probably from the Apollo 11 CM showing both the Moon and space in the same image, but I could not confirm that they were definitely taken from the CM while in orbit (i.e., maybe they were taken by the LM, or taken while approaching or leaving the Moon).



I don't think it matters that much. The famous 'Earthrise' picture was taken by one of the three when they arrived in orbit, NASA photo ID AS11-44-6552 then there was another similar one just before they left. Both show the argueably 50/50 aspect of the moon and clear space. I agree, if Collins and et al saw stars at sometime, that's what happened.



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   

smurfy

PhotonEffect
reply to post by smurfy
 


As above, so below, right?




Pretty much so!


A fully populated world would shine like the Sun.
(If they found the key)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

jazz10




A fully populated world would shine like the Sun.
(If they found the key)


Well, the human body is driven by electricity. But before we all start to glow, I used think of crap like how, if we generate electricity in tiny amounts in the body, was any going spare?
It could have been the 'new thing' in storing electricity or charging if only I knew how or what!

It turns out those with the wherewithal have been on the case for years, and the direction they are going is 'passive' by scavenging electricity from the body when it is at rest...how cheeky is that? why'd I not think of that..bugger!



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

GaryN
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 




So he did see stars.
ars.

If the orbiter window was facing the Moon, how could he see stars too? The Moon would fill the whole field of view.


Apollo Command Modules had several windows, facing at different angles. So, it would be possible to see the Moon in one window, and space in another. Or, as many Apollo photos show, the Moon and space in the same shot.



By the way, the Sun's corona is as bright as the full moon, so it might be difficult to see stars throught it (or next to it) with the naked eye, but possible to photograph with the right camera settings.
edit on 5-3-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

GaryN
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 




So he did see stars.
ars.

If the orbiter window was facing the Moon, how could he see stars too? The Moon would fill the whole field of view.


I don't have an image from Apollo 11 that was obviously taken from the CM, but here is one from Apollo 12 (that was obviously taken from the CM, and taken obviously while in lunar orbit) that shows that both the Moon and space could be seen at the same time. I assume the orbit of Apollo 12 was at least at a similar altitude as Apollo 11.


Hi-res (and rotated) version:
history.nasa.gov...

I can link to images that are probably from the Apollo 11 CM showing both the Moon and space in the same image, but I could not confirm that they were definitely taken from the CM while in orbit (i.e., maybe they were taken by the LM, or taken while approaching or leaving the Moon).



How about this one
www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 5 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


And here is one with no stars once the solar dust disk is gone. They are using the 2485 high speed film, and a long exposure, no stars. It's the same from the ISS, the stars show up better when they use the Zodiacal light.
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

GaryN
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


And here is one with no stars once the solar dust disk is gone. They are using the 2485 high speed film, and a long exposure, no stars. It's the same from the ISS, the stars show up better when they use the Zodiacal light.
www.lpi.usra.edu...


That's one of the solar corona images from Apollo 17, not zodiacal light. You chose one of the last images in a sequence, and earlier in that sequence there are clear stars and also planets. The reason your chosen image does not show stars is because they shortened the exposure time as they got nearer to sunrise - this is confirmed by the mission report. The earlier images in the sequence are clearly longer exposures because the stars have trails.

They specifically took zodiacal light images in the moon's shadow so that direct sunlight wouldn't interfere with the experiment.

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

Meanwhile, back in Apollo 10 we have these nice quotes:



"Sometimes ypu can see stars; there's about a 10 or 20 degree angle when you're directly opposite the sun where you can see stars...I did recognise what I believed to be Mars, off the Earth, and Jupiter, because of its four moons"




the way the sunshine is shining on the Earth, how much light is getting scattered back in the telescope, and how much is coming in off the LM. It's really - It's really blanking out all the stars.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


The corona and the Zodiacal light are related.

Zodiacal Light in the Solar Corona.

adsabs.harvard.edu...




The earlier images in the sequence are clearly longer exposures because the stars have trails.


According to the report then, those 7 images, in sequence, had 10,4,1,1/2,1/8,1/30,and 1/60-second exposures, and AS16-124-19888 would have been 1/2 second, but the star trails are as long as those in the 10 second image. Something not right there.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Enough with GaryN's "you can't see stars in space" line, and back to the awesome images of Earth and the space station / Shuttle photos. Which one is your favourite?



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   

GaryN
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


The corona and the Zodiacal light are related.

Zodiacal Light in the Solar Corona.

adsabs.harvard.edu...




The earlier images in the sequence are clearly longer exposures because the stars have trails.


deleted - need to check more stuff.

I agree with wildespace. Could a mod move it to the appropriate thread?

edit on 6-3-2014 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-3-2014 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


OK, so I went away and checked things.

The original photo you linked to was Apollo 17.

The photo in your next post was from Apollo 16. The mission report for that also refers to the solar corona photography.

Again, the photographs were of a sunrise with decreasing exposure times, however for the sequence you refer to:

www.hq.nasa.gov...



However, the 1 second and 1/2-second exposures were not obtained because of a procedural error. the trigger was released too quickly for the 1-second exposure, so the shutter remained open, and the film was transported for the next exposure. Proper actuation of the trigger for the 1/2-second exposure returned the camera to normal status. The result of the action was an exposure of less than 1 second and another of more than 10 seconds.


So the reason why the trails in the first image in that sequence and the one you linked to are the same is because they were exposed for roughly the same length of time.

More on the Apollo 16 stellar photography here onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

There are stars in those images. If you want to continue to argue the toss about seeing and photographing stars it perhaps doensn't need to be in this thread.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 




The original photo you linked to was Apollo 17.
The photo in your next post was from Apollo 16.


You are correct, musta clicked the wrong catalog. But, on the A16, magazine SS, there are two sets of 7 images, and in both sets image 4 has star trails as long as image 1, so not just a 1 second instead of 1/2 second exposure. Even with the 10 second exposures though, such a sensitive film should, IMO, have picked up a lot more stars.




There are stars in those images.


Agreed, but I'm going to stick with the idea that it is the dust/electrons/protons or whatever in the corona that makes them visible, as there are lots of images where they can be seen to be much brighter within that area, and not outside of it.




If you want to continue to argue the toss about seeing and photographing stars it perhaps doensn't need to be in this thread.


No, I've taken a different tack now after reading Chris Hadfields statement about the blackness of space. As the interpretation of images only seems to lead to disagreement, I am only looking for statements from EVA astronauts about what was visible, and so far, I can find no statements at all about a view of deep space. As cameras can have very long exposures and IR and UV sensitivity, it can not be said that our eyes would see anything that a camera does, so eliminate the camera, only rely on eyeballs. You have to go through NASA to contact an astronaut, by snail-mail only, so trying to contact Hadfield might be a slow business, but I did find one EVA astonaut on Quora, Garrett Reisman, who talks about his EVA, but not about looking into deep space, so I posted a question to him. Doubt it will get a reply, but you never know.
I've gone through the whole list of EVA astronauts, no mention from any of them about deep space. Now that's strange to me, but then lots of folk think I'm strange too!
Good work with your site though, even though we might differ on some aspects.





new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join