It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: che33
I always wondered.. why arent there any pictures of stars in the background or even pics of stars in space? with no atmosphere no skyies and clouds you should have the best view EVER im talking about trillions of stars..
originally posted by: che33
I always wondered.. why arent there any pictures of stars in the background or even pics of stars in space? with no atmosphere no skyies and clouds you should have the best view EVER im talking about trillions of stars..
And a another thing bothering me is that Russians who was way ahead of USA in the space race in 50s-60s..
Im talking about first in space satellites space stations and cosmonauts/astnonauts hours in space.
Problem they had was the radiation of the sun.. otherwords the cosmonauts would get sick or could die if they were to far away from the earth protecting shield.
eather way 1969-72 with No problem at all do the moon landings and then NEVER again.. WHY?
No, we don't. Kubrick consulted NASA and NASA provided a lot of help. Kubrick used a lens that NASA used, but he had to buy it from the manufacturers just like they did.
but it makes me wonder was it absolute impossible to make pictures of stars or did the astronauts make some pictures with stars in it. I assume if one takes a picture of only the moonsky some stars might be visible. (must be possible to test that with the simulation I guess).
originally posted by: GaryN
Kubrick couldn't have afforded to buy one of those lenses,
but regardless, the lenses were supposedly fitted to a Westinghouse 3 tube colour video camera and sent (by the military) to orbit the Moon, with the aim of videoing the far side, but saw nothing.
That is why there are no conventional video cameras, or even still cameras, orbiting the Moon.
The low light photography experiments on some Apollo missions demonstrates the opposite of what you say. They were in total blackout for hours at a time, used long exposures with very high speed film, and got some poor results. The heavens should have been ablaze with stars, both to the camera and the astronauts eyes, yet they mentioned nothing.
It is impossible to take pictures of the stars from deep space. You can see some if you are looking through the atmosphere/ionosphere of an object that has sufficient electrons in its atmosphere. To imge stars from deep space, at visible wavelengths, you need the technology that Hubble employs, which is still classified, and only NASA and the ESA (presntly mostly funded by NASA) have access to that technology. Why do you think that Russia, or India, or China, or Japan, or even Iran do not have visible wavelength space based telescopes? Which brings us back to the simulation, as the intitial conditions need to be known, and as no TSI measurements were ever made from the moon, we do not know the initial lighting conditions.
originally posted by: raytheo
I do understand now why there are no stars in this particular picture but it makes me wonder was it absolute impossible to make pictures of stars or did the astronauts make some pictures with stars in it. I assume if one takes a picture of only the moonsky some stars might be visible. (must be possible to test that with the simulation I guess).
originally posted by: GaryN
the lenses were supposedly fitted to a Westinghouse 3 tube colour video camera and sent (by the military) to orbit the Moon, with the aim of videoing the far side, but saw nothing.
originally posted by: che33
its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon... Thats why there is private companies and NASA who wants to put telescopes as we speak on the moon BECAUSE you can see and study better.
First of all russia was sended there first unmanned landing on the moon 1959.. since then they had 12 landinngs- so i think they didnt have a rocket problem..
And you are telling me that suit from the 60s can block the sun as good the earth ozone layer?
you understand without ozone protective shield earth would be dead in seconds and still people today get skin cancer of the radiation.
I really dont know where you get you info from? just do some own research..
reply to: onebigmonkey
originally posted by: che33
its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon... Thats why there is private companies and NASA who wants to put telescopes as we speak on the moon BECAUSE you can see and study better.
First of all russia was sended there first unmanned landing on the moon 1959.. since then they had 12 landinngs- so i think they didnt have a rocket problem..
And you are telling me that suit from the 60s can block the sun as good the earth ozone layer?
you understand without ozone protective shield earth would be dead in seconds and still people today get skin cancer of the radiation.
I really dont know where you get you info from? just do some own research..
reply to: onebigmonkey
originally posted by: che33
its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon... Thats why there is private companies and NASA who wants to put telescopes as we speak on the moon BECAUSE you can see and study better.
First of all russia was sended there first unmanned landing on the moon 1959.. since then they had 12 landinngs- so i think they didnt have a rocket problem..
And you are telling me that suit from the 60s can block the sun as good the earth ozone layer?
you understand without ozone protective shield earth would be dead in seconds and still people today get skin cancer of the radiation.
I really dont know where you get you info from? just do some own research..
reply to: onebigmonkey
originally posted by: che33
its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon...
While living and working in space was a tremendous experience, it also presented us with many challenges. Some of which aren’t so obvious. Photographically speaking, there were a number of hurdles. The dynamic range of the subject was potentially huge. The darkest darks you can imagine along with the brightest highlights. With no atmosphere, there is probably another stop or two of light on bright subjects. I would guess that the dynamic range of some scenes approaches 16 or 17 stops. Here’s a shot of Rick Mastracchio outside during one of the space-walks the sunlit EVA suit and thermal blankets is a huge difference from the blackness of the background. This image had some really badly blown highlights which I was able to recover in post-processing.
originally posted by: wildespace
That image was taken at ISO 200, 1/800, f8 (low sensor sensitivity, very short exposure, and low aperture)...
originally posted by: iksose7
Probably just a 30 second exposure at f5.6 and ISO 6400.
its completly ridicilus to think that you cant see or take pictures of stars on the moon... Thats why there is private companies and NASA who wants to put telescopes as we speak on the moon BECAUSE you can see and study better.
originally posted by: shadowsinthecave
a reply to: eightfold
With due respect, it doesn't take much to convince you. Lighting is one small shard of evidence, and if you've looked into it, the lighting anomalies and photographic evidence of doctoring is extensive. However, I urge you to go beyond lighting and examine the differences between the film footage and photographs of the LEM ladder.
It goes against all logic to actually believe everything they say though, not sure why believers of the moon landing take everything they heard and saw as absolute truth.
To this day not one good clear picture of anything exists, must be just sheer laziness and not caring.