Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: GaryN

originally posted by: wildespace

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.

~~~

I've never seen a more weaseling person than you; even the moon hoax believers pale in comparison to you.

Exactly why I gave the figures also his comment re the other picture is BS.


Astronaut Selfie

The Earth is directly in front of the Astronaut (you see the reflection GaryN OR DID THAT ESCAPE YOU) the Sun is behind so it CAN'T be low down as GaryN claims

originally posted by: GaryN

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?

you were the one that said you wanted to do it.. that was several days ago already..

if i use the ISS average AMSL height of 412km and your claim that the atmosphere extends to about 1000km AMSL.

the furthest they should see stars through an atmosphere is about 6035km looking at earths horizon.
looking out horizontally it is about 2884km less than half..

so really we should be atleast seeing twice as many stars near earths horizon and dropping off visibly as the view is eventually blocked by the space station..

and thats not considering that majority of the atmosphere is close to the surface..
so we really should be seeing alot more than double the amount of visible stars near earths horizon according to your theory.

a reply to: wmd_2008

the Sun is behind so it CAN'T be low down as GaryN claims

Yes, they are using their favourite fish-eye lens, very difficult to tell where anything is. I cant link to the exif because of the baords strange functioning, so you have to enter the URL at the exif site. That button bar tool is real handy though.

regex.info...

And that's not what Celestia shows me (a high sun) but the time zone is not specified in the Exif file. I think the Sun probably will be visible a lot higher up than the stars, there is obviously a much greater level of solar radiation form the Sun than from the stars, so it's kind of like how the Moon and Venus can be visible during the day, just lots of oomph, if you like.
en.es-static.us...
From:
earthsky.org...

On the other hand, observers with telescopes can see certain bright stars (not to mention the bright planets) on any clear day, although the scientific reasons for doing so are few and far between.

Yes, they don't understand what is going on because they don't understand the real processes occurring in the atmosphere.

And here is a LOS diagram, though it probably doesn't mean much to you guys. I have allowed that they can see 90 degrees from the perpendicular, the line through the centre of the Earth, though with the ISS infrastructure blocking the view to some degree, it is probably less. The angled line through the atmosphere would be the LOS through the red airglow layer, and shows the depth of the column of atmosphere that the distant starlight would travel through, much longer than when looking away from Earth of course. I'll put in more layers to show what is known about the composition of the atmosphere at altitude, and will go out to 10,000 km or so, though technically the Earths estended atmosphere goes out to where it meets the Moons extended atmosphere.
www3.telus.net...
Atmosheric structure:
www.physics.usyd.edu.au...

a reply to: GaryN

GaryN you don't need the time zone look at the image of the Earth in the Astronauts visor what does that tell YOU.

You asked for an image of the Sun taken by a camera pointing away from the Earth this meets your request what you see in that image proves that.

Also due to exposure settings already given twice the image of the sun is over exposed.

Now at this point once again like MANY times in the past you will move the goal posts.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Now at this point once again like MANY times in the past you will move the goal posts.

Yes, I'll move them back to looking for a photo of the Sun from the Apollo missions, I'm on pretty safe ground there.

how is this still a thing ?

wasn't pointing out that our sun is a star the end of the thread ?

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
how is this still a thing ?

wasn't pointing out that our sun is a star the end of the thread ?

I know. It's mind boggling that's ridiculous thread has reached 40 pages lol

a reply to: syrinx high priest

wasn't pointing out that our sun is a star the end of the thread ?

No. Because you cannot see the Sun in space.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: syrinx high priest

wasn't pointing out that our sun is a star the end of the thread ?

No. Because you cannot see the Sun in space.

Ah yes. That's right.

a reply to: Phage

No. Because you cannot see the Sun in space.

Well there you go, Phage agrees with me, and he's never wrong.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: Phage

No. Because you cannot see the Sun in space.

Well there you go, Phage agrees with me, and he's never wrong.

True.
He is, however, often sarcastic.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wmd_2008
Yes, they are using their favourite fish-eye lens,

The Flickr page has the Exif and says that it's a 10.5 mm focal length. While considered a fish-eye lens, it doesn't look like most fish-eye photos I've seen. Ignore the warped reflection in the astronaut's visor, and look at how he appears in the photo himself. It looks like a normal wide-angle photo to me.

Although you're right in that the Sun isn't shining straight down; judging by the reflected image in the visor, the Sun is about 45 degrees above the earth's limb... still high enough to tell us that its light is visible in space without any "help" from the atmosphere.

Thanks for posting the LOS graphic. While you keep insiting that photos from the Cupola have their view angled down at Earth, many photos I posted in this thread are completely horizontal or even pointed somewhat upwards.

Giving the extremely rarefied exosphere the ability to show a blindingly bright Sun is clutching at straws, if you ask me. If the Sun is so bright when looking from LEO almost upwards, we'd be all fried on the ground level.

a reply to: wildespace

It's taken using a Nikon D2 camera which has an APS-C sensor and a crop factor of 1.5 so effective focal length is 15.75mm so thats the reason it doesn't look like a fisheye lens.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wmd_2008
Yes, I'll move them back to looking for a photo of the Sun from the Apollo missions, I'm on pretty safe ground there.

There are Apollo photos of the Sun from the lunar surface, but I think what you're looking for is the same but from cislunar space.

Which begs a question: why would anyone in the CM point their camera out of the window and directly at the Sun? What would they have hoped to achieve by doing this?

~~~

But let's ask Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell about what can be seen from cislunar space:

"The spacecraft was oriented perpendicular to the plane that contains the Earth, the Moon and the Sun. Not flying perpendicular to that plane – but moving through it back to Earth. 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."

Also read the whole page here: books.google.co.uk...

a reply to: wildespace

There are Apollo photos of the Sun from the lunar surface, but I think what you're looking for is the same but from cislunar space.

Exactly. The Sun was only visible from the Lunar surface because of the lunar dust atmosphere. As was the Earth I believe, but that's for another time.

Which begs a question: why would anyone in the CM point their camera out of the window and directly at the Sun? What would they have hoped to achieve by doing this?

Why would they point their cameras directly at the Sun, numerous times, from the Lunar surface? What were they trying to achieve by this? And if there was no atmosphere on the Moon, then the Sun should have been just as dangerous to look at as they were told it was from space, and not to look at it.

But let's ask Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell about what can be seen from cislunar space:

It's a strange affair for sure that Mitchells account was so different to Armstrongs with regards to what was visible out there. The other astronauts basically kept quiet about the discrepancy. Getting into some weirder stuff, Mitchell was certainly a Freemason, as were quite a few other astronauts, but Armstrong supposedly not, though he did display a ring, likely his fathers, that in this image most certainly seems to be a Masonic one.

www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21514531299/in/album-72157659051355812/

What has Freemasonry got to do with it? Good question, wish I knew, but that Armstrong was part of the large Stan Hall lead team that went on the Tayos expedition, with Masons and Mormons and Military personnel, looking for the Metal Library, supposedly of alien origin, suggests that he did have Masonic ties.

www.goldlibrary.com...&%20neil.jpg

Armstrong was one of 25 astronauts, including Mitchell who claim having seen UFOs, and Armstrong was supposedly under threat of death if he was to say anything more. His weird speech in 1974 supports, to me, the idea that he could not say anything directly, and got as close to saying anything as he could without crossing the line.

www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Neil_Armstrong_Disclosure.html

So the fact that NASA will not conduct the simple experiments needed to determine what is visible out there, under various conditions and from different locations, and will not or can not show us a photo of the Sun from cislunar space, just adds to the whole puzzle. If the Sun is not visible from Cislunar space, obviously they could not take a photo, but if it is visible, perhaps it looks so strange, as the Russian astronauts reported, that it would need a lot of 'splainin' from NASA as to why. One suggestion is that it would appear as a small pink/red dot. If NASA will not do the experiments, what about a Kickstarter attempt? Seems like there is an interest in looking at a Sun with maybe a Dyson sphere around it, what about a mission to examine our own Sun? Probably best not to poke the Bull though.
titanicbrassblog.files.wordpress.com...

Edit: Sorry, can't figure out this Mosad software the board uses, so have put some links in quotes so you can copy and paste them.
Edit again: No, just wont accept some characters even in quotes, I give up.
@phage

He is, however, often sarcastic.

Ah, but you didn't use a winky or something, so now I have your statement in black and white, or light and dark grey anyway. 8)

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace

There are Apollo photos of the Sun from the lunar surface, but I think what you're looking for is the same but from cislunar space.

Exactly. The Sun was only visible from the Lunar surface because of the lunar dust atmosphere. As was the Earth I believe, but that's for another time.

So, just to be clear...the incredibly tenuous and slight lunar dust "atmosphere" is enough to make the sun visible the same way the incredibly rich and dense earth atmosphere does?

Surely, if your theory was true then because of the tiny amount of lunar dust, the sun would be very dimply visible?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Surely, if your theory was true then because of the tiny amount of lunar dust, the sun would be very dimply visible?

It seems the nanometre sized grains in the lunar atmosphere produce a lot of light, full visible wavelength spectrum, when struck by Solar EUV/UV radiation. This was confirmed by LADEE, and has also been demonstrated in lab experiments on Earth. It's a single step process on the Moon, but Earths atmosphere is much different and much more complex. Again, experiments are the only way to test what is visible or not at increasing altitudes, all the way out to clear, or nearly clear space. There will always be some particles even in the hard vacuum, protons and electrons anyway, but not enough to make anything visible.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Surely, if your theory was true then because of the tiny amount of lunar dust, the sun would be very dimply visible?

It seems the nanometre sized grains in the lunar atmosphere produce a lot of light, full visible wavelength spectrum, when struck by Solar EUV/UV radiation. This was confirmed by LADEE, and has also been demonstrated in lab experiments on Earth. It's a single step process on the Moon, but Earths atmosphere is much different and much more complex. Again, experiments are the only way to test what is visible or not at increasing altitudes, all the way out to clear, or nearly clear space. There will always be some particles even in the hard vacuum, protons and electrons anyway, but not enough to make anything visible.

OK. Do you have any maths to back up what you are saying?

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
Why would they point their cameras directly at the Sun, numerous times, from the Lunar surface? What were they trying to achieve by this?

They were taking panoramas of the lunar surface; the appearance of the Sun in the frame was just a byproduct of that.

And if there was no atmosphere on the Moon, then the Sun should have been just as dangerous to look at as they were told it was from space, and not to look at it.

They had their tinted visors down, so it wasn't as dangerous as it would have been without those.

It's a strange affair for sure that Mitchells account was so different to Armstrongs with regards to what was visible out there.

Armstrong was answering the question about whether he could see stars from the lunar surface. I've shown you numerous transcripts and accounts about how the Apollo astronauts could see a multitude of stars from cislunar space and in lunar orbit.

If the Sun is not visible from Cislunar space, obviously they could not take a photo, but if it is visible, perhaps it looks so strange, as the Russian astronauts reported, that it would need a lot of 'splainin' from NASA as to why. One suggestion is that it would appear as a small pink/red dot.

You like inventing stuff as you go along, don't you? I've shown you photos and transcripts where the bright, white sunlight enters the CM or LM windows and provides a nice illumination of the interior.