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: 39
40
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN


Or maybe someone just doesn't have a clue were to look.

It's full of stars



More HERE

Basic photography mate high speed film EXTRA LARGE GRAIN REDUCED RESOLUTION they also used various filters on images which also has an effect please get ALL the facts before jumping to conclusions on what you see or don't see.

edit on 12-6-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN




EVA astronauts have commented on the heat from the Sun though their visors, but only at sunrise/set. That's the only time there is any serious heat.

That is an absurd statement.
You need to take a science class.
Radiation from the sun is the same anywhere in any orbit. Except when obscured by an object.
Sunrise and sunset have nothing to do with it.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   
ok, so is it a definitive yay or nay on stars, [35 pages of 'i know more than you'... no thanks.]

or has NASA explained why we see sometimes stars in the rubbish they release and sometimes not...



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




More HERE





At times when the window shield could not be used, such as with Hasselblad or for polarized light measurements, the CMP had to work in a dark cabin with only the readout display on the digital clock to time the sequence and duration of exposures.


They were in blackout conditions for extended periods, plenty of time to become fully dark adapted, but where is the astronauts "OMG! Look at those stars!" comments? Here's a more impressive image than the above, it is not taken using the lunar dust atmosphere and/or Solar corona to make the stars visible.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
spaceflight.nasa.gov...
They say the Moon appears 4 time larger than it should with that lens, but why does it look bigger? With nothing between camera and Moon, it should be washed out as it is, but not bigger.
So where were they when the image was taken? Here is the timeline for A15
history.nasa.gov...

So they had filters for certain photography experiments, but no Solar filters, no ND filter. There are no photos of the Sun from cislunar space, or Lunar orbit. What does it all mean? Well I say it means the Sun is not visible, by eye, if there is insufficient matter, electrons included, to create the light our eyes need. Very sensitive film and long exposures obviously can make the stars visible, under certain conditions, but could they be seen by eye, which is what this thread is all about. I have presented my best evidence, the opposition has presented theirs. Until we have eyeballs in cislunar space again, or on the Moon, and NOT just military eyeballs, we will not be able to say for certain. I'm going with Armstrong, it is black out there, and with the ISS EVA astronauts who say looking AWAY from Earth, it is totally, scarily black. Will they ever allow civilians to go out where (I say) the obvious truth will be revealed? I don't think so.



Feds to approve private moon mission: Historic move may pave the way for space tourism and asteroid mining.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

So now the Feds can control who gets to go anywhere in space? Just what gives them that right? And would they allow someone to go into space and do a visible light experiments to examine the Sun, or the visibility of the Moon, planets, and stars? Did the Chinese need US permission to go to the Moon? Why couldn't Chang'e see stars? Oh, there isn't enough power during the Lunar night to operate the camera someone said, but they could do UV astronomy? More BS. Did the Japanese not get the proper permission, might they have seen something they were not supposed to?


X-ray telescope Astro-H lost in space, Japanese agency confirms ...

Ya' mess with the Bull, you get the horns?
So, I rest my case until unambiguous data is available, this guessing game could go on for ever. OAO.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
So now the Feds can control who gets to go anywhere in space? Just what gives them that right?


en.wikipedia.org...


Under international law, the nationality of the launch operator and the location of the launch determines which country is responsible for any damage that occurs.[2] Due to this, the United States requires that rocket manufacturers and launchers adhere to specific regulations to indemnify and protect the safety of people and property that may be affected by a flight. The Office of Commercial Space Transportation was created by the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 to meet this need. The office also regulates launch sites, publishes quarterly launch forecasts, and holds annual conferences with the space launch industry. The office is headed by the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST), who is currently Dr. George C. Nield. They are located in Washington, DC, and ultimately operate under the Department of Transportation.


The same as the government regulates commercial flying.... it makes good sense.



posted on Jun, 12 2016 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

What does it all mean? Well I say it means the Sun is not visible, by eye, if there is insufficient matter, electrons included, to create the light our eyes need. Very sensitive film and long exposures obviously can make the stars visible, under certain conditions, but could they be seen by eye, which is what this thread is all about.



any reason why you specifically gave the conditions for a camera to capture lots of starlight, but not give the conditions for the eye to see lots of starlight??

you obviously know about what being dark adapted means..



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wmd_2008




More HERE


ce.html

So now the Feds can control who gets to go anywhere in space? Just what gives them that right? And would they allow someone to go into space and do a visible light experiments to examine the Sun, or the visibility of the Moon, planets, and stars? Did the Chinese need US permission to go to the Moon? Why couldn't Chang'e see stars? Oh, there isn't enough power during the Lunar night to operate the camera someone said, but they could do UV astronomy? More BS. Did the Japanese not get the proper permission, might they have seen something they were not supposed to?


X-ray telescope Astro-H lost in space, Japanese agency confirms ...

Ya' mess with the Bull, you get the horns?
So, I rest my case until unambiguous data is available, this guessing game could go on for ever. OAO.




What gives them that right is they are responsible for what the US citizens do. Meaning they don't want rockets dropping out the sky cuz a wannabe space company got a decimal point wrong and they also have a responsibility to other nations to keep everyone's satellites and space stations safe as well the orbits free of exploded amateur rockets.

You can see that it makes perfect sense for every nations government to monitor what goes up.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
or has NASA explained why we see sometimes stars in the rubbish they release and sometimes not...

We don't need NASA to explain that to us; it's the basics of photography. Stars are very dim and require a long exposure with a high ISO setting. The Sun is extremely bright, and anything in direct sunlight (or even illuminated by reflected sunlight) is too bright for that, so the camera has to use a short exposure and a low ISO setting.


Spacewalking cosmonauts in direct sunlight and reflected sunlight

It's a no-brainer really.

Photography in space is a fascinating topic, I encourage people to read articles and watch videos about how astronauts went about it:

luminous-landscape.com...
www.picturecorrect.com...


While living and working in space was a tremendous experience, it also presented us with many challenges. Some of which aren’t so obvious. Photographically speaking, there were a number of hurdles. The dynamic range of the subject was potentially huge. The darkest darks you can imagine along with the brightest highlights. With no atmosphere, there is probably another stop or two of light on bright subjects. I would guess that the dynamic range of some scenes approaches 16 or 17 stops. Here’s a shot of Rick Mastracchio outside during one of the space-walks the sunlit EVA suit and thermal blankets is a huge difference from the blackness of the background. This image had some really badly blown highlights which I was able to recover in post-processing.




posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

so thats a no then. stars can be seen from space with current lens technology? i dont know, are you trying to sound pompous and professorial to say its a no brainer to people whom know absolutely nothing about photography as if photography is common knowledge?

what about when they show stars in the background then? what different cameras? what about human eyes, why do some astronaut see some others dont



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

It's not about different cameras it's about different settings (I guess you could say it is different cameras if you're talking automatic and manual). To photograph something in sunlight you use a bout a 1/250s of shutter speed and to photograph stars you need 2-5 second shutter speed (and a tripod if you don't want a blurry mess) It's the same with the human eye, go outside on the darkest, starriest night and go stand under a streetlight and count the stars, your eyes will adjust to the brightness of the streetlight and most if not all of the stars will no longer be visible, it's all about conditions.



posted on Jun, 13 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: wildespace
stars can be seen from space with current lens technology?

Yes, there are hundreds of starry photos taken from the International Space Station. All it takes is a long exposure (the time the shutter remains open to let the light onto the sensor), something like 2 to 4 seconds, coupled with high ISO setting (which defined how sensitive the sensor is to light). Sunlit shots require a very short exposure and low ISO setting.

Sorry if I sounded pompous, I thought that in this day and age, when practically everyone and their dog take pictures, the very basics of photography like exposure would be known. Googling "why no stars" will bring up a plethora of articles on the topic. NASA addressed it too, by the way: earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

~~~

And on the topic of this thread, ESA astronaut Tim Peake confirms that, yes, the sky (in space) is indeed full of stars.: www.facebook.com...




edit on 13-6-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
It's already boring to see how the same things repeated endlessly by everyone who thinks he knows what is light and space, and them must be compulsory as he know and just so. No one is intrigued by anything, all are full of certainties! God! This is called science or dogma?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
It's already boring to see how the same things repeated endlessly by everyone who thinks he knows what is light and space, and them must be compulsory as he know and just so. No one is intrigued by anything, all are full of certainties! God! This is called science or dogma?


Judging by everything being said being backed up by facts and data, im gonna have to go with science.
Feel free to switch off all your computer screens and phones since they operate on our current EM understanding
edit on 14-6-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Let's try a different approach. If I understand you correctly, GaryN, you believe that starlight is only visible due to the presence of an atmosphere. If that is the case, why do stars fade out when transited by a planet with an atmosphere? Shouldn't they get brighter as the light passes through the denser layers of the atmosphere?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: sadang
It's already boring to see how the same things repeated endlessly by everyone who thinks he knows what is light and space, and them must be compulsory as he know and just so. No one is intrigued by anything, all are full of certainties! God! This is called science or dogma?


Judging by everything being said being backed up by facts and data, im gonna have to go with science.
Feel free to switch off all your computer screens and phones since they operate on our current EM understanding


... being backed up by facts and data, im gonna have to go with science.

Exluding the primordial principle that any conscious being has all the rights in his Universe of knowledge, do you realize that the same mentality and perhaps the same words were said many times throughout the history of the current human civilization, even from the days when it has been considered "scientifically" that the earth is flat? Do you realize this simple historical principle?

Do you realize that telling me to switch off all curent electric devices, it say something very crude about you and your way of thinking? Could you tell others not me, for example, why the Plank size is the smallest size conceivable by scientists human's minds?

Did you ever wondered what would be the real meaning of the GaryN signature's message? Think about all these a bit deeply, before writing here first words that pass trough your head.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
...even from the days when it has been considered "scientifically" that the earth is flat? Do you realize this simple historical principle?...

Just a small correction: When science applied critical though to the question of the shape of the Earth (in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE with Pythagoras, Parmenides, and Empedocles) science considered the earth to be spherical. Ancient philosophy also considered the earth to be a sphere, with Aristotle teaching that the Earth was a sphere in the 4th century BCE.

Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE used empirical observations to measure the circumference of a spherical Earth and came up pretty close to what we know it is today.

Later, the Romans had borrowed much of the science and philosophy of the Ancient Greeks, and thus the idea of a spherical earth was widely accepted as a scientific fact by the western world by Roman times. By late into the first millenium CE, the only people to hold on to the idea of a flat Earth were some religious fundamentalist groups, and the idea of a spherical Earth was commonly accepted by science and general people's understanding of the world.

So science in general never really considered the earth to be flat.


edit on 6/14/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

No.

But powerful individuals DID consider the earth to be flat, and treated it as such. Similarly, there are those who believe that contiuning to burn fossil fuels is not a problem for our planet, despite every stage of the process from the mining to the burning being hideously toxic, not to mention economically unsupportable.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

To understand science correctly, is to have better questions, bigger reasons to find oneself caught up in wonderment, than those who do not. It is absolutely not the case that those who are scientifically aware are no longer intrigued by what they see. They are intrigued all the more, because despite their knowledge, there are questions left to answer.

I am no less awestruck by the beauty of a meteor shower, just because I know that it is not a war in the heavens, but many lumps of space rock bouncing off our atmosphere. I am no less agog with wonder when I see lightning, for all that I understand the mechanism by which it is born and hurled through the sky.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Box of Rain

No.

But powerful individuals DID consider the earth to be flat, and treated it as such.


Sure, but it's meaningful that even though some powerful people may have tried to claim that the Earth was flat, most of science -- and even general common knowledge -- still widely accepted the earth as being spherical.

It's just like today where there are some powerful groups who insist that (for example) AIDS is God's punishment for those who lead a certain "immoral" lifestyle -- however, there are still more people in general who don't believe this rather than believe it.

And anyway, we are talking about what science historically taught about the shape of the earth -- not what dogma was preaching about the shape.




edit on 6/14/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: sadang
It's already boring to see how the same things repeated endlessly by everyone who thinks he knows what is light and space, and them must be compulsory as he know and just so. No one is intrigued by anything, all are full of certainties! God! This is called science or dogma?


Judging by everything being said being backed up by facts and data, im gonna have to go with science.
Feel free to switch off all your computer screens and phones since they operate on our current EM understanding


... being backed up by facts and data, im gonna have to go with science.

Exluding the primordial principle that any conscious being has all the rights in his Universe of knowledge, do you realize that the same mentality and perhaps the same words were said many times throughout the history of the current human civilization, even from the days when it has been considered "scientifically" that the earth is flat? Do you realize this simple historical principle?

Do you realize that telling me to switch off all curent electric devices, it say something very crude about you and your way of thinking? Could you tell others not me, for example, why the Plank size is the smallest size conceivable by scientists human's minds?

Did you ever wondered what would be the real meaning of the GaryN signature's message? Think about all these a bit deeply, before writing here first words that pass trough your head.



I'm sorry GaryN, i mean, Sadang..but i don't know what you are rambling on about here.




top topics



 
40
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join