Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: tothetenthpower

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.

Communications are blocked also. Sorry if someone else already mentioned that.

Do you see stars from Earth when the Earth is turned toward the sun? But when an eclipse occurs then stars are visible for a short time.

Seems quite obvious to why.

originally posted by: SpongeBeard
a reply to: cooperton

I just want to say W T F.
I am befuddled by the first 2 pages.
I did not know this level of ignorance was possible.

what? Neil Armstrong claims that you cannot see stars from the moon. This observation is worth considering. He claims to have been on the moon when the sun was, and was not, shining on it. So, when the sun was not shining on the moon, he should have seen stars without optical interference from the bright sun. I am just pointing out empirical evidence. Sure you can defend it by images that were 90% created in image manipulation software, but you do not even know the angle at which these pictures were taken. As GaryN said:

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: oldworldbeliever

Yes astronauts have said they can see stars, and there are images too, but all those are looking sideways through Earths atmosphere, and not out into deep space. Only EVA astronauts can see deep space from the ISS, looking through the cupola windows is still looking sideways, but none of 200+ EVA astronauts has mentioned what space looks like looking away from Earth, no mention of the Moon, planets or stars.

This has been a great discussion so far, besides the people who thoughtlessly bash these interesting empirical observations. Is it a coincidence that the sun and moon have the same apparent size in the sky? Is it a coincidence that the moon is 27.3% the diameter of earth, and a lunar year is 27.3 days? is it a coincidence that the earth is 366% the diameter of the moon, and an earthly year is 365.24 days? These numbers fit phenomenally well despite there being no equation that equates planetary diameter to planetary cycles. We are living in an intelligent construct that is based off mathematics, and many have yet to consider consciousness in cosmic theory.

If some astronauts claim they cannot see stars, even when the sun is not interfering, I believe there is more to be discovered about the optics and nature of our universe. Thank you to all who have contributed valuable information on both sides of this debate.

originally posted by: cooperton

what? Neil Armstrong claims that you cannot see stars from the moon.

That is not what he said.

This observation is worth considering. He claims to have been on the moon when the sun was, and was not, shining on it.

No, he does not. He was on the surface of the moon when the sun was shining on it,

So, when the sun was not shining on the moon, he should have seen stars without optical interference from the bright sun.

Apart from the fact that when he was on it the sun was shining, when you are in lunar night on he near side the Earth is bright in the sky - that's how lunar phases work. Go out on a full moon and count how many stars you see.

I am just pointing out empirical evidence. Sure you can defend it by images that were 90% created in image manipulation software, but you do not even know the angle at which these pictures were taken.

Actually yes you do, because you can tell what stars are visible and you know when and where the photographs were taken, such as the ones of Venus taken in lunar orbit, and from the lunar surface. If you are claiming photo editing then you need to prove that, because all the photos I discuss from Apollo on my website were published long before photoshop ever existed,

As GaryN said:

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: oldworldbeliever

Yes astronauts have said they can see stars, and there are images too, but all those are looking sideways through Earths atmosphere, and not out into deep space.

Only EVA astronauts can see deep space from the ISS, looking through the cupola windows is still looking sideways, but none of 200+ EVA astronauts has mentioned what space looks like looking away from Earth, no mention of the Moon, planets or stars.

GaryN says a lot of things, most of it nonsense. I have already posted photographs of stars taken by astronauts from cislunar space looking into deep space. What happens is they get handwaved away, or they are the wrong stars, or the wrong deep space, or any other excuse that can be dreamed up to wriggle off the hook. Plenty of astronauts have described the view, it's just that Gary doesn't like to acknowledge them.

This has been a great discussion so far, besides the people who thoughtlessly bash these interesting empirical observations. Is it a coincidence that the sun and moon have the same apparent size in the sky?

Yes and no. Sometimes they have the same apparent size, sometimes they don't - it depends on what part of the orbit they coincide.

Is it a coincidence that the moon is 27.3% the diameter of earth, and a lunar year is 27.3 days?

A lunar year is not 27.3 days. A lunar day is not even 27.3 days. The diameter of the moon is 27.27% of the Earth. So what?

is it a coincidence that the earth is 366% the diameter of the moon, and an earthly year is 365.24 days? These numbers fit phenomenally well despite there being no equation that equates planetary diameter to planetary cycles. We are living in an intelligent construct that is based off mathematics, and many have yet to consider consciousness in cosmic theory.

Or they are just coincidences and you are looking for meaning where there is none. Intelligent design, should there be any, does not stop you seeing stars in space.

If some astronauts claim they cannot see stars, even when the sun is not interfering, [.quote]

They did not. Some of them may have said under specific circumstances they did not, then again under other sets of circumstances the same astronauts say they did. No astronaut has ever said that you can not see stars in space. Ever.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Did you even watch the video? In the first minute Neil says you can only see the sun and earth from the moon. Neil even mentions a time when the sun wass eclipsed when he was in cis-lunar space, yet he stands by his observation that the only thing visible to him was the sun and the earth. So the observation stands, Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon, claims you cannot see stars from the moon, even when the sun is eclipsed. Others have claimed to seen stars, which makes this idea even more thought-provoking. Further experimentation on angles and optics regarding star visibility would be interesting. I don't know how much more neutral I can get, but maybe consider other ideas before you start any chauvinistic ram-rodding:

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Is it a coincidence that the moon is 27.3% the diameter of earth, and a lunar year is 27.3 days?

A lunar year is not 27.3 days. A lunar day is not even 27.3 days. The diameter of the moon is 27.27% of the Earth. So what?

It takes 27.3 days, as observed from earth, for the moon to make a revolution around the earth. I appologize for my semantic slip. But wait, you're right! 27.27% is not 27.3%

and you're right it is probably a coincidence that the earth is also 366% the diameter of the moon, and in no way mathematically relating to the 365.24-day earthly year. And it is also just a coincidence that the moon perfectly eclipses the sun.

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a reply to: cooperton

And it is also just a coincidence that the moon perfectly eclipses the sun.

Actually, it doesn't.
The distance of the Moon from Earth varies, depending on the time of the month, from 364,397 km to 406,731 km, with an average of 384,748 km.

The distance of the Earth from the Sun also varies, depending on the time of year, from 152,097,701 km to 147,098,074km, with an average of 149,597,887.5 km.

So the ratio of the two orbits varies from 417 to 361 (a 15% variance), with an average of 388. The ratio of the sizes of the Sun and the Moon is about 400 so yes, occasionally the ratio of the distances is the same as the ratio in sizes (which would result in a "perfect" eclipse) but most of the time it is not. Most of the time an eclipse is annular. Sometimes the Moon covers more than the Sun. A "perfect" eclipse would be a very rare event.

the earth is also 366% the diameter of the moon

Actually, at the equator, it's 3.67 times the diameter of the Moon.

a reply to: 23432

It's like taking a walk through a museum of human-created weirdness. A kind of Alice in Wonderland of Cosmology.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Did you even watch the video? In the first minute Neil says you can only see the sun and earth from the moon.

When Neil was on the Moon, the Sun was shining on the surface and everything on it, making it as bright as daytime here on Earth. He wouldn't have been able to see stars. The astronauts even had to wear tinted visors to shield their eyes from all that bright light.

Neil even mentions a time when the sun wass eclipsed when he was in cis-lunar space, yet he stands by his observation that the only thing visible to him was the sun and the earth. So the observation stands, Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon, claims you cannot see stars from the moon, even when the sun is eclipsed.

But being in cislunar space is not the same as being on the Moon.

Others have claimed to seen stars, which makes this idea even more thought-provoking.

Apollo astronauts claimed to have seen stars, and they used them for navigation in cislunar space. So why are you and GaryN ignoring that fact, but piggy-backing that single statement by Neil?

Further experimentation on angles and optics regarding star visibility would be interesting. I don't know how much more neutral I can get, but maybe consider other ideas before you start any chauvinistic ram-rodding

I'm sure there have been plenty of optical experimentation in space. Many robotic spacecraft have cameras that photograph stars for navigation.

If stars and other sources of light were not visible in space, it would have been made known to the academic circles, and through them to the rest of population. But it's easier and more attractive to maintain that there's some sort of global conspiracy about this on the part of the academia (and not a single person would have ever leaked the "truth"), isn't it?

Someone on ATS has brought up the quote by an Apollo commander that he could see a deluge of stars when flying over the dark side of the Moon, so much so that the familiar constellations could hardly be distinguished among all those stars.

Yes, when looking through the sextant, but the sextant also detected the ice and debris following Apollo, so they needed the G&N computer to put the desired star in the cross-hairs so they could identify it. As Armstrong said, they never saw the stars without using the optics. The star star trackers are very sensitive to stray light, so it only clearly showed the stars while on the unlit side of the Moon.

As has already been mentioned (and which should be common knowledge), Apollo astronauts used a sextant to help navigation using stars:

And as was also mentioned by the astronauts, the sextant was "all but useless", because it saw so much junk. The 'anchor' object out there is obviously the Sun, and the G&N computer had 2 Sun sensors, course and fine, but for some reason the sensors do not use light, but 'solar radiation', but of what type?
This page is a little more detailed on the navigation:
spaceref.com...

GaryN says a lot of things, most of it nonsense.

No, you can only say "you think" most of it is nonsense, but without the tests, which you believe would be a waste of time, you do not know I speak nonsense. Any one of a number of simple, quick tests could prove or disprove my beliefs, but for some reason there is objection to experiments? Frightened of what the results might show? As Hadfield said, NASA does not give the EVA astronauts time to stop and look around, and on Hadfields ISS EVA, during the first 'night' while he was out there, he should have had an amazing view of most of the planets, and the Moon. What does he say? It's black out there, when looking away from Earth, and that is the most important criteria.
Cooperton has the right idea, if the reports of the astronauts are so mixed and confusing, do the experiments under scientifically accepted conditions. NASA never will, crowd source funding might work if enough people with OPEN and inquiring minds joined in. And I think there are many who would like to see NASA brought down a peg or two.

Edit to add:
Oh, and all that talk of how bright it was on the Moon, which is the excuse for them not being able to see stars?

Physicist whose work helped world see 1st moon walk dies

His research helped lead to a sensitive television camera tube that captured low-light lunar action during the 1969 moon landing and U.S. astronaut Neil Armstrong's historic first steps.

Read more at: phys.org...

a reply to: GaryN

How could the astronauts point the sextant's optics at a star if they couldn't see it with their own eyes first?

Are you also saying that they couldn't see the ice debris until they pointed the sextant's optics at it?

According to your theory, absolutely everything outside the CSLM would have been pitch black, i.e. no stars or debris at all to even start focusing on them.

Re: Hadfield's account of seeing blackness of space - just prior to mentioning that, he describes the "kaleidoscope" of earth, quite clearly implying he was over the day side of earth, with all the colours of it visible to him. That would have made impossible to see stars. mashable.com...

[Edit] The quote about "low-light lunar action" is interesting, I will investigate further. As far as I'm aware, there were no concerns about the level of light during the landing and Neil's first steps.

[Another edit] This article sheds more light (pun not intended) on the matter: spacewatchtower.blogspot.co.uk...
Basically, NASA were concerned with video picture quality, since there would be no artificial lighting available to help illuminate the lunar environment. I think this includes filming what's in the LM's shadow (which infact is where Neil's first steps on the Moon took place). So they were quite right in wanting as much light sensitivity in the camera as possible.

It's amazing how obtuse people can be to the simple facts of the human eye.
Take your own smart phone out into the bright sun shine.
Did some being suddenly block the images ? No!
The cell phone is still putting out the same amount of light.
It's just your eyes are overwhelmed by the sun.

The thread shouldn't have made past 3 posts let alone 4 pages.
Get a grip people. This ain't rocket science.

a reply to: GaryN

Oh, and all that talk of how bright it was on the Moon, which is the excuse for them not being able to see stars?

So, you think that sunlight is less bright on the Moon than it is on Earth?

a reply to: Phage

Are you going to school him on particles, refraction, and the earths atmosphere versus space in this regard?

a reply to: wildespace
The camera was designed for use in all phases of the mission.

Scenes will include views of astronauts moving in the spacecraft and on the lunar surface, the earth or moon from space, the lunar surface and the LM vehicle on the lunar surface. Light levels for these scenes will vary from partial earthshine on the moon to full sunlight (0.007 to 12,600 foot-lamberts)

www.hq.nasa.gov...

From my copy of 'An astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth', by Chris Hadfield, on the topic of his first EVA:

Holding onto the side of a spaceship that's moving around the Earth at 17500 mph, I could truly see the astonishing beauty of our planet, the infinite textures and colors. On the other side of me, the black velvet bucket of space, brimming with stars.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GaryN

Oh, and all that talk of how bright it was on the Moon, which is the excuse for them not being able to see stars?

So, you think that sunlight is less bright on the Moon than it is on Earth?

We dont know the true absolute light levels as they never used their exposure meter outside of the LM, ground control gave them the exposure settings they wanted for different shots. No lunar surface TSI measurements were taken either.

will vary from partial earthshine on the moon to full sunlight (0.007 to 12,600 foot-lamberts)

That page also says they used the SEC tube as the standard vidicon tube was not sensitive enough, but the vidicon is already an extremely sensitive, if very finnicky device, with very high quantum efficiency. But as always, we keep coming back to this he said-she said uncertainty about what could be seen or not seen. Do the experiments FFS.

a reply to: GaryN

We dont know the true absolute light levels as they never used their exposure meter outside of the LM, ground control gave them the exposure settings they wanted for different shots.

They had light meters? The exposure settings worked quite well, right? But what makes you think that Houston gave them settings?

That page also says they used the SEC tube as the standard vidicon tube was not sensitive enough, but the vidicon is already an extremely sensitive

Somewhat of a red herring there on your part. The low light capability was not really for use on the Moon's surface (plenty of light there) but the SEC tube was superior for other reasons as well.

The SEC tube had the capability to reproduce objects in motion, at low light levels, without the normal smearing produced by vidicon or image orthicon tubes.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Do the experiments FFS.

Just for you? Ok.
Of course, I'm sure you would accept the results. Right?

originally posted by: cooperton
Apparently, stars can't be seen from outer space:

www.wildheretic.com...

Most compelling evidence in the link above is the guy who sky dived from outer spaced and said everything was so dark. Even Neil Armstrong said that the universe was dark and you could only see the earth and the sun from the moon (he says it in the first minute of this video):

Where do the stars go? Some would say that it is the atmosphere that acts as a lens to allow us to see the stars at ground level, but I dont think this is valid. If this were true, then this would mean that the sun would be more intense at ground level than outside the atmosphere, which it is not. Outside the atmosphere the sun radiates about 1.3kW/m^2, whereas at the earth's surface this power dissipates to about 1 kW/m^2. So, maybe stars, and the universe, are not what we think they are. Any thoughts?

***In terms of some astronauts being able to see the stars, and some not, maybe it is a matter of where you are positioned in relation to the moon?

have you seen the tweets from the ISS? when they are in earth's shadow they see all the stars, now why do you think that is?

i'll give you a hint, it has something to do with our iris

do the stars in this picture from @astrosamantha look familiar

twitter.com...

it was taken in space just a few days ago

can you guess the constellation?