Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: GaryN

First off, you address this to me, but quoted wildespace.

What two pictures are you referring to? If you're talking about the one wildespace linked to, that is used in the video, it was taken at 13:47:09. The one I linked to was taken at 15:43:14.

In the one wilespace linked to, eol.jsc.nasa.gov... the moon would have been at an altitude of about -2°.

If you have another one you want me to look at, I can give you the altitude angle to moon from it.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: nataylor

In any case, the ISS's nadir location (pointing straight down to Earth) is stated for those images, so that's what I've used in Stellarium, in case you missed my post above

Well, I don't think I'm clueless, but I think you are probably much smarter than I am with this kind of thing. I appreciate your help, but am confused somewhat by the time given for the 2 images we have been looking at, as there is only 4 minutes between them, but the ground track would seem to indicate it should have been quite a lot longer, which obviously affects the Moons observed position. What am I misunderstanding?

Well, the ISS makes the full orbit around the Earth (360 degrees of a circle) every 90 minutes. That's 4 degrees every minute, and 16 degrees in 4 minutes. Given a rather large size of Earth, 16 degrees is quite a lot.

I suppose someone with enough patience and appropriate tools could measure the angular separation between the "ISS nadir point" given for those images and see if that corresponds to what I said.

[Edit] I've just plugged in those coordinates into this great tool: www.movable-type.co.uk... (where you can even display a Google Map with the ground track shown) and the result matches the map in those ISS image pages:



In the time between the shots, the ISS covered almost 8000 km!

a reply to: wildespace

I just edited my last post after realising I had just looked at the minutes and not the hours. Duh.

originally posted by: wildespace
In the time between the shots, the ISS covered almost 8000 km!

Even more than that, since the ISS made more than 1 full orbit between those photos!

Well, after getting Celestia in sync and examining the evidence, it does look like the Moon was imaged from a deep space facing location. And it must have been very bright judging by the exposure settings they used, so that seems to answer that question. I wonder if they also did a time exposure shot or two while they were at it to show the stars. Could have settled the OPs (and my) claims about them not being visible at the same time.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The sun does not actually light the earth, the interaction of the particles of the sun cause the sky to illuminate which then lights the earth. Now it probably would be the same with the stars, their light beams could hit the earths atmosphere and cause it to show a spot. It kind of makes you wonder how much we are not seeing.

We can see satellites in orbit, due to the light reflecting off them to our eye. The blackness of the space between the stars is because there is no light either 1) reflecting back or 2) being emitted from an object such as a star.

A hi-tech invisibility cloak would work well in space, all it has to do is absorb all light with 0% leakage. The same invisibility cloak would suck on earth because we'd all see this super-black thing walking around.

I forgot what my point was.

Nasa,Esa,Rocosmos etc are all governmental organizations and all this agencies could have a hidden similar agenda like supressing some data from the general public and they could cowork together to achieve that.Until we have a 100% civilian space agency or until Nasa takes some honest civilians selected by the people into space to confirm all their data i remain skeptical about some of their claims.
One of the main reasons why they try to manipulate data about stars and sun is to keep valid their big bang and einstein relativity with higs bosons dark matter and curved space.The moment they would admit a plasma universe in wich stars and suns are invisible in space all their fabricated cosmology will colapse and they will never allow that.Tesla will be forever supressed and Einstein will be forever their god.
People missinterpreted Neil Armstrong when he said that could not see stars because of "moon daylight" and it was a particular case wich i dont believe .People forget that he told he could see stars through optics only ,so how is this "moon daylight" possible,because here on earth u cant see stars when is daylight with optics....
All nasa images taken in free space that shows sun and stars are taken in different spectrums and not 1 in visible human spectrum so thats why is possible to see stars with hubble and soho.

a reply to: GaryN

And it must have been very bright judging by the exposure settings

I'm going to back-pedal on that for a while as I was looking at some of the other images from the set, and here is one looking very dull, but with shorter exposure and compensation at +4/3. I thought that would have been -4/3, background being black, but I'm rusty at that stuff. But, playing with compensation, don't we loose touch with how the Moon would look by eye? Photography expert required...

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The fact that Borman orbited the moon and saw stars there has always been part of the official narrative.

It doesn't need you to pronounce it from the town hall steps to make it official.

You like to leave out the essential part of the story:

When Borman saw stars in the pre-dawn sky at 4:40, from the deck of the Arlington just before the Apollo 11 splashdown in the Pacific Ocean, he compared the sky to what he saw during Apollo 8 on the back side of the moon. That's what Frank Borman told Bob Haldeman and who dutifully wrote it in his diary which has been a part of the public record for over 20 years!!

Any casual skywatcher can claim to see "millions of stars" from right here on planet Earth, Haldeman proved that. If astros can see "millions of stars" in space...? Is that really an achievement?

1. He's riding in a pressurized capsule with 100% oxygen environment... looking out a window into deep space where there is NO ATMOSPHERE.

2. At the A11 splashdown, he's at sea level, breathing a normal earth atmosphere, in the pre-dawn light, in the Pacific ocean, looking through thousands of miles of Earth's atmospheric distortion!!

If this is true, then any Apollo astronaut who was on the dark side should have no trouble describing what the space environment looked like and there would be no need for this thread or your website of hand-selected citations.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: GaryN

And it must have been very bright judging by the exposure settings

I'm going to back-pedal on that for a while as I was looking at some of the other images from the set, and here is one looking very dull, but with shorter exposure and compensation at +4/3. I thought that would have been -4/3, background being black, but I'm rusty at that stuff. But, playing with compensation, don't we loose touch with how the Moon would look by eye? Photography expert required...

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

That's the last image in the sequence. I'm going to guess the moon was at a highly oblique angle to the port window, and some light was being lost to the increasing amount of window material had to pass through, or internal reflections in the material, or both.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The fact that Borman orbited the moon and saw stars there has always been part of the official narrative.

It doesn't need you to pronounce it from the town hall steps to make it official.

You like to leave out the essential part of the story:

When Borman saw stars in the pre-dawn sky at 4:40, from the deck of the Arlington just before the Apollo 11 splashdown in the Pacific Ocean, he compared the sky to what he saw during Apollo 8 on the back side of the moon. That's what Frank Borman told Bob Haldeman and who dutifully wrote it in his diary which has been a part of the public record for over 20 years!!

Nothing left out, and you nicely reiterate my point: it was always on the record, doesn't need your grandiosity to claim it to be so.

Any casual skywatcher can claim to see "millions of stars" from right here on planet Earth, Haldeman proved that. If astros can see "millions of stars" in space...? Is that really an achievement?

Actually it's likely to be no more than 10000 earthsky.org...

1. He's riding in a pressurized capsule with 100% oxygen environment... looking out a window into deep space where there is NO ATMOSPHERE.

That's right, he is.

2. At the A11 splashdown, he's at sea level, breathing a normal earth atmosphere, in the pre-dawn light, in the Pacific ocean, looking through thousands of miles of Earth's atmospheric distortion!!

Thousands? Really?

If this is true, then any Apollo astronaut who was on the dark side should have no trouble describing what the space environment looked like and there would be no need for this thread or your website of hand-selected citations.

And as I demonstrated on my web page full of quotes that I found by searching the historical record that you are so keen on, and by reading books by and about Apollo astronauts, I found many many references where they had no trouble describing (and photographing) what space looked like.

There are many many other quotes describing the stellar view from space by other astronauts, and they have been provided in this thread by myself and others.

The reason there is a need for a website full of quotes is because there are morons out there who claim astronauts don't discuss stars or claim not to have seen them. My page proves otherwise.

I'd stick to what you know if I were you. It will give you more free time.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I'd stick to what you know if I were you. It will give you more free time.

I know that Nixon belongs in the Apollo Narrative.

Obviously Logsdon is one of the well known, official US narrative space historians. His new book "After Apollo?" unravelled the labyrinthine machinations of the Nixon Narrative which overlays the Apollo Narrative.

Logsdon has just written the best available work on Nixon's space policy. I'd suggest you grab a copy before it's sold out.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And there is a thread where you can discuss that to your heart's content without anyone else getting in the way:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is not that thread.

It's all about Borman and Haldeman on the flight deck at 4:40.

Here's a link that shows the exact sunrise, sunset, and more interesting, the times for astrological/nautical & civil twilight.

This is for the Apollo 11 splashdown.
www.timeanddate.com...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And there is a thread where you can discuss that to your heart's content without anyone else getting in the way:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is not that thread.

Your claim is that "This is not that thread." However, The Haldeman Diary with the Borman entry is on topic with stars, astronauts, space and descriptions by astronauts of stars in space. I AM Totally on topic.

a reply to: nataylor

That's the last image in the sequence. I'm going to guess the moon was at a highly oblique angle to the port window, and some light was being lost to the increasing amount of window material had to pass through, or internal reflections in the material, or both.

Possible, though the porthole must have a pretty narrow field of view, so even though the last shots were only a few minutes after the first, the Moon could be moving out of view, but would such a small difference in angle affect light transmission through the glass so much? I'd think the Moon would be either in view or out of view, with very little change in incidence angle, so little change in transmittance. Of course, I don't know what that porthole material is, but regular glass doesn't loose much till 60 degrees or so, and I doubt the field of view is anywhere near that.
Looks like the photographer chose the 400 ISO value and the camera then chose aperture and exposure time. Bracketing took 4 under and 4 overexposed shots around it's 0 compensation optimal, continuous shooting.
I just wonder about 400 ISO, to reduce motion blur, or maybe a hand held camera?
It is a complex subject, and the camera and settings can make a huge difference, so my question to EVA astronauts would be as to if the Moon looked similar to the moon viewed from Earth when viewed under the same circumstances, looking outwards. We can make it look from dark grey/brown to white by camera settings, so which is it?

I think this is relevant to some things being discussed in this thread: time.com...

Don Pettit: "The sunny 16 rule applies to being in orbit, but you have to stop down two more stops because it’s a lot brighter. So that’s an example: Being exo-atmospheric, the sun is a lot brighter."

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wmd_2008

There is a clue here. You seem to be clueless.
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

I said this.

"do you think Celestia knows the camera settings used to take EVERY picture. "

After you had said the brightness of objects looked different in Celestia.

As the Moon image had the exif data still attached you could see the exposure details for the shot as posted by

nataylor f/5.6, 1/2000 sec, ISO 400, exposure compensation of -0.3 EV.

a reply to: GaryN

Here is the exif for the last image of the series

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) [0x829A] = 1/640 second ===> 0.00156 second

Lens F-Number / F-Stop [0x829D] = 56/10 ===> ƒ/5.6

Exposure Program [0x8822] = manual control (1)

ISO Speed Ratings [0x8827] = 400

As you can see manual control!

a reply to: wmd_2008

Celestia is supposed to render the scene in such a way that it best approximates what the human eye would see if it was located at the viewpoint.
For some reason, they decided on ISO 400 setting, and the way it works is that the camera then sets aperture and exposure time. It might be argued that they chose a high ISO to avoid camera shake blurring, but certainly not motion blur. However, and this seems like typical NASA sneakiness, if you use such a high ISO, you are guaranteed to get overexposed images. ISO 100 would have been a more realistic choice, but I believe the Moon would appear very dark, and so dark perhaps that you might not be able to locate it by a randow look around, it would need to be pointed out to you.
USING ISO 400 then, you are going to make the Moon seem much brighter than it really is if viewed by eye, and so dark that somebody eventually might catch on that it is way darker than we see it from Earth, and ask why. My belief that there is an atmospheric effect making the Moon appear so bright would seem to be confirmed by this. The mechanism also makes the stars visible to us on Earth, but without NASA having done longer exposures to show us those stars, I can not prove this. I believe they would have to be using an A7S set for ISO 320,000 to make them visible, the Nikon would't be able to see them set to its highest ISO. And, if the light wavefronts travelling through space can not be focused by the simple optics of our eyes or a regular camera, then even the A7S maxed out would not see them. More experimants required, NASA.