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: 23
40
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey



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

The view from the cargo bay is the one I'd like to see, that would be the view AWAY from Earth. Just because the Earth is not visible does not mean they are not looking through the atmosphere, and niether does the airglow not being visible.
And here is another staged shot. Earth is just above the tail fin.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
But here shows the shot before the Moon came up.
upload.wikimedia.org...

@wildespace



Shouldn't they get dimmer the further away from the limb of the earth they get?


They do, but they will never show you that, which is why there are no images looking away from Earth. Hadfields "bucket of stars" comment describes it well. From a topside EVA you would seem to be in a well, with stars around the rim of the Earth, and as you turn to look away from Earth, the stars would become less visible, and there would nothing by the time you were looking direcly overhead. A wall of stars around you, like a bucket, nothing to see looking directly out of the bucket. Again, the visibility of stars, their colours and intensity, has never been tested. Put a camera on the top of a rocket heading straight out, and lets see what happens. Maybe they would see blue stars. or red/gold like the Russians did from orbit. Why was that, why did nobody ever explain what was going on?

And the 2 seconds of blackness when he goes into space?? (59-60 sec.)Shouldn't that be stars??
www.youtube.com...
Oh, shoot, I forgot, he wasn't dark adapted. Right.




posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

The view from the cargo bay is the one I'd like to see, that would be the view AWAY from Earth.


Even if you were given it, you would deny that it is one and find another way to avoid admitting that you are wrong, which you are.



Just because the Earth is not visible does not mean they are not looking through the atmosphere, and niether does the airglow not being visible.


So you can't see Earth, there is no airglow, you can see the moon undistorted by an atmosphere, yet still this does't meet your requirements.



And here is another staged shot. Earth is just above the tail fin.

But here shows the shot before the Moon came up.



And? There is no indication as to the time gap between these two images.

Your opening statement here says more about why you are tilting at this windmill: you just don't like NASA. Despite the fact that more research is carried out into space by organisations that are not NASA, you have decided that they are in charge of everything and are wrong.

Perhaps you could draw us a diagram as to where you think the atmosphere extends to on this image. Maybe you could identify the density of that atmosphere. Mabye you could also explain how it is that you can see the ISS at all - it's a reflecting surface just like the moon is.

You have also managed to ignore all the star images that have been linked to - why is that?

Let's recap for those who also can't be bothered to read the whole thread:

Claim: you can't see stars in space: proven false
Claim: You can't photograph stars in space: proven false
Claim: Astronauts are forbidden to discuss stars in space: proven false
Claim: No photographs exist of stars taken from space: proven false
Claim: No photographs exist of planets taken from space: proven false

Why are you still here?



@wildespace



Shouldn't they get dimmer the further away from the limb of the earth they get?


They do, but they will never show you that, which is why there are no images looking away from Earth.


Patently untrue. Why bother with telescopes in orbit then?




Hadfields "bucket of stars" comment describes it well. From a topside EVA you would seem to be in a well, with stars around the rim of the Earth, and as you turn to look away from Earth, the stars would become less visible, and there would nothing by the time you were looking direcly overhead. A wall of stars around you, like a bucket, nothing to see looking directly out of the bucket. Again, the visibility of stars, their colours and intensity, has never been tested. Put a camera on the top of a rocket heading straight out, and lets see what happens. Maybe they would see blue stars. or red/gold like the Russians did from orbit. Why was that, why did nobody ever explain what was going on?


Quote mining Hadfield and misinterpreting his words does not change the fact that he saw, described and photographed stars in space.



And the 2 seconds of blackness when he goes into space?? (59-60 sec.)Shouldn't that be stars??
www.youtube.com...
Oh, shoot, I forgot, he wasn't dark adapted. Right.


When you look at the sky at night and see stars in it, what colour is the sky?
edit on 21-11-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
@wildespace



Shouldn't they get dimmer the further away from the limb of the earth they get?


They do

But not in the photos, many of which were taken with wide-angle lens and show stars (clear and bright) well above even the highest reaches of airglow. I'm gonna have a look for wide-angle ISS photos that were taken vertically, this would show stars up to 45 degrees above the limb, or even higher.


Hadfields "bucket of stars" comment describes it well. [...]
And the 2 seconds of blackness when he goes into space?? (59-60 sec.)

You are very good at pulling things out of context and giving them your own interpretation. You're also inconsistent; first you quote Hadfield on saying that there is nothing but blackness in space, now you're implying that he saw stars around him but fading into nothing above him.

I can't find Hadfield's quote about the "bucket of stars", but even if he said that he undoubtedly meant that the space was full of them, like someone took a whole bucket of stars and dumped it all over the universe.

The 2 seconds of darkness in the video illustrates what he said about not being able to see anything until you push the fabric cover over the hatch away. "And then suddenly, you're in space."

[Edit] Ok, I found Hadfield's quotes about the "bucket", but it's nothing like you attempted to interpret it as:

Space is profound, endless, a textured black, a bottomless eternal bucket of untouchable velvet and untwinkling stars.

www.reddit.com...


the astonishing beauty of our planet, the black velvet bucket of space brimming with stars

www.news.com.au...

He was clearly looking into the bucket, not out of it.


The fuller quote comes from his book, and describes in the same sentense the Earth (on one side of him) and the velvet "bucket" of space brimming with stars on the opposite side from him.

Sorry mate, your own attempt at cherry-picking quotes turned against you.
edit on 21-11-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Not here to argue today, just looking for comments perhaps from the photographers on the forum.
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

The Moon is extremely bright. Amateur astronomers actually use Moon filters when observing it. Obviously, if you set your exposure to capture the Moon properly, the stars will be too dim to show up. This has been explained to you countless times. Thank you for not arguing.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
This makes me think, we could be the only beings in existence alongside animals, and maybe, once Earth meets it's fate, that could be it, like nothing ever existed.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
Not here to argue today, just looking for comments perhaps from the photographers on the forum.
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

From what I gather from the ISS location and time for this photo, the Moon wasn't far from the Earth's limb. But if you look at the camera data:

Shutter: 1/250
Aperture: 8.0

It was a fairly "fast" photo, meaning the Moon looked fairly bright and required a short exposure at a low aperture. Wouldn't be the case if the Moon looked much dimmer through those very tenuous upper layers of the atmosphere (read, thermosphere and exosphere) if it were the atmosphere that made the Moon visible.

Since those ISS pages with images list the camera settings, it shouldn't be too hard to test photographing the Moon from Earth's surface with the same settings and see how different (or similar) the results are.

I've done exactly that for Apollo surface photography on the Moon in another thread, and it matches the results pretty well.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: onebigmonkey

No, it's you who don't understand. The telescope can collect the light OK, but the wavefront is not the same as the wavefront generated in the ionosphere/plasmasphere that Earth based telescopes see. You folk who think you know everything really annoy those of us who do.

Apparently, GaryN knows all about wavefronts... Even though he doesn't understand that a wavefront is just the geometry of an EM wave that gets distorted by the Earth's atmosphere and has to be corrected for by adaptive optics that employ wavefront sensors.

If anything, the Earth's atmosphere is an obstacle to observing stars and other space objects.
edit on 21-11-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: GaryN

The Moon is extremely bright. Amateur astronomers actually use Moon filters when observing it. Obviously, if you set your exposure to capture the Moon properly, the stars will be too dim to show up. This has been explained to you countless times. Thank you for not arguing.


Indeed - the first time I looked at the moon through my 'scope it actually hurt my eyes.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace



From what I gather from the ISS location and time for this photo, the Moon wasn't far from the Earth's limb.


Yes, you are correct, and if you go back to 80680 you can see the airglow.
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
I wasn't thinking about stars not being visible though, I was thinking about the resolution of the Lunar surface in the full size image. That was a huge lens they were using.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

There are a couple of things conspiring there.

One is that it is still a relatively long exposure so it is too bright to see any real detail. That long exposure has meant that it is vulnerable to motion blur on a moving platform. If you look around the 2 o'clock position you make out 2 edges to the moon.

A further thing to consider is that while they may have trained a big old lens on the moon it is still a long way off. I was very surprised when I trained my 300mm lens on the moon just how small it still looked in the image. It looks pretty small in my 6" telescope until you start adding barlows and other magnifiers.

If you google moon and focal length you will find lots of examples of the moon showing that the size of the moon is correct for that focal length.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey



That long exposure has meant that it is vulnerable to motion blur on a moving platform. If you look around the 2 o'clock position you make out 2 edges to the moon


There are images in the bracketed set that are much faster, and with this one I noticed that the rim of the Moon is much sharper at around 7-8 o'clock, closest to the airglow region.
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
Blur shouldn't be problem at 1/800, the moon is not whizzing by the station as you can see from a realtime Celestia simulation. I would put it down to more detail being the result of more photons being produced by the denser matter/electron content of the airglow region.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

In the time the exposure took the ISS moved 9.5 metres, and you have no idea as to whether the camera was hand held or not.

I'd stick with the obvious answer, rather than just fabricating nonsense.



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: GaryN

In the time the exposure took the ISS moved 9.5 metres, and you have no idea as to whether the camera was hand held or not.

I'd stick with the obvious answer, rather than just fabricating nonsense.


But the same camera and lens has no problems imaging Earth?



posted on Nov, 23 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I put the blur down to poor auto-focusing. I've experienced the same problem when shooting the Moon with my Canon and 300mm lens, and had to resort to manual focusing. I think it's because the Moon's surface doesn't have enough contrasting features for the auto-focus to lock on to; even trying to use the Moon's limb for spot-auto-focusing wasn't completely successful.

I don't think the ISS astronauts ever do manual focusing, for them these photo-sessions are a short and busy affair.

But regarding that series of moon shots, the Moon would have been seen "rising" higher and higher above the Earth's limb as the ISS travelled eastwards. Yet we see no dimming of the Moon which would require a longer exposure/larger aperture/more ISO. Compare ISS location on the world map for this shot with this one. If anything, they even decreased the aperture from f/8 to f/11.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace




I put the blur down to poor auto-focusing.


I'll buy that. The full size image available here is about the best I have found so far, but haven't tracked down the original. From the ISS I presume, with the airglow.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

I think I'll stick with my 10x50 binoculars for a good, clear, no hassle view of the Moon. Wonder how these
would work with a camera mount adapter?
www.amazon.ca...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1448393558&sr=8-3&keywords=10+x+50+binoculars

The other thing I don't think we will ever see from the ISS is the increasingly popular video astronomy, the low light video cameras are getting really sensitive. An outward facing unit on the external experiment platform so we could see the stars and planets scrolling by with a real-time feed. I know they are not there to look at space from the Space Station though, but maybe a private company could put up a dedicated LEO satellite for video astronomy?



edit on 24-11-2015 by GaryN because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-11-2015 by GaryN because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

There are many student-created experiments that go up to ISS. Perhaps, with a lot of planning and coordinating, we could get some university place such an experiment up there. They could actually use one of the zenith portholes in the modules. Or it could be one of those mini-satellites.

By the way, here's a very nice and sharp ISS photo of the Moon: eol.jsc.nasa.gov... with neighbouring images forming a series.
And here's the series of Moon images with airglow: eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

The Search function at eol.jsc.nasa.gov... is really useful.
edit on 24-11-2015 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace




By the way, here's a very nice and sharp ISS photo of the Moon:


Yes, much better, though I see it too was auto exposure. They sure gave a lot of camera metadata there.



Perhaps, with a lot of planning and coordinating, we could get some university place such an experiment up there. They could actually use one of the zenith portholes in the modules


Dream on...



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: cooperton


then the stars would become visible when it became "night" on the moon,


They would have had to venture to the far side of the moon for that no? The side we see, is always illuminated by the Sun, there is no "night", which is why the sun actually illuminates the sky at night. Since it's reflecting Sun's light.

I don't believe any of the Apollo missions had astronauts on the dark side of the moon. Something about it being too damn cold or something.

~Tenth


Please tell me someone corrected you? The side facing us is not always illuminated that is why we have phases from no moon, through crescent to Full...

Now there is not a 24 hour cycle but there is night on the moon it takes 28.5 earth days however.

There is also no "DARK SIDE" there is a far side but it also experiences the Lunar Day. The astronauts did however visit all the places during the lunar dawn.



posted on Nov, 25 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN



They could actually use one of the zenith portholes


Well I looked for images from the zenith window, and found one! Not a real one though. I'll keep looking.




If the crew of the space station could look toward the Sun at the moment of their closest approach to the umbra (0756 UT on Dec. 4th), this is what they would see. "There are several windows that will possibly afford such a view--at least 3 windows on the Service Module and one or two elsewhere that are zenith looking while the ISS is in LVLH attitude, as it is now and should be during the eclipse," says Greg Byrne, the manager of NASA's Crew Earth Observations Project at the Johnson Space Center. Image credit: Rob Suggs and Cartes du Ciel.

science.nasa.gov...
science.nasa.gov...



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join