Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: wildespace

@wildespace

Erm... mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Look convincing I admit, though I'd like to see exposure time and the separate colour channels, it may be all in infrared? And how do you reconcile that image with the one from the Siding Spring photo attempt?

Basically RUBBISH 'COMET of the Century' ISON snapped by HiRISE in Mars orbit

www.theregister.co.uk...

@OBM

Have an image from LADEE's star tracker:

Your eyes can not see what a Star Tracker can see, and you don't know how they work. The star Trackers are still extremely expensive, and you couldn't buy one even if you had the money. So what I always wondered was why only an ST can be used? If stars were visible with a regular camera, then you could just set exposure time to show only the brightest stars, or the planets perhaps, and navigate by them. You HAVE to have a star tracker to go into space and not end up lost.

Any camera on the near side of the moon has problems with Earthshine during its dark phase: a 'new' moon equals a full Earth which as anyone knows is capable of lighting up the lunar surface quite substantially - you can see the effect from here.

I haven't seen the effect from clear space though. I say that effect is from UV from the Lunar surface being made visible by our atmosphere.

Chang'e should have absolutely no problem imaging stars, and even when looking straight at Earth, with a long exposure the stars would be visible. Overexpose Earth till it is just a white disk. Looking up and away from Earth it should see stars just fine. On a Q&A site, one of NASAs scientists said that on the Moon, Armstrong would have been able to see stars even when facing the Sun just by blocking it with his hand, the stars would be visible even with the supposedly bright lunar surface. I can't believe that a dozen Moonwalkers, with the best eyesight and visual acuity and training in Lunar surface conditions and photography could not figure out a way to see the stars, that is ridiculous to me. They were not there to look at the stars I'm told, hogwash. If you were there what would you do? The FUVC in the shadow of the LM could see things, with the UV film and long exposures, the supposedly bright surface did not ruin the shots, the astronauts should have been able to see at least the brightest stars, or the planets, no problem.

So we can go back and forth endlessly with material that might support either option, visible and not. You may all wear me down to a point where I resign, but until I see some simple experiments performed to answer the question beyond doubt, I'll not change my opinion that what is visible out there is not what we are lead to believe it is like. I will continue to believe Armstrong, the sky is black from the Lunar surface and cislunar space, until PROVEN otherwise.

Here's a nice recent night-time ISS video showing the stars and planets rising above the atmosphere, and not getting any dimmer as they get higher (which they should do if they're supposedly only made visible by the atmosphere): www.youtube.com...



You can see Venus rising at the start of the video, followed by Regulus, Mars, and Jupiter (I've checked this in Stellarium). After Jupiter, you start seeing the zodiacal light, which, as was mentioned here, the Apollo astronauts also saw (as an extended part of the corona) peeking from behind the Moon.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace

@wildespace

Erm... mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Look convincing I admit, though I'd like to see exposure time and the separate colour channels, it may be all in infrared?

The article says they used all three filters: near-infrared, red, and green-blue. I've commented on the HiRISE Facebook page that we'd love to see the full image. Unless the image had been heavily edited, the absence of digital noise suggests that the exposure time was relatively short.

And how do you reconcile that image with the one from the Siding Spring photo attempt?

Basically RUBBISH 'COMET of the Century' ISON snapped by HiRISE in Mars orbit

www.theregister.co.uk...

Well, it was a very faint comet. HiRISE could detect the nucleus, but not the coma. HiRISE isn't really an astrophotography tool, we can't expect the same kind of images from it as we see from the Hubble or astrophotographers on Earth.

Your eyes can not see what a Star Tracker can see, and you don't know how they work. The star Trackers are still extremely expensive, and you couldn't buy one even if you had the money.

And you do know how they work? Please substantiate your claim that your eyes can't see what a Star Tracker can. Star Trackers are just optical systems with a digital sensor and an elaborate system for recognising stars and helping navigate a spacecraft. Here's the website of the manufacturer in the US, with links to some documentation: www.ballaerospace.com...
Here's another manufacturer (quoted from an archived link that I can't seem to get working here, but it's the second reference link at the Wikipedia article):

These small, low cost, lightweight, advanced Star Trackers are in production for all major spacecraft manufacturers in the U.S. today. The HD-1003 is the world’s most reliable and survivable high accuracy star tracker and is backed by a highly skilled and experienced CCD Star Tracker production team.

The versatility of the HD-1003 Star Tracker accommodates most military, commercial, and scientific missions in any orbit.

Did I just hear "low cost" and "commercial"?

So what I always wondered was why only an ST can be used? If stars were visible with a regular camera, then you could just set exposure time to show only the brightest stars, or the planets perhaps, and navigate by them. You HAVE to have a star tracker to go into space and not end up lost.

Why do all the unnecessary work using a regular camera when you have a Star Tracker? By your logic, why do astrophotographers use motorised tracking mounts when they could just do it manually?

I haven't seen the effect from clear space though. I say that effect is from UV from the Lunar surface being made visible by our atmosphere.

Except earthshine comes from the part of the Moon not being illuminated by the Sun but by Earth. So where does this UV light come from?

Chang'e should have absolutely no problem imaging stars, and even when looking straight at Earth, with a long exposure the stars would be visible. Overexpose Earth till it is just a white disk.

And it will flood the image with light. Besides, what would be the point in taking such an image?

Looking up and away from Earth it should see stars just fine.

Not unless it uses a long exposure. Was Chang'e's camera planned for astrophotography? They have a dedicated UV telescope there for that.

On a Q&A site, one of NASAs scientists said that on the Moon, Armstrong would have been able to see stars even when facing the Sun just by blocking it with his hand, the stars would be visible even with the supposedly bright lunar surface. I can't believe that a dozen Moonwalkers, with the best eyesight and visual acuity and training in Lunar surface conditions and photography could not figure out a way to see the stars, that is ridiculous to me.

Did they intend to try to see stars when on the moon-walking? It wasn't any planned part of the mission, and I'd imagine they had plenty to see and do on the Moon itself rather than just stand around and try to see stars. They knew stars were up there, because they had seen them from the CSM and navigated by them.

So we can go back and forth endlessly with material that might support either option, visible and not. You may all wear me down to a point where I resign, but until I see some simple experiments performed to answer the question beyond doubt, I'll not change my opinion that what is visible out there is not what we are lead to believe it is like. I will continue to believe Armstrong, the sky is black from the Lunar surface and cislunar space, until PROVEN otherwise.

Yeah, we've proven you wrong with the actual transcripts and photos. So much evidence out there that the stars and other space objects are visible in space, it's your call to ignore it.

@GaryN, wildespace has answered your points more than adequately, so I can only add that once again you have failed to read the links you have been provided. On my website there are numerous examples of photographs taken in lunar orbit specifically to look at features lit by Earthshine, and astronauts referred to it regularly. Here is a nice one from Apollo 16:



It is not UV film, just a very sensitive lens and film.

As for your "Armstrong could have seen stars if...", yes, he could. If he had chosen to do that and if he had stood still long enough to get dark adapted. No-one has ever denied that and that is the entire point: if you remove the light source that is stopping you from seeing stars and wait long enough you will see them. I'll repeat yet again that Aldrin's first job on the moon was to use the optics to locate their position using stars.

The fact that he didn't doesn't prove anything. The Apollo suit is not something in which you can easily arch your back and look upwards. They were busy and with an intensive mission timeline. They did not go there to stargaze. There are enough astronaut quotes from Apollo to show that they saw plenty, and enough photographs of stars and planets to accompany their reports.

You can see and photograph stars in space.

a reply to: wildespace

Here's a nice recent night-time ISS video showing the stars and planets rising above the atmosphere, and not getting any dimmer as they get higher (which they should do if they're supposedly only made visible by the atmosphere):

The view from the cupola does not allow a view of outside of the atmosphere, it was cleverly designed that way. They use a lens that makes it appear the radius of the Earth is smaller than you would see by eye. making it seem the visible objects are further above the Earth than the atmosphere, but that is just NASA doing its usual deception. Go to the ISS in Celestia, set you F.O.V. to match that of the eye, and note just how much less curved the Earth rim is.
I want to see space from the ISS looking away from Earth, straight out, as we do from Earth. Simple test: When the ISS is passing overhead one night, take an image of the stars/planets beyond the ISS. At exactly the same time, take a photo looking in the same direction, out into space, from the ISS. Use the same camera and exposure settings, compare images. Easy. Oh, but I keep forgetting, NASA won't let us use their precious windows that look out into space, only the Earth facing window. They got it all figured, and they know nobody will notice.

HiRISE isn't really an astrophotography tool, we can't expect the same kind of images from it as we see from the Hubble or astrophotographers on Earth.

How do you design a camera so that will not take as good an image of the stars as a consumer camera from Earth? They crippled it somehow? And the same for the Chang'e camera, they sent a Chinese made camera that can't see stars?? What a lot of rot.

Did I just hear "low cost" and "commercial"?

Low cost here means less than half a Megabuck. And you don't just use 1. You get a discount on the 6 unit package though, less than a megabuck. What a deal! You should buy one!

When someone finds a picture from the ISS that can be proven to show the planets or stars, or the Moon, or even the Sun, when looking directly AWAY from Earth, let me know, otherwise I'll leave you all to your versions of the reality of what space will look like to the first travellers to the Moon or Mars. I'll keep my faith in Armstrongs version, black.

All the orbiting optical telescope, just what are they photographing?

originally posted by: GaryN

How do you design a camera so that will not take as good an image of the stars as a consumer camera from Earth? They crippled it somehow? And the same for the Chang'e camera, they sent a Chinese made camera that can't see stars?? What a lot of rot.

The Chang'e camera is to look at the moon, and its little rover. It has UV scopes for the stars, for the reasons already given to you.

When someone finds a picture from the ISS that can be proven to show the planets or stars, or the Moon, or even the Sun, when looking directly AWAY from Earth, let me know, otherwise I'll leave you all to your versions of the reality of what space will look like to the first travellers to the Moon or Mars. I'll keep my faith in Armstrongs version, black.

You've been given them many times, and each time you are given them you add additional criteria that you feel allows you to move and narrow the goalposts of what you consider acceptable and invent more bogus science to hand-wave away the proof you are given, or you ignore them completely.

Didn't you like the image of the sun taken by Apollo 15? The many photographs of stars taken by Apollo that you've been given? The sun reflected in an astronaut's helmet? Or this one?

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

In fact, have pages and pages of them...

issphotolibrary.com...

Have another quote:

"The night sky from orbit was the real surprise. I could see perhaps ten times as many stars a on the clearest night. The Milky Way was a gigantic puddle of stars". Tom Stafford, 'We have capture'.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
The view from the cupola does not allow a view of outside of the atmosphere

Could you please specify what you mean by that.

The ISS orbits the Earth outside of the atmosphere (if you don't count the extremely tenuous thermosphere which is very close to vaccum. The Cupola's side windows are slanted towards Earth, but only by 33.7 degrees from vertical.



Thus, a person in the Cupola can look out at 90 degrees to vertical, and even higher out if he moves further into the Cupola.

The shuttle docked with the ISS.

www.lovethesepics.com...

See Earth anywhere?

No.

See the Moon and Venus?

Yes.

A recent night-time shot from the ISS: eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

(cropped and rotated to fit ATS format)


"My God, it's full of stars!" which are clearly above the Earth's atmosphere.

a reply to: wildespace

Have you heard of comedy photos called 'nutscapes?'

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: wildespace

Have you heard of comedy photos called 'nutscapes?'

A "super moderator" attempting to derail a thread? It's an outrage!

(and looking at the Google results page for "nutscapes" told me everything I needed to know, thankfully without having to delve deeper.)

~ahem~

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
~ahem~

But... but... but... the stars!

It's so #ing chock-full of stars that I failed to identify constellations using the Stellarium software. Anyone can help me here? I did notice that the photo managed to capture a globular cluster of stars in the right portion of the image.

The photo was taken when the ISS was over the north coast of Australia, thus presenting a view of the southern skies.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

See Earth anywhere?

And from a slightly different angle:
fototelegraf.ru...
All NASA images are carefully staged.

@wildespace

"My God, it's full of stars!" which are clearly above the Earth's atmosphere.

I've shown you the geometry of the view from the cupola but it is obviously beyond your understanding. There is still atmosphere above the airglow layers, and looking from the cupola means the line of sight goes through a much longer path of a thinner atmosphere, meaning there is enough atmosphere to create visible photons from the UV light of the stars. Only a view provably looking out away from Earth will do. Use an A7S from EVA, show us some real-time stars. They can't.

sorry, so what is the consensus? can or can't?

20+ pages of 'i know more than you'

a reply to: odzeandennz

The consensus would seem to be "can". With one in protest.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: onebigmonkey

See Earth anywhere?

And from a slightly different angle:
fototelegraf.ru...

Does the image I posted show Earth? Earth's atmosphere? No. it doesn't.

All NASA images are carefully staged.

Goalpost shifting again. Firstly, prove they are carefully staged, secondly, so what? Does the image show any feature of Earth at all? Yes or no.

You said you would stop bothering with this when someone posted images of stars, planets or the moon when pointed away from Earth.

This was done.

Why are you still posting?

And seeing as you were good enough at Google to find the correct Shuttle mission, here is a time lapse video from EVA-3.



Slow the playback speed to 0.25 ad fast forward to 44 seconds.

Notice anything pass by there, with no Earth in shot?

If you bother watching the rest of the footage you'll see the sun get caught in shot, with no Earth anywhere.

originally posted by: GaryN
@wildespace

"My God, it's full of stars!" which are clearly above the Earth's atmosphere.

I've shown you the geometry of the view from the cupola but it is obviously beyond your understanding.

No you haven't. You just said "The view from the cupola does not allow a view of outside of the atmosphere" and tried blaming the wide-angle lens for this as well. I, however, showed you the real geometry of the Cupola module and how it allows a view out above the atmosphere and into space. By the way, the angle of human vision is almost 180 degrees horizontally; the wide-angle lens used for that shot approximates that fairly closely.

And with regards to you saying that "They use a lens that makes it appear the radius of the Earth is smaller than you would see by eye. making it seem the visible objects are further above the Earth than the atmosphere" sorry but it's the opposite of how it works. The wide-angle view actually contracts distant scenery, making objects appear closer together. A wide-angle lens allows stars further out from the limb to be in the frame.

There is still atmosphere above the airglow layers

Care to post the specifics and the physics of that? Do you mean the thermosphere? Although it is classed as an "atmosphere layer", it is pretty much vacuum of space compared to the real atmosphere that we live and breathe in. The density of the Earth's atmosphere decreases nearly exponentially with altitude. The mass of the thermosphere above about 85 km is only 0.002% of the total mass of Earth's atmosphere.

and looking from the cupola means the line of sight goes through a much longer path of a thinner atmosphere, meaning there is enough atmosphere to create visible photons from the UV light of the stars.

How is it that, in the photo I posted, stars are seen so bright and clear so far away from the real, dense part of the atmosphere? Shouldn't they get dimmer the further away from the limb of the earth they get?