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: 27
40
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Here's a recent ISS photo of the night-side Earth and starry space - taken looking sideways from the Cupola, and using a wide-angle lens (24mm). A 24mm lens gives you about 53 degrees view angle vertically. With the Earth being fairly low in the image, it's safe to say that the camera captured stars shining bright and clear at approx 30 degrees above the earth's limb and upper atmosphere. That's pretty far out into deep space and away from Earth.



Original image: eol.jsc.nasa.gov...




posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Show me photographs and corroborated descriptions of the Sun from cislunar space.

Don't change the subject!!!



posted on Feb, 20 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

You enjoy changing the goal posts?

First it was stars, now it's the Sun. What next?

FYI. If we can see stars from space we can see the Sun. Want to know why? It's because our Sun IS A STAR.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wmd_2008

Show me photographs and corroborated descriptions of the Sun from cislunar space.

Done that on the previous page. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gonna quote this bit again for emphasis:

The spacecraft was rotating to maintain the thermal balance of the Sun. What that caused to happen was that every two minutes, with every rotation, we saw the Earth, the Moon and the Sun as they passed by the window. The 360-degree panorama of the heavens was awesome and the stars are ten times as bright and, therefore, ten times as numerous than you could ever see on a high mountaintop on a clear night. It was overwhelmingly magnificent.


~~~

(One of the strangest things on ATS is that it censors the word "window")



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

I thought I would have a look back at some of your DRIVEL posted on this thread just to let others see YOU don't have a clue.

Here are some typical examples.


originally posted by: GaryN[/post]

Ah yes, the Nikon with the f/0.7 lens, high speed 2485 film,(ISO 1000, rare and very expensive) long exposures, and extended red(into the IR)sensitivity.
If you think your eyes or a regular camera/lens/film could see those stars, you are dreaming.



First of all KODAK made the 2485 film it wasn't super expensive and it was made for the Hasselblad cameras it was also used in aircraft doing aerial surveys.


Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions double-perforated 70mm film, which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black and white. Apollo 8 was one of the first missions to use this film. There were three magazines loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film


Apollo 15 Eclipse


These photographs were taken (hand-held mode) by astronaut David R. Scott, commander, using the electric Hasselblad camera. The view on the upper left was taken with the 250mm lens


Of course they had a rough idea of the light level before the went to the Moon thats why this was on the film backs for the Hasselblad cameras.




originally posted by GaryN

You need a specially designed camera to do astrophotography from the Moon?


The camera mas maxed out, of course there will be noise. Another view from Mars of the Earth and Moon, again a long exposure, but no stars. Guess

they didn't want to overexpose the Moon or something.



Want to provide a link to exposure data for the Mars Earth Moon image ?

You don't need SPECIAL cameras to do astrophotography from the Moon that's just YOUR claim!



originally posted by GaryN


Correct.The curiosity mast cameras use a 3 MP sensor, as does my Nikon Coolpix 990, and I can take good star, moon, and conjunction images quite

well. The Curiosity cameras are also 3 MP, and there is no reason they should not be able to get as good images as I can. Here's an image from the

same camera as mine, with dark frame subtraction, but even without that, the Moon and planets are easily visible.
reductionism.net.seanic.net...
So maybe the ISS crew needs to downgrade from those much newer Nikons to get some conjunction images?




WRONG yet again the mastcam is 2 MP NOT 3


Tne Mastcam camera head has a 100 mm focal length, f/10 lens. This provides the capability to obtain images with a scale of 7.4 centimeters per

pixel at 1 km distance, and about 150 microns per pixel at 2 meters distance. The camera’s square field of view covers 5.1° over 1200 by 1200 pixels on

the instrument’s 1600 by 1200 CCD

The other Mastcam camera head has a 34 mm focal length, f/8 lens. The camera’s 15° square field of view covers 1200 by 1200 pixels on a 1600 by 1200

CCD detector. The camera can obtain 450 microns per pixel images at 2 meters distance and 22 centimeters per pixel at 1 kilometer distance.



As for YOUR camera it could take VERY POOR to POOR pictures of stars reason being the spec.

Sensor size 1/1.8" (7.144 x 5.358 mm)
Sensor type CCD
ISO Auto, 100, 200, 400
Focal length (equiv.) 38–115 mm
Optical zoom 3×
Screen size 1.8?
Screen dots 112,000
Min shutter speed 8 sec


originally posted byGaryN

Funny you should mention that. Last night I went out for a smoke about 11 PM, didn't have my glasses on, but the bright moon and a companion were

staring at me, so thought I'd see what my camera would capture. I know it shoots the Moon just fine, but would it pick up Jupiter? Using my beat-up

Coolpix 990, didn't clean the lens, no tripod, full auto, braced agains a deck post, bright lights on both sides of me reflecting of freshly pressure washed

cement, elevation up at 75 degrees or so, and this is what I got. All the little specs are noise.

www3.telus.net...
www3.telus.net...

Garbage you might say,



The exif data from your image

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) [0x829A] = 10/10 second ===> 1/1 second ===> 1 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop [0x829D] = 26/10 ===> ƒ/2.6
Exposure Program [0x8822] = normal program (2)
ISO Speed Ratings [0x8827] = 400


Well you got one thing right garbage, anyone SERIOUS about astrophotography wouldn't use that type of camera with such a tiny sensor or on auto YOU have an overexposed moon a bit of lens flare and hot pixels in a 1 sec 400 iso exposure.

Here an image f2.5 800 iso APS-C size sensor in the middle of 150 houses with street light some light cloud cover 10 miles from a major city.



I can still see stars down to mag 13 in that image right click on image for larger view oh the bright star is Capella.

edit on 21-2-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: GaryN

I thought I would have a look back at some of your DRIVEL posted on this thread just to let others see YOU don't have a clue.

Here are some typical examples.


originally posted by: GaryN[/post]

Ah yes, the Nikon with the f/0.7 lens, high speed 2485 film,(ISO 1000, rare and very expensive) long exposures, and extended red(into the IR)sensitivity.
If you think your eyes or a regular camera/lens/film could see those stars, you are dreaming.



First of all KODAK made the 2485 film it wasn't super expensive and it was made for the Hasselblad cameras it was also used in aircraft doing aerial surveys.


Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions double-perforated 70mm film, which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black and white. Apollo 8 was one of the first missions to use this film. There were three magazines loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film


Apollo 15 Eclipse


These photographs were taken (hand-held mode) by astronaut David R. Scott, commander, using the electric Hasselblad camera. The view on the upper left was taken with the 250mm lens


Of course they had a rough idea of the light level before the went to the Moon thats why this was on the film backs for the Hasselblad cameras.




originally posted by GaryN

You need a specially designed camera to do astrophotography from the Moon?


The camera mas maxed out, of course there will be noise. Another view from Mars of the Earth and Moon, again a long exposure, but no stars. Guess

they didn't want to overexpose the Moon or something.



Want to provide a link to exposure data for the Mars Earth Moon image ?

You don't need SPECIAL cameras to do astrophotography from the Moon that's just YOUR claim!



originally posted by GaryN


Correct.The curiosity mast cameras use a 3 MP sensor, as does my Nikon Coolpix 990, and I can take good star, moon, and conjunction images quite

well. The Curiosity cameras are also 3 MP, and there is no reason they should not be able to get as good images as I can. Here's an image from the

same camera as mine, with dark frame subtraction, but even without that, the Moon and planets are easily visible.
reductionism.net.seanic.net...
So maybe the ISS crew needs to downgrade from those much newer Nikons to get some conjunction images?




WRONG yet again the mastcam is 2 MP NOT 3


Tne Mastcam camera head has a 100 mm focal length, f/10 lens. This provides the capability to obtain images with a scale of 7.4 centimeters per

pixel at 1 km distance, and about 150 microns per pixel at 2 meters distance. The camera’s square field of view covers 5.1° over 1200 by 1200 pixels on

the instrument’s 1600 by 1200 CCD

The other Mastcam camera head has a 34 mm focal length, f/8 lens. The camera’s 15° square field of view covers 1200 by 1200 pixels on a 1600 by 1200

CCD detector. The camera can obtain 450 microns per pixel images at 2 meters distance and 22 centimeters per pixel at 1 kilometer distance.



As for YOUR camera it could take VERY POOR to POOR pictures of stars reason being the spec.

Sensor size 1/1.8" (7.144 x 5.358 mm)
Sensor type CCD
ISO Auto, 100, 200, 400
Focal length (equiv.) 38–115 mm
Optical zoom 3×
Screen size 1.8?
Screen dots 112,000
Min shutter speed 8 sec


originally posted byGaryN

Funny you should mention that. Last night I went out for a smoke about 11 PM, didn't have my glasses on, but the bright moon and a companion were

staring at me, so thought I'd see what my camera would capture. I know it shoots the Moon just fine, but would it pick up Jupiter? Using my beat-up

Coolpix 990, didn't clean the lens, no tripod, full auto, braced agains a deck post, bright lights on both sides of me reflecting of freshly pressure washed

cement, elevation up at 75 degrees or so, and this is what I got. All the little specs are noise.

www3.telus.net...
www3.telus.net...

Garbage you might say,



The exif data from your image

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) [0x829A] = 10/10 second ===> 1/1 second ===> 1 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop [0x829D] = 26/10 ===> ƒ/2.6
Exposure Program [0x8822] = normal program (2)
ISO Speed Ratings [0x8827] = 400


Well you got one thing right garbage, anyone SERIOUS about astrophotography wouldn't use that type of camera with such a tiny sensor or on auto YOU have an overexposed moon a bit of lens flare and hot pixels in a 1 sec 400 iso exposure.

Here an image f2.5 800 iso APS-C size sensor in the middle of 150 houses with street light some light cloud cover 10 miles from a major city.



I can still see stars down to mag 13 in that image right click on image for larger view oh the bright star is Capella.


Did you take that photo of Capella mate? If so, that's pretty impressive.

Well..i say that knowing nothing about photography. Maybe it isn't. But i like it.
edit on 21-2-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79



FYI. If we can see stars from space we can see the Sun. Want to know why? It's because our Sun IS A STAR.


But we can't see stars from cislunar space, Armstrong told us that. And they could not see the Sun from cislunar space either, despite wildespaces total dishonesty in quoting Armstrong.




NA The sky is deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cisluna space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen although there have been some reports of seeing planets I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might be visible.


He was asked about the view from the Lunar surface, and mentioned that the sky was also black from cislunar space , but did NOT say the Sun was visible from cislunar space, only from the Moon. And guess what, they took pictures of the Sun from the Lunar surface and NOT from cislunar space. Not a one.
And from the real crackpot Mitchell:




What that caused to happen was that every two minutes, with every rotation, we saw the Earth, the Moon and the Sun as they passed by the w i n d o w.


But he never took a single photo, again. And:




This photo of an EVA undertaken in cislunar space shows the sunlit CSM and the astronaut:


No it does NOT, it shows the CSM lit by the EVA light put there exactly for the purpose of retrieving the canisters. That's 3 dishonest strikes in a row wildespace, you are on my ignore list now. Oh, and "The spacecraft was rotating to maintain the thermal balance of the Sun." Total BS, there is no heat from the Sun, and it was the astronauts themselves who suggested the slow roll to keep the antenna pointed at Earth (for the guidance computer) so they could all sleep at the same time. One of them had always had to be awake to make sure they did not loose contact, as they would have been lost in space without the computer being continuously updated. The astronauts only ever complained about being cold, not hot.

wmd_2008



First of all KODAK made the 2485 film it wasn't super expensive and it was made for the Hasselblad cameras it was also used in aircraft doing aerial surveys.


The NASA versions were NOT available to the public, that is documented.




You don't need SPECIAL cameras to do astrophotography from the Moon that's just YOUR claim!


Who said a special camera was needed? What you talking about?




WRONG yet again the mastcam is 2 MP NOT 3


So what? It should still be able to take images of the stars.
www.astropix.com...
The constellation of Orion, taken with a Canon A60 Digital snapshot camera on a fixed tripod.
15 second exposure at ISO 400 at f/2.8, tungsten white balance.

Chang'e should also be able to do astrophotography, if there were any stars to see, which Armstrong rightly said there weren't. And nobody has answered my question about why they would send such a low res, non zoom camera to the Moon?

My old Coolpix 990 will do astrophotography even though it was renowned for its terrible low light performance:
www.stargazing.net...

CAMERA : E990V1.1
METERING : CENTER
MODE : M
SHUTTER : 4.00sec
APERTURE : F2.5
EXP +/- : 0.0
FOCAL LENGTH : f8.2mm(X1.0)
IMG ADJUST : STANDARD
SENSITIVITY : ISO100
WHITEBAL : SUNNY
SHARPNESS : HIGH
DATE : 2002.05.15 22:04
QUALITY : FULL FINE




Well you got one thing right garbage, anyone SERIOUS about astrophotography wouldn't use that type of camera with such a tiny sensor or on auto YOU have an overexposed moon a bit of lens flare and hot pixels in a 1 sec 400 iso exposure.


I was not even trying to take images of the stars, just testing what the camera would do on full auto, and the stars were not visible anyway due to there being a bright marine air haze, glowing from the moonlight.



posted on Feb, 21 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

And yet I have heard chris Hadfield and Alexei leonov both recount how many stars they could see in space. I heard this with my own to ear balls at talks they gave.

You have also been shown by posters far more patient than me that you are totally wrong and why you are.

The only dishonest person here us you.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

Apollo 12
Day 8: Cislunar Navigation and Geology Questions


191:20:58 Gibson: Roger. Okay, now in that attitude, we got the Sun looking right up the engine bell and that ought to be heating things up as fast as we can do it.


history.nasa.gov...

There you go, another report mentioning the Sun from cislunar space.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Yes my image to test a 50mm f1.7 lens I got.
Can't wait to get it to a really dark site.



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN


Here is a quote of yours from another thread


originally posted by: GaryN


It is impossible to take pictures of the stars from deep space. You can see some if you are looking through the atmosphere/ionosphere of an object that has sufficient electrons in its atmosphere. To imge stars from deep space, at visible wavelengths, you need the technology that Hubble employs, which is still classified, and only NASA and the ESA (presntly mostly funded by NASA) have access to that technology. Why do you think that Russia, or India, or China, or Japan, or even Iran do not have visible wavelength space based telescopes? Which brings us back to the simulation, as the intitial conditions need to be known, and as no TSI measurements were ever made from the moon, we do not know the initial lighting conditions.




The important part bold & uderlined above NOW do you want to comment on this image below.





If NOT please stop posting your STUPID claims. Will be back later to comment on your Photography links



posted on Feb, 22 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Yes my image to test a 50mm f1.7 lens I got.
Can't wait to get it to a really dark site.


Good work



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008



The important part bold & uderlined above NOW do you want to comment on this image below.


It is impossible to take pictures of the stars from deep space.

Pictures are taken with a camera that sees what our eyes would see, and the instrument used here is far from being a normal camera. It goes well into the IR, and the images showing stars all seem to be taken with the clear filters, meaning wide open, meaning all wavelengths, meaning IR as well as visible. Lets find an image using the filters that see only what our eyes can see.
The filters are listed in a table on this page:
space.stackexchange.com...
WAC raw images for Tethys are available here:
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
An image with less streaking:
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...

edit on 23-2-2016 by GaryN because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN




The information YOU forgot to post already given on the first post about the picture.



A long exposure time was required in order to image Tethys while it was in shadow, resulting in the background stars' point-like images being smeared into streaks. Additionally, the image was taken using a compression scheme that reduces the image file size on the spacecraft's data recorder, resulting in the moon's pixilated appearance.

The image was taken in visible light with the Cassini spacecraft wide-angle camera on Sept. 25, 2008.


YOU do know what visible light means



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wmd_2008



The important part bold & uderlined above NOW do you want to comment on this image below.


It is impossible to take pictures of the stars from deep space.

Pictures are taken with a camera that sees what our eyes would see, and the instrument used here is far from being a normal camera. It goes well into the IR, and the images showing stars all seem to be taken with the clear filters, meaning wide open, meaning all wavelengths, meaning IR as well as visible. Lets find an image using the filters that see only what our eyes can see.
The filters are listed in a table on this page:
space.stackexchange.com...
WAC raw images for Tethys are available here:
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...
An image with less streaking:
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...



Do you have any idea how ridiculous what you are suggesting sounds? There is always an excuse. Even when it says it was captured in visible light you have an excuse

That's fine. I guess. Each their own. But you are as wrong as its possible to be on this matter.
edit on 23-2-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014


Even when it says it was captured in visible light you have an excuse


Here's the raw image, it lists CL1 and CL2.
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

CL1 = clear

do you know what that means ???????????????



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: 3danimator2014


Even when it says it was captured in visible light you have an excuse


Here's the raw image, it lists CL1 and CL2.
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...



Ignorant ape says cl1 means clear. Ok. Lets assume it didn't . How would a filter which would be made of glass allow MORE light in? The image was photographed in visible light...so any glass in the way will just hinder the photons. Same goes for the atmosphere by the way...i still don't get how what you are suggesting works.

Also..you know our eyes are not just a vacuum right? There are liquids and gels in there..why are those different to the filters you are saying allow a camera to see stars . I'm not suggesting they are by the way..but how do YOU know they are not?



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape



do you know what that means ???????????????


I think I do, but with all those ?s maybe I missed something????????
The other thing to consider is the exposure time, though with the sensors being so sensitive and with high dynamic range, it's tough to compare to an off-the-shelf camera settings. They don't make it easy to find the exposure data, but maybe someone know s where to find it, something like this format:
pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov...

3danimator2014, I'm not sure what you are getting at with the filters. Yes, they reduce the amount of photons, some of them quite considerably. And the 'glass' they are made of is itself a complex science. If they use a filter that cuts out a lot of photons, they increase the exposure time, I've seen exposures of 38000 seconds, so in that case your eyes would see nothing but black.



i still don't get how what you are suggesting works.


My basic idea is that there is no visible light or heat coming from the Sun. Solar radiation is of a much higher frequency (shorter wavelength) than our eyes can see, and also does not have the type of wavefront that our eyes can focus. So, to see the Sun, or the stars, the 'light' has to pass through an atmosphere and collide with matter, and that collision produces the wavelength and wavefront that our eyes, or the simple optics of a camera, can work with. Some molecules will give off visible light when struck by UV light, kind of like how a fluorescent light works, where the mercury vapour in the tube gives off UV light, and the phosphor coating inside the lamp gives off visible light when hit by the UV from the mercury. Some high energy 'light' goes through a number of collisions, a forward scattering process, before it gives off visible light, so like our atmosphere, it has to be perhaps kilometres deep before any visible light is produced. The heat we feel is infrared, lower frequency photons, which is given off mostly when UV or higher energy light collides with water molecules in the lower, denser atmosphere. That's about as basic as I can describe it I think, though it gets quitecomplicated if you get into the science involved.





edit on 23-2-2016 by GaryN because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2016 by GaryN because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

So, to sum up your "idea", all of known science about light, heat, radiation, stars, the sun and space are wrong?




top topics



 
40
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join