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: 19
40
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey



Yet again I have to post this image to you:


Source? NASA image number? Looks like a shot taken from Lunar orbit through the dust, and probably with UV sensitive film film.

From your page:



They had no choice. They navigated using them by looking through a sextant and Alignment Optiocal Telescope.


Total rubbish, they could not have got to the Moon without the guidance computer and star tracker, and the calculations performed by the IBM mainframe on Earth. That is clearly stated by NASA.




Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.


Your whole page is just that. Here is a little addendum video from the guy who says NASA is lying because the astronauts keep saying they couldn't see stars and just how black the black is. Could they be any clearer in their statements?
www.youtube.com...


@ wildespace



Source please.


In one of the ISS EVA videos I was watching, there was a sunrise, everything turned red/orange for a few seconds, and the astronaut commented on how he could feel the warmth of the Sun. Can you find comments about the warmth of the Sun from any time other than sunrise/sunset anywhere?

@OBM




Apollo 12 solar eclipse 16mm footage.


That image shows exactly what I am talking about, the red/orange sun through the lower level of Earths atmosphere. Show the Sun looking AWAY from Earth. They can't.




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

Source? NASA image number? Looks like a shot taken from Lunar orbit through the dust, and probably with UV sensitive film film.


As I have pointed out to you before, and if you'd bothered to read the Apollo 16 page, you should know that it is in cislunar space and take with normal (albeit sensitive) film. The reference numbers are there, as is a stellarium view from the same time, which is a clue that it wasn't in lunar orbit because you can check the transcripts and mission profile.



Total rubbish, they could not have got to the Moon without the guidance computer and star tracker, and the calculations performed by the IBM mainframe on Earth. That is clearly stated by NASA.


How do you think the IBM mainframe on Earth got the figures to do the calculations? Read the transcripts and educate yourself.




Your whole page is just that. Here is a little addendum video from the guy who says NASA is lying because the astronauts keep saying they couldn't see stars and just how black the black is. Could they be any clearer in their statements?
www.youtube.com...


Point out any of it that is wrong. My page of astronaut quotes, which I have also given you many times, shows that the maker of that video is full of it. A black sky is not the same as 'there are no stars'. I quoted John Glenn above talking about stars in a black sky - which bit of that is difficult to understand?

Notice in that video he has an astronaut talking about 'a brilliant sun', which is something you claimed earlier they didn't talk about.

Here, have an image taken of a lunar eclipse, taken using a 35mm Nikon from cislunar space by Apollo 15 and superimposed on a stellarium view from the same time - you'll find all the info about it on the Apollo 15 section that you chose not to read.







That image shows exactly what I am talking about, the red/orange sun through the lower level of Earths atmosphere. Show the Sun looking AWAY from Earth. They can't.


You're moving the goalposts. You claimed there are no images of the sun from space (despite there being dedicated solar observatories in space).

You have no idea how thin the atmosphere looks from space - the solitaire effect you see there extends way beyond it.

Why would anyone try and photograph the sun with a normal camera? You know what would happen right? There are enough sunstruck images from Apollo and Gemini to demonstrate that, like this one:



or this one:



and no, that isn't a flash.
edit on 27-10-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: onebigmonkey
@ wildespace



Source please.


In one of the ISS EVA videos I was watching, there was a sunrise, everything turned red/orange for a few seconds, and the astronaut commented on how he could feel the warmth of the Sun. Can you find comments about the warmth of the Sun from any time other than sunrise/sunset anywhere?

1) The astronaut commented on how he could feel the warmth of the Sun when it rose, and you automatically assumed that he stopped feeling the heat when the Sun got higher? Some great leap of logic there.

2) Yes, here's a couple of transcripts about Apollo 15 cameras and other equipment getting very hot in the Sun:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

In a 1996 letter, Dave suggested that an additional factor in the failure may have been the fact that "the cameras had probably never been this hot for this long. They were a real heat sink."


www.hq.nasa.gov...

[Irwin, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "It was very warm, too. I was surprised how hot the SRC was when we got in."]

[Scott, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "That's right. It really was."]

[Irwin - "I think the Sun might have been striking the rock box that was out and sitting there, ready to be filled with rocks."]

[Jim's photo AS15-87-11796, which he took at 147:19:33 after they got back from the traverse, shows the rock box on the MESA and in full sunlight.]

[Jones - "Things would heat up pretty quickly?"]

[Irwin - "I wouldn't say that. But I know they cooled off very slowly. As I recall, we took them in and we didn't want to touch them with our bare hands. They were that hot."]

[As mentioned previously, the Sun is currently about 30 degrees above the horizon and the surface temperature is about 50 C or 120 F. At the end of the third EVA at 167 hours, the Sun will have risen another 10 degrees and the surface temperature will be to about 70 C or 160 F.]


~~~

Expecting dodging, finding of excuses, and moving of goalposts in
1...
2...
3...
edit on 27-10-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Some random quotes from Apollo 8 with astronauts absolutely not mentioning the sun at all:

006:36:59 Borman: We're on the PTC mode now waiting for Jim, and I noticed that out my window now I can see Orion very clearly, even though the Sun is bright in the other window.

006:37:39 Borman: Well, I can see the Sun. Wait till it comes around the Earth, and I'll give you a better hack on that.

009:17:35 Lovell: While I'm waiting for my turn at the water gun, I might give some comments on the optics. There seems to be quite a band of light that goes all way across the scanning telescope anywhere in the vicinity of the Sun. Just a little while ago we were in the position where I could pick up the Moon in the scanning telescope. And then I looked at it in the sextant and the sky - the space around the Moon was a very light blue, just about as light blue as we have it back on Earth. And it's not black - that Sun angle with the Moon.

009:49:08 Borman: The Sun doesn't seem to have any effect on the windows themselves, but the different incidence - angles of incidence of the Sun rays change the relative amount of obscuration caused by the fogging.

013:32:42 Lovell: As I said before, at times, looking at the Moon with the Sun in the near vicinity, the area around the Moon, the space around the Moon is not dark, but is a light - appears as a light blue. And this is also the same case as looking into the sextant during alignments with the star - with the Sun in somewhat [the] vicinity of the optics.

045:15:00 Lovell: Roger. Just some interesting things on the - just done a NAV with the Moon; the Sun is practically right in the way. I managed to get one set on Antares and was working on the second set, and the rim of the Moon just disappeared completely. The view through the sextant is a milky white, whether you're looking at black sky or the Moon. The tint of the Moon is practically washed out by the brightness of the Sun. I'll try the next star and see what I can do with it.

045:53:00 Lovell: That's affirmative, and the area around the entire Moon now, both the sky and the Moon itself, are all milky white because of the nearness of the Sun.

052:05:08 Borman: Roger, Mike. While we are waiting for the spacecraft to maneuver to the Moon, I might note that as we get closer to the Moon, the light from the Sun comes right into the scanning telescope, and it is impossible to use. You have to rely on the sextant alone.

079:07:50 Lovell (onboard): Yes, it's a real bright glow right in one spot, and it fans out all over the horizon. And I'm just trying to move my eye away, because the Sun's going to peek over here any second now, and it's getting brighter and brighter, and it's get - It's an even light.


There are plenty more, including numerous mentions o lunar sunrise and sunset, which was of interest because it was the first time they had been seen by people. They waited for a lunar sunrise before doing the reading from Genesis.

This is just one mission GaryN, need me to find more?
edit on 27-10-2015 by onebigmonkey because: extr DATA



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey




You're moving the goalposts. You claimed there are no images of the sun from space (despite there being dedicated solar observatories in space).


Why has no scientific test of the visibility of the Sun, from deep space, ever been done? Somehow it is a taboo subject, it is grandfathered-in that the Sun is visible in space beecause we can see it from Earth. A scientific test has to begin with known conditions, equipment used, time, location, and direction of view. This has never been done, and NASA is supposed to be a scientific outfit. Starting with an assumption is not science.

The dedicated solar observatories do not look at visible light, it's all UV and up, they detect things your eyes could never see. And we know how to get good photos of the Sun from Earth, why not do the same in space? The ND filter is the answer, but they never take one with them to space.
Or not since Gemini 12 anyway.





Why would anyone try and photograph the sun with a normal camera?


The took lots of photos of the Sun from the lunar surface, why not from cislunar space?

Without knowing the exact location and viewing direction, all the reports of stars or whatever being seen from space are meaningless. You do not want proper scientific experiments to be performed, and neither does NASA, but some of the astronauts have been trying to tell us that it is just totally black when looking away from Earth, since Armstrong first stated it. It is the biggest conspiracy of all time, but the masses are so brainwashed by the military-industrial education system that even when the people who have been out there tell us it's totally black looking into the void, people just can't accept it. So sad.




How do you think the IBM mainframe on Earth got the figures to do the calculations? Read the transcripts and educate yourself.


Why don't you read "How Apollo Flew to the Moon" and educate yourself.

I see Scott Kelly has been on EVA today, lucky man will have a front row seat of the Mars-Venus-Jupiter conjunction. Hope he gets a photo, it would be a first.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Going back to the video posted in the OP, Armstrong didn't say that stars weren't visible from the moon. Although if he had he did offer a compelling explanation near the start of that video: There was a lot of glare on their visors from the sun.


The striking thing about that video is at the end where he expressed confidence that there would be bases on the moon within his lifetime. Its too bad we've given up on most of our dreams.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

Why has no scientific test of the visibility of the Sun, from deep space, ever been done? Somehow it is a taboo subject, it is grandfathered-in that the Sun is visible in space beecause we can see it from Earth. A scientific test has to begin with known conditions, equipment used, time, location, and direction of view. This has never been done, and NASA is supposed to be a scientific outfit. Starting with an assumption is not science.

The dedicated solar observatories do not look at visible light, it's all UV and up, they detect things your eyes could never see. And we know how to get good photos of the Sun from Earth, why not do the same in space? The ND filter is the answer, but they never take one with them to space.
Or not since Gemini 12 anyway.



Oh really?

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

lasp.colorado.edu...




The took lots of photos of the Sun from the lunar surface, why not from cislunar space?


No, they did not. The sun ruined a lot of photos.



Without knowing the exact location and viewing direction, all the reports of stars or whatever being seen from space are meaningless.


Goalpost shifting again. You not knowing them and them not being known are not the same thing.




You do not want proper scientific experiments to be performed, and neither does NASA,


Don't presume to know what I want. You are utterly wrong.

NASA have launched and are operating, along with other space agencies that everyone seems to forget exists, many solar observatories including those examining the visible spectrum. We can see the visible spectrum from Earth easily enough, it's the other spectra that contain more useful data that are difficult to get from the ground/



but some of the astronauts have been trying to tell us that it is just totally black when looking away from Earth, since Armstrong first stated it. It is the biggest conspiracy of all time, but the masses are so brainwashed by the military-industrial education system that even when the people who have been out there tell us it's totally black looking into the void, people just can't accept it. So sad.


Absolute hogwash. The sky is black in space because there is no Rayleigh scattering of light. Are you really claiming that you know better than the people who have been there? Based on what? What evidence do you have other than photographs taken by people who have been there?



Why don't you read "How Apollo Flew to the Moon" and educate yourself.


I own a copy and have read it. I have emailed the author a few times. I'll concede that the IBM mainframe did not use stellar data from the crew. This does not mean that the crew did not use stars to fix their position.

Here's the opening sentence on navigation:

"An entirely different method of determining position and velocity was used in the spacecraft, which relied on sightings of stars"

The sightings were done on board using the sextant and AOT and the results were entered into the on board computer. They were found to be just as accurate as data worked out on the ground using doppler tracking.


I see Scott Kelly has been on EVA today, lucky man will have a front row seat of the Mars-Venus-Jupiter conjunction. Hope he gets a photo, it would be a first.


A first of that conjunction maybe. Jupiter and Venus have been photographed many times from space by people.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   


web.mit.edu...

More info.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey
en.wikipedia.org...




Their primary mission was to observe an 11-year sun spot cycle in UV and X-ray spectra.





White light coronograph


en.wikipedia.org...

Wheres's the images?

lasp.colorado.edu...

Where are the images of the Sun in visible light? Here's some Skylab info. P106
history.nasa.gov...
So, if you set up Celestia for the time of the image from the white light coronagraph from Skylab, the Sun is just coming into view from behind the Earth. The coronagraph is utilising Earths atmosphere to view the white light. Thanks OBM, not that I needed any more convincing, but you have added extra confirmation that without an atmosphere, there is nothing visible.
www3.telus.net...



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN


So, if you set up Celestia for the time of the image from the white light coronagraph from Skylab, the Sun is just coming into view from behind the Earth. The coronagraph is utilising Earths atmosphere to view the white light. Thanks OBM, not that I needed any more convincing, but you have added extra confirmation that without an atmosphere, there is nothing visible.
www3.telus.net...



that's not a picture, that is a depiction of what would be seen



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
How is this still a thread?



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I'm sure I said it before but it needs saying again:

Due to their distance, stars appear as intense pinpoints of light when viewed from space. Much smaller points of light than what we can observe when viewing through atmosphere due to atmospheric distortion (which also causes the 'twinkling') although the overall intensity is the same. A distant star that occupies a cluster of pixels photographed from the earth's surface might barely be a single pixel using the same resolution in space due to lack of distortion.

Not so mysterious if you think about it a little. What's mysterious is how there can be a great controversy over a simple example of perspective at vast distances.



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

If you read all of the articles I linked to and didn't cherry pick through them, you would see that visible imagery is just one aspect of the research. Your inability to find the results of that research does not mean it does not exist.

Your inability to understand the science here does not mean it is wrong.

Are you ready to retract your claim that astronauts never discuss the sun? Or that they never photographed them in cislunar space? Or that they didn't use stars to fix a position in space? Have you grasped yet that our atmosphere is heated by IR from the ground radiating back, not UV coming in?

When will you stop jerking your knee and everyone's chain and admit you are wrong.

Stars can be seen and photographed in space. We have numerous quotes and photographs of people describing them, and numerous photographs of them taken by the people describing them. You demand evidence then ignore it or move the goalposts. This thread is pointless until you read some books.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...
edit on 30-10-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Halfswede
How is this still a thread?

Welcome to the world of moon landing hoax believers, Electric Universe believers, and other such sort. The more time you invest in debating with them, the more it will feel like banging your head against a brick wall.




posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Pilgrum



Due to their distance, stars appear as intense pinpoints of light when viewed from space. Much smaller points of light than what we can observe when viewing through atmosphere due to atmospheric distortion (which also causes the 'twinkling') although the overall intensity is the same.


If that is the case, then the statement "Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space" would be true. Their angular diameter is way below what the human eye can detect, so we are told it is their intensity that makes them visible, but I don't buy that. If it was the intensity that made them visible then they would be visible from space, no atmospheric distortion required. Earths atmosphere does do something, but it is not due to distortion. Venus is a good example. There are no images of, or reports of seeing Venus from the Moon or cislunar space, yet this summer, Venus was so big and bright that it could be seen through some quite dense misty marine air around here. Mars is presently only 4 arcseconds in diameter, but is visible even though the accepted detection limit of the eye is 1 arcminute, many people need 2 arcminutes. It is not the intensity that makes Mars visible, as it is (supposedly) only reflecting the Suns light, not creating its own like a star.

Mars has not been mentioned though by any of the ISS EVA astronauts, and niether have any other of the planets, and you will not find a NASA photo from the ISS of the current 3 planet conjunction.
OBM keeps showing me images like spaceflight.nasa.gov... and saying "See, the Sun is visible in space". Well, it is if you stage the shot and are looking sideways through the Earths atmosphere. They stage some spectacular shots because they know exactly when they can use the atmosphere to image the Sun, even if it is just a spiky blob. Why don't they use an ND filter ant take a shot like this?
200 mm lens ISO 50 f/13 1/8000 sec 10 stop ND filter 12:03 p.m.
mcalisterium.files.wordpress.com...
Lets see a shot with the same settings and filter, noon ISS time, an overhead Sun.
And the cameras they use for those spectacular images on EVA are quite capable of high def, low light videos, but you never see video from them. Pan around, show us some video of just where they are in relation to the Earth. Won't do it. A low light video example from a D4.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: Pilgrum
If that is the case, then the statement "Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space" would be true. Their angular diameter is way below what the human eye can detect

Angular diameter is responsible for resolution, not detection.


so we are told it is their intensity that makes them visible, but I don't buy that. If it was the intensity that made them visible then they would be visible from space, no atmospheric distortion required.

And they are visible. Stop trying to use reverse logic to support your unfounded statements.


There are no images of, or reports of seeing Venus from the Moon or cislunar space.

Apollo 12, Day 8, Cislunar Navigation:

195:03:42 Lind: Roger. Also, Dick, how well could you see Venus, the first star you did, and the fifth star, 163? Were those clearly visible?

195:03:53 Gordon: That's affirmative. No problem with the stars at all. Venus - Venus, of course, looked like about four of them put together.

history.nasa.gov...


Mars is presently only 4 arcseconds in diameter, but is visible even though the accepted detection limit of the eye is 1 arcminute, many people need 2 arcminutes.

Resolution limit, not detection limit. Detection limit is factored by the intensity (or magnitude) of light.


It is not the intensity that makes Mars visible, as it is (supposedly) only reflecting the Suns light, not creating its own like a star.

And how is reflected light different when it comes to measuring intensity? The Sun is blindingly bright, and Mars is large enough and close enough to be visible to the naked eye simply by reflecting sunlight.


you will not find a NASA photo from the ISS of the current 3 planet conjunction.

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Stop making overarching statements or sweeping generalisations, and stop throwing your toys out of the cot. You've been proven wrong on many, many occasions.
edit on 30-10-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   
And with regards to

originally posted by: GaryN
There are no images of [...] Venus from the Moon

From Apollo 14: www.hq.nasa.gov...

and Apollo 16: www.hq.nasa.gov...


edit on 31-10-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: onebigmonkey



Yet again I have to post this image to you:

Total rubbish, they could not have got to the Moon without the guidance computer and star tracker, and the calculations performed by the IBM mainframe on Earth. That is clearly stated by NASA.


Apollo sextant on the Smithsonian website
This is literally the 2nd hit on Google for the term "apollo" and "sextant", something that the use of which is well known to anyone with a serious interest in that program.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey.... I'll concede that the IBM mainframe did not use stellar data from the crew. This does not mean that the crew did not use stars to fix their position..


Not exactly. Unlike on Earth where your inertial attitude can be defined by your local horizontal and clock time and el/az to the Sun or other sidereal object, in space the stars are only good for verifying precise inertial attitude to validate instrumental readings ['gyroscopes']. This data does not change as the vehicle changes position so it is not a direct clue to position. This alignment was done periodically in space and also from the lunar surface after landing. Once verified to sufficient accuracy the 'sensed' attitude and accelerations from onboard devices could feed 'dead reckoning' calculations of vehicle position, that is, to 'navigate'. Seeing the stars was critical, it's why being surrounded by debris [as on Apollo-13] was a BAD thing.



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace



Apollo 12, Day 8, Cislunar Navigation:
195:03:42 Lind: Roger. Also, Dick, how well could you see Venus, the first star you did, and the fifth star, 163? Were those clearly visible?
195:03:53 Gordon: That's affirmative. No problem with the stars at all. Venus - Venus, of course, looked like about four of them put together.

And the rest of the talk?



195:04:03 Gordon: Actually, it's - It's a very easy planet to use for the simple reason that you can take the horizon and strip the image of Venus so that you get a pretty good mark off of it. 195:04:22 Lind: Very good. 195:04:24 Gordon: And the rest - the rest of them, the stars are so dim that you really can't do that. All you can do is get the star down to the horizon, but with Venus, you can actually split the planet with the horizon
.

Looking right at the horizon, through atmosphere. Cherry pick.

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
Even more cherry picking, why not show the atmosphere they were looking through just a short time before?
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

@ widespace




From Apollo 14:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
and Apollo 16:
www.hq.nasa.gov...


The astronauts never claimed to have been able to see the planets, they were only noticed when the photos were 'enhanced'. When the Apollo 14 image of Earth was taken, he was looking pretty well straight up, from the shadow of the LM, no supposedly bright surface light in his field of view, Venus should have been blindingly bright, but he didn't see it. Not right.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join