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.

 

Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

page: 17
40
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

APS is a type of CMOS. It's not that special. Your cell phone may use an APS sensor. They appear in many consumer electronics.

And Rosetta's NAVCAMs are not an APS. They use CCDs:

www.rssd.esa.int...


There are two identical, redundant CAMs on board Rosetta. Their boresight is oriented along the +z axis, parallel to the boresights of the science cameras OSIRIS. They use 1k x 1k front-illuminated EEV CCDs and a 140 mm objective lens. A mechanism in front of the lens allows to set three "filter" positions: (1) focussed and unattenuated (serves also as dust cover); (2) defocussed and unattenuated, and (3) focussed and attenuated. Their main use will be: (1) as dust protection and for maximum detectability; (2) for navigation purposes - defocussed stars are easier to centroid and give higher positional accuracy; (3) for observations of the comet nucleus with landmarks. The CAM was built by Officine Galileo.


And:

adsabs.harvard.edu...


The CCD detector is the CCD47-20 manufactured by EEV. It is a front-side illuminated, frame transfer device with image area of 1024x1024 pixels of 13μm x 13μm.


Here's the datasheet for the EEV CCD47-20: www.e2v.com...




posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Maybe we are a level 0 civilization that has been placed INSIDE a Dyson Sphere for our own protection...

Makes one wonder!



a reply to: cooperton



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor



And Rosetta's NAVCAMs are not an APS.


I was going by what I read on the Rosetta blog by poster Booth.




Specifically, the Rosetta NAVCAM employs, as media, an Active Pixel Sensor (APS) Charge-Coupled Device (CCD)

blogs.esa.int...



edit on 5-6-2015 by GaryN because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

An APS CCD is an oxymoron. I'll take technical papers and data sheets over random Internet commenters any day.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

Looks like you are correct, not a whole lot of info out there on it, but I did find this while looking around, a combined CMOS/CCD sensor for the best of both worlds!
ericfossum.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: jokerzwild

The LORRI camera is a Star Tracker, it should be able to see stars, your eyes out there wouldn't.

LORRI is just a telescope with a CCD, albeit one of the most sensitive and highest resolution imagers ever flown on a planetary mission (but still very humble by modern standards: pluto.jhuapl.edu...


LORRI is comprised of a Ritchey-Chrétien telescope and a 1024 x 1024 pixel (optically active region) CCD detector operated in frame-transfer mode. The telescope has a 20.8 cm diameter primary mirror, a focal length of 262 cm, and a three lens field-flattening assembly.

LORRI does not have any color filters; it provides panchromatic (black and white) imaging over a wide spectral region extending approximately from 350 nm to 850 nm. This was done to make LORRI as sensitive as possible for imaging objects in the Pluto system, where light levels are 1000 times lower than at Earth, and also to keep LORRI as simple as possible.

350 nm to 850 nm is from near-UV to near IR, but very close to the edges of the visible spectrum.

LORRI is not a star tracker, it's a long-distance encounter camera, for objects like moons and planets. The one (known to me) picture of stars was taken for calibration purposes: pluto.jhuapl.edu...
edit on 6-6-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

The ccd sensor is similar in spec to my post on star trackers a couple of posts back.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
This fellow has a youtube video where he uses comments from astronauts who have said they can not see stars from space to somehow make claims that they are all lying, and that that means nobody has ever been into space, or to the Moon.
www.youtube.com...
I strongly object to him calling Chris Hadfield a liar, or Neil Armstrong for that matter. Hadfield has talked about seeing the many points of light visible from space, but also says that space is an endless blackness, so he must be lying because both statements can't be true, but they can if the visibility of stars depends which way you are looking! Look sideways, with a line of site to the stars that passes through Earths atmosphere, you can see them, look away from Earth with very little atmosphere to look through, and you do not see them. How much simpler can it be?
At around 8:16 in the video, there is a voice from one of the astronauts saying that when you are looking away from Earth, into deep space, that nothing is visible. Does anyone know which astronaut that was?



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
I strongly object to him calling Chris Hadfield a liar,


And so you should...


Hadfield has talked about seeing the many points of light visible from space, but also says that space is an endless blackness, so he must be lying because both statements can't be true


Umm...but you just called him a liar.

The sun is yellow but the sky is blue.

Am I lying about the colour of the sun?

The sky being black and having stars are not mutually exclusive. You've been told this before.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
This fellow has a youtube video where he uses comments from astronauts who have said they can not see stars from space to somehow make claims that they are all lying, and that that means nobody has ever been into space, or to the Moon.
www.youtube.com...
I strongly object to him calling Chris Hadfield a liar, or Neil Armstrong for that matter.

Yes, the quotes from the astronauts (especially when taken out of context) are prone to being misinterpreted or misrepresented, as actually happens in your posts as well. Both Hadfield and Armstrong were in a sunlit environment when not being able to see stars, and plenty of astronauts commented on seeing stars, both in LEO and on the Apollo missions.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

When on the moon, without an atmosphere, the Sun's luminosity is so great that you can't see anything else. You can do this in your living room.
Put a bright flashlight to your face. Can you discern the ceiling popcorn from your vantage point? No. Exactly.
There are pictures from the ISS showing the Sun and stars in the background, because the ISS was at an angle that the light incident allowed background light to be seen.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad


What are you drivelling on about. Ever seen a crescent moon ? That's when PART of the side facing us is illuminated by the sun and the rest of the illumination is on the side we never see. DUH! Honestly I give up ATS. the IQ level round here has plummeted to single figures.......................


I imagine someone with a high IQ would simple point out that 'The Dark Side of the Moon' is a misnomer, and just quote some easily available text to clear up the misconception, but that's just me.


The idiomatic phrase "dark side of the Moon" does not refer to "dark" as in the absence of light, but rather as the unknown, as until humans were able to send spacecraft around the Moon, this area had never been seen. While many misconstrue this to think that the "dark side" receives little to no sunlight, in reality, both the near and far sides receive (on average) almost equal amounts of light directly from the Sun.



posted on Oct, 4 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I think we have definitive proof you can see stars from space


Apollo 11 pictures

from the Project Apollo Archive

there's many images from transition between earth and moon where you can easily see stars.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigx001
I think we have definitive proof you can see stars from space


Apollo 11 pictures

from the Project Apollo Archive

there's many images from transition between earth and moon where you can easily see stars.



The problem is that if the EARTH is exposed correctly then stars can't be.



posted on Oct, 5 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008


The problem is that if the EARTH is exposed correctly then stars can't be.


you haven't looked at the thousands of pictures, look at more



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigx001

originally posted by: wmd_2008


The problem is that if the EARTH is exposed correctly then stars can't be.


you haven't looked at the thousands of pictures, look at more


I don't need to look at thousands of pictures YOU can see stars in space we did go to the Moon, but if you have the Moon surface or Earth surface in a picture and they are correctly exposed stars wont show, I have taken photographs long enough too know how exposure works.
edit on 6-10-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigx001
I think we have definitive proof you can see stars from space


Apollo 11 pictures

I think it would be more supportive to your argument if you posted Apollo photos that actually show stars, like this one: images.jsc.nasa.gov... . Although the counter-argument could be that they used UV-sensitive film for those shots.

~~~

By the way, here's Neil's words about seeing stars when they arrived into the lunar orbit:

071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.

Audio: history.nasa.gov... (at around 3:22)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigx001

originally posted by: wmd_2008


The problem is that if the EARTH is exposed correctly then stars can't be.


you haven't looked at the thousands of pictures, look at more


I have, and unfortunately the one you linked to doesn't contain any - though there are lots of specks and blemishes on it that could be mistaken for them.

There are lots of Apollo photographs with stars in them, and the brighter planets, but you won't find them with a bright full Earth in shot.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The reason you cannot see stars easily during the day is due to the immense amount of reflected light off of the atmosphere of the Earth. Light bouncing off in all directions from every molecule and atom, every speck of dust suspended in what we call air. It bombards our retinas from all directions and stimulates both the rods and cones in our human eyes, which have a curved surface allowing us to have a larger field of view. This entire process adds up to the reason we perceive our sky as being blue, when in fact the atmosphere is appearing blue, not the actual sky in toto.

One thing that will affect the performance of electronic camera sensors is the spectrum of light they can detect and record. Another would be the disposition of the individual sensors on the reflective surface of the camera. I have not studied much about how cameras are designed, just thinking out of the box here:

Does anyone know if the area that comprises the image sensor of a digital camera has ever been created to mimic the human eye with a concave surface?

I apologize for not reading all 17 pages of this thread, so forgive me if I missed someone else bringing this up:

Has anyone suggested that the reasons we may have difficulty seeing stars while in outer space may be due to three factors:

1) The overall strength of the light from the sun being so great that our spacecraft view windows and astronaut space suits require heavy shielding to protect the human eyes from this immense amount of light?

2) The optical sensors in our cameras mounted outside of the spacecraft or with no additional shielding may still be impacted by the overwhelming strength of indirect sunlight as it enters the camera lens. Even though the inside of the lens apparatus is coated with non reflective surfaces there will still be some reflection of light, no matter how small of a percentage. 0.001% is still a very large amount of sunlight when you are speaking of sunlight with only the "vacuum" of space to filter it. Also, the physical lens themselves, no matter how precisely made, will still have imperfections that will lead to light diffraction. Again, when talking about unadulterated sunlight any diffraction becomes a much larger issue.

3) The vacuum of space is not a perfect vacuum. There is matter out there whether we see it or not. All of this matter acts like our own atmosphere and with the presence of unadulterated sunlight it blocks our view of the tiny pinpoints of light we call stars. This is why our astronauts could see so many stars while in the shadow of the moon.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeargh

In answer to the curved sensor Sony Curved Sensor

In answer to the other points, if any bright reflective object is in the field of view of the Astronauts eyes their eyes adjust to that, that's why they can't see stars from the surface of the Moon or on a space walk outside the ISS with the Earth or Sun in their field of view unless they let their eyes dark adapt.

It's the same for cameras expose for the Earth,Moon or Sun stars don't show, expose for the stars then the Sun,Earth Moon are over exposed it's really that simple.


edit on 6-10-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join