Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: wildespace

A recent night shot from the ISS, showing stars bright and clear high above even the topmost layers of the atmosphere:

Total BS, the line of sight to the stars from the ISS to those stars goes as low as 150KM above the surface., and the line of sight goes through a column of thinner but MUCH longer than the column of atmosphere than we look though when looking UP, away from Earth to the stars. Can nobody understand simple geometry? The education system really is shockingly poor (or the de-education system remarkably good) it seems. When we view the stars from Earths surface, we are obviously looking AWAY from Earth. All images from the Cupola are looking TOWARDS Earth, as should also be obvious, and the photographs prove it. The cupola is like a bay window at the front of your house, and you can not see what's in the back yard from the front window. I want to see what's in the back yard, but unfortunately there are no windows at the back of the house. So only on an EVA can they look away from Earth, but then you'd tell me they can not do a 2.5 second exposure hand held. Probably not, but there are things called brackets, they had them on Apollo and could do exposures MUCH longer that 2.5 seconds. Oh, but they are not out there to look at the stars, much more important stuff to do of course. Whatever. Find me an image of the Milky Way looking away from Earth, find me an image of the Milky Way from any Apollo mission while they were in deep space where the stars should have been even brighter. Nobody can, not surprising if they can not even take a picture of the Sun from darkest space. @@

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
The cupola is like a bay window at the front of your house, and you can not see what's in the back yard from the front window. I want to see what's in the back yard, but unfortunately there are no windows at the back of the house.

How about side windows? The view in space isn't divided strictly into "towards earth" and "away from earth". Side windows in the Cupola deviate only by 33.7 degrees from vertical, allowing a view sideways:



A camera with wide-angle lens looking out one of those windows can thus capture stuff that pretty far from the earth's limb, perhaps as far away as 45 degrees out into space.

Which is what the ISS photos I posted in my previous few replies show.

Looking sideways from the ISS (towards the earth's limb), the Earth's atmosphere appears as a very thin layer during the day, and at night you can see the greenish airglow which is at the top of it, with faint red airglow stretching up to almost the hight of the ISS itself. But that's where it ends. With every degree above that, the atmosphere gets so tenuous, it can be disregarded for all purposes but reboosting the station over the course of weeks or months.

Here, let me help you visualise that:



Practically all that atmosphere that we look through at stars from the ground has been left far below, leaving only a few straggling molecules here and there.

originally posted by: GaryN

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.

With all the LESSONS you have been given over MANY MANY months it's still not sinking in is it.

The Moon looks BIGGER because the film was over exposed so the emulsion of the film around the Moon image is over exposed just to refresh your FAILING memory.

Exposed to see the bulb



Overexposed



Sinking in yet

originally posted by: GaryN

Total BS, the line of sight to the stars from the ISS to those stars goes as low as 150KM above the surface., and the line of sight goes through a column of thinner but MUCH longer than the column of atmosphere than we look though when looking UP, away from Earth to the stars.

then would you agree that closer to earths horizon there would be more particles than the visible stars that are closer to the station??

a reply to: wildespace

How about side windows?

No, your geometry skills are very bad it seems. In this image, the centre of the big window is pointing to the middle of Earth, it does not matter which angled window you look out of, you will always see Earth and some of the upper atmosphere, not deep space.
assets.nydailynews.com...!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/nasa-1-0611.jpg
(edit: that image link wont work from this site, have to cut and paste into your browser)
From:
www.nydailynews.com...
If Cassidy turned to face the photographer of the picture, then he would be pointing into outer space, but there are no windows to see true space.

Practically all that atmosphere that we look through at stars from the ground has been left far below, leaving only a few straggling molecules here and there.

Your image shows the red emissions at he top, about 300km. The field of view extends then to about 600 km, and yes the amount of matter is thinner there, but the atmosphere goes to over 1000km, and the line of sight to the stars goes through many thousands of km of that thinner atmosphere, meaning my proposed light creation process has more chance for solar radiation to interact with the matter and forward scatter it.
Here is a paper on the atmosphere up to 1000 Km, very 'dry', but then a lot of science is:
ruc.noaa.gov...
Also, I'll do a much better graphic to show the geometry of the lines of sight sometime, it will make it easier to understand for you.

Anyway, It seems this is all just distraction really, because the real question is still where are any photos of the Sun taken from Apollo, and why they did not take a photo, and why they never even talk about what the Sun looked like from cislunar space. If our own Sun is not visible, then neither are the Suns at much greater distances, which is what Armstrong said, it's black out there. Not one response to my previous question, because there are no reasonable answers.

a reply to: GaryN


if YOUR theory had any validity we would all be blind on the surface even with reflected light

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: GaryN


if YOUR theory had any validity we would all be blind on the surface even with reflected light

We would also be blinded by all the money and wealth and fame he would have by having overturned all of physics on its head. He would be one of the most famous physicist ever.

But since he's only posting on some Internet forum rather than shaking the world of science upside down, it's safe to assume he's not right.

a reply to: GaryN

Let's talk geometry, then. From the ISS perspective, at what angle from the horizontal does space appear? Does it appear suddenly or gradually? Why aren't there any ISS photos showing the stars dimming in the direction away from earth's limb?

What maths do you base your statement about extremely tenuous "atmosphere" up to 1000 km having enough molecules to create star light?

Looking forward to your answers and the graphic.

a reply to: wildespace

Let's talk geometry, then.

I'm sure you are perfectly capable of doing the geometry based on all the information available on the internet. NASA even provides 3D models that you can use to produce accurate simulations of all the geometry. With programs like 3DS Max, you can then choose different lenses, lighting, perspectives, motion, but this is time consuming and just another tactic to waste my time. You don't believe anything I say, so you should do it all yourself. Any 3D animator worth his salt should be able to do it, but of course they won't.

Why aren't there any ISS photos showing the stars dimming in the direction away from earth's limb?

You might notice the superstructure of the ISS at the top of the images showing the stars. NASA is an expert in deception, so the viewing angles from the Cupola were carefully calculated so as to not allow a view of where the stars begin to fade out, or where they can not be seen at all. They will not show a view looking away from Earth because it would be just black.

Tell you what though, I'll do a graphic of the viewing angles from the Cupola if you will provide an answer as to why the Apollo astronauts never photographed the Sun, or talked about how it appeared during a total of around 125 man-days in cislunar space. I'll even give Stars for creativity.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
Tell you what though, I'll do a graphic of the viewing angles from the Cupola if you will provide an answer as to why the Apollo astronauts never photographed the Sun, or talked about how it appeared during a total of around 125 man-days in cislunar space. I'll even give Stars for creativity.

Sure, any Sun-related commentaries by the Apollo guys can be searched for in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. For an example from Apollo 11:

034:17:58 Collins: Yes. Those are Buzz's two star charts that he is using right now as sun shades over the right-hand window, window Number 5.

034:18:07 Duke: Roger. We see the Sun shining in through it behind him and blotting out the equatorial - correction, ecliptic plane, and the stars that you're using for the navigation.

[...]
034:18:28 Aldrin: While we're pointing up in this direction, we see out our side windows the Sun going by and, of course, out one of our windows right now we've got the Earth. Now right behind my window, of course, we have the Sun, because the Sun is illuminating the star charts that we see.

history.nasa.gov...

So they saw the Sun, and it was shining through the window and illuminating things inside the Command Module.

Here's some more:

048:57:41 Collins: The Sun bounces off the LM structure. With the LM attached, that telescope is just about useless.

history.nasa.gov...

055:42:58 Aldrin: I'll open up the windows and see what the lighting condition's going to be like. [Long pause.]

055:43:24 Duke: 11, Houston. That's a real good view. We have the AOT. You're back now, Buzz, and notice you're taking down one of the window shades. Over.

055:43:36 Duke: The light is superb!

055:43:37 Aldrin: How's the Sun coming in? How's the Sun coming in from this direction going to affect what you can see?

055:43:44 Duke: It made it really super. The lighting is excellent in the - in the LM right now. We can make out the AOT, the ISA, and the left-hand window - there's a little glare off of that, but the LMP side the - with the shade down, it's really excellent. Over.

055:44:08 Aldrin: Well, let's - I'm turned around, why I took the shade off my side first.

055:44:16 Duke: Roger. We copy. The light level for the TV is really excellent. Over.

055:44:29 Armstrong: Yeah, the lighting in the LM is very nice now, just like completely daylit; and everything is visible. A good bit lighter than the tunnel was earlier.

history.nasa.gov...

So plenty of light there coming into the LM from the Sun.

That's just for starters, I'll let you do the exploratory work.

~~~

Regarding geometry, what I don't understant is how the ISS, which "rides" atop the red airglow (the topmost region of the atmosphere where the Sun interacts with air molecules) cannot get a view out above that level when looking sideways with wide-angle lens... When you're at the sea level and looking horizontally, is your whole view filled by the sea, or can you see what's above the horizon? The red airglow is the ISS' "horizon", and obviously you can see what's above it (that is, airless space) when looking horizontally.

a reply to: wildespace

So plenty of light there coming into the LM from the Sun.

Sure seems that way doesn't it?

That's just for starters, I'll let you do the exploratory work.

Oh, I did, and learned a lot. NASA deception again, and good enough to fool the masses, but not me! The clue is in this composite image show on the site you linked to.
history.nasa.gov...
That is a diffuse light coming through the window. The Sun against the blackness of space is supposedly a well defined, quite small, white object. Looking at other images, it can be noted that there are no shadows, indicating a diffuse source, but what is diffusing the sunlight? The window? Surely not, its optically clear so they can get good images. So looking at the A11 time line, and using Celestia, I can match the TV transmission times from Lunar approach, to the period when the line of sight to the Sun would be passing through the Lunar dust atmosphere. Then the short TV transmissions ocured at sunrise/set . We know just how much light is created in the interaction of solar radiation with the dust. This is from A12, but its the same effect.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
The TV transmission (early tv cameras needed a lot of light) from the Moon fit right in with the time periods when they would have lots of light available. Very deceptive, but very clever. So no star for you, as there is still no image of the Sun, and no description other than bright light.

Regarding geometry, what I don't understant is

..a lot. 8) I'll still do the 2D diagram, but not 3D model, unless I can find the one I already did for Shuttle animation, don't have time or patience to start from scratch again.

originally posted by: GaryN

That is a diffuse light coming through the window.

looks just overexposed to me.

it can be noted that there are no shadows,

or there could be more than one internal light source that is on.

p.s. i should add, before you go spout off about how NASA was lying and how you are correct, please tell us how you know the image is not overexposed and how there were no internal light sources on board to make shadows less prominant?

you obviously have alot of evidence to prove this otherwise you would not say NASA was deceiving everyone except you.

p.p.s.

I'll still do the 2D diagram

this shouldnt take you more than 5 minutes.........
and assuming a spherical earth, a 3d diagram is not even necessary since it would yield the exact same numbers as the 2d diagram.
sure has taken you a while.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
The clue is in this composite image show on the site you linked to.
history.nasa.gov...
That is a diffuse light coming through the window. The Sun against the blackness of space is supposedly a well defined, quite small, white object. Looking at other images, it can be noted that there are no shadows, indicating a diffuse source, but what is diffusing the sunlight? The window? Surely not, its optically clear so they can get good images.

In the bottom right of the composite image, you can see direct sunlight illuminating part of the LM. Here's the full image: www.flickr.com...



Also in that full image, you can see sunlight glancing off the edge of the LM window.

The Sun wasn't shining directly into the LM when these images were taken, it glanced across the windows, with only a little bit of direct sunlight getting through. But it was enough to create enough of that diffuse reflected light for those photos.

~~~

By the way, you're not giving yourself any credibility or weight with your rants against NASA and how they are "masters of deception". Let's discuss evidence at hand rather than fling subjective judgements around.

I consider Thomas Joseph Brown to be an expert in alternative science, which is the only science, in my opinion, that is worth the time of day at this point in history, unless the subject matter is not controversial.

Published on Feb 24, 2016

Can stars be seen in space? The answer depends on who one asks and is both 'yes' and 'no'. Even astronauts provide conflicting answers.

This is my Aetherforce interview of Sept 3, 2014 about my circa 1987 experience asking NASA for data of the dominant spectra of the Sun in the optical wavelengths as seen above the atmosphere and where that trail led. The lack of stars in space photos has long been noted, but now they are taken from the ISS.

Mirrored from: youtu.be...

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: ConnectDots
I consider Thomas Joseph Brown to be an expert in alternative science, which is the only science, in my opinion, that is worth the time of day at this point in history, unless the subject matter is not controversial.


Published on Feb 24, 2016

Can stars be seen in space? The answer depends on who one asks and is both 'yes' and 'no'. Even astronauts provide conflicting answers.

Sure astronauts gave conflicting information, because of the context in which they were. If their field of view was filled by a bright object, such as the Earth or Moon, then then would not easily see stars because their eyes would be acclimated to the brightness (smaller pupils, allowing less light in). If they were looking into just darkness, then their eyes would be acclimated to the darkness (larger pupils allowing in more light), and in those cases, they have seen stars.

Cameras even less so, because under their normal quick exposure times, cameras are not as light sensitive as a the human eye.

a reply to: ConnectDots

I consider Thomas Joseph Brown

Many thanks and a star for that. Had never heard of this guy before. Only had chance to watch the first 15 minutes so far, but sounds similar to my experience. I E-mailed NASA, Goddard and ESA asking for visible light images of the Sun from space and none of them could provide an image, much to the surprise of the lady from Goddard. No reply from NASA though. Then I asked at NPS in Monterrey and they said the only way to get a proper image was with an ND filter, but they had no images either. It should not be an ambiguous situation with star visibility though, it should be yes or no, not some people saw stars, some didn't, and the only logical conclusion, to me, is that it depends on the presence of the atmosphere and which way they were looking at the time. When a number of astronauts have said it is black when looking away from Earth, that should be sufficient proof. Will watch the rest when I get time. The view count for his videos is very low though, which is why perhaps with years of searching on this topic, I had never come accross his stuff.

@choos

this shouldnt take you more than 5 minutes.........

Shouldn't take anyone else 5 minutes either. I had posted a couple of images previously, but the scale is incorrect, there would actually be a longer column of atmosphere between observer and the stars than shown in my diagram, given the viewing geometry from the cupola. I'll correct them when I feel like it, but don't see why someone else cant get off their a$$ and do it, where's Super 3danimator2014 when there's work to be done?

a 3d diagram is not even necessary since it would yield the exact same numbers as the 2d diagram.

The 3D animation will let me look through the eyes of an astronaut in the Cupola, turn his head to get a 360 view, and use different lenses to compare with with the by-eye view. Then you will understand just how NASA manipulates the impressions we get with their photography.

a reply to: ConnectDots

The basic ideas of camera exposure and dark-adaptation for eyesight seem to be an unconquerable hurdle for some people, it seems.

a reply to: GaryN


It's full of stars

Nikon D3S 24mm f1.4 0.5 seconds iso 12800

Nikon full frame sensor cameras so a 24mm lens has a field of view of

Horizontal 74 degrees Vertical 53 degrees Diagonal 84 degrees.


Here is another image that shows YOU are wrong, Astronaut facing the Earth and Sun behind him !

Astronaut Selfie

Nikon D2XS 10.5 mm F11 1/500th sec iso 200

a reply to: wildespace

The basic ideas of camera exposure and dark-adaptation for eyesight seem to be an unconquerable hurdle for some people, it seems.

To see the brighter stars within 5 seconds or less after blinding yourself with bright light is an experiment we can
do at home. If the stars are as bright or brighter in space then the astronauts, with some of the best eyesight in
the world, should have been able to see them whenever a brief oportunity arose, and they should have been stunningly bright and plentiful during the low light level experiments.
The human eye is an incredible device, of that there is no doubt, and it used to be that we could see stars that
would require long exposures and fast film for the camera to see.I think the tables are almost, or maybe already
have turned, we now have cameras that can have the ISO (electron amplification) up to values that can show stars
with quite short exposures without introducing much noise at all. I wonder if the stars were visible to the naked
eye in the "It's full of stars" image WMD linked to?
I see Earth in the picture, so the stars are still being seen through the atmospheric band above the surface, and
they are using a 24mm Focal Length lens. WMDs second link seems to be using a fish-eye, so the Sun is also not too
high up either, with the Earth likely just out of shot. Oh, they're good at their job alright.

To choos, I have done a better diagram, weather suddenly turned bad on us so I had some time. Will post it tomorrow
sometime and you can give me an opinion and suggestions to make it clearer perhaps.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace

I see Earth in the picture, so the stars are still being seen through the atmospheric band above the surface, and they are using a 24mm Focal Length lens.

The Earth barely appears at the bottom of the image, so (considering the numbers wmd_2008 gave us) the top of the image in this camera view is almost 50 degrees up from earth's limb and into deep space!

A wide-angle lens, like that 24mm, is exactly what allows you to see more of deep space when looking (roughly) horizontally.

~~~
[snipped]