Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

Next we're gonna be hearing from people that tell us that putting the inside of a floppy disk over your lens allows you to see Planet X and the Twin Sun...

Oh wait, that already happened... here on ATS.........

As a comment on the alleged lack of experimentation as to what can be seen with the naked eye compare with optics and cameras (apart from the fact that it's obvious), considerable work was done in the early design for the Apollo sextant and telescope optics by modelling what they believed would be visible and looking at the impact of contamination and design features.

The end result of that work was to actually try and design a telescope that let less light in to counteract the problems likely to result from excess glare from sun, earth or moon, or all of them. I came across a document discussing it at the NASA technical Reports Server, but neglected to save the link. You'll have to take my word for it, or look for it yourself.

Apollo 9 tested out the theories in orbit with the real thing, and you can read the results of their testing how visible things were by eye and optics in the mission transcipts.

Most Apollo mission technical debriefs cover what could be seen, and most complained about the telescope optics but praised the sextant, and how frustrating it was to be able to see clear constellations out of the window but not through the telescope. I've added these quotes to the end of my page on star quotations from Apollo:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

Here's my favourite on from Alan Bean:

Star, Earth visibility was interesting. We could always see stars at the upper rendezvous window. We could see Dick go by us also.

He's talking about the view from inside the lunar module on the lunar surface. Dick is going by in the CSM in lunar orbit.

As a final contribution, here is Orion photographed from the Space Shuttle cargo bay in 1990:



It's a constellation you can see with your eyes on Earth and in space (as discussed often by Apollo astronauts), and the physics of seeing it and photographing it are the same in space as they are on the ground.

a reply to: wildespace

This video might be of interest here: www.youtube.com... Space Station Live: Shooting the Moon

That video features another staged shot of the Moon. There are no windows facing deep space, sideways is the best you get. The moon image from that video is not showing the nearby rim of the Earth, which in that image is above the Moon, as the window is below the main body of the ISS, which blocks any view of deep space.
Here's a pretty picture of Harmony on its way to the ISS. You see if you were to crop the image you could make it look like the Moon is in deep space, and I can show you images where that has been done before, many times.

www.flickr.com...

Similarly with the Sun. What does it really look like from orbit? We see lots of spiky white blobs, again usually with Earths rim in view, and we have seen it from the Lunar surface, low to the horizon, looking like a big round object, way larger than it should be through the lens they used. So these are lens effects then, but what does the Sun really look like in space? How would you image it? Well, I asked the folk at NPS in Monterey and they said to use a neutral density filter, reduces all wavelengths equally so you get the real colour. Well, has anyone ever taken a camera with an ND filter out on an EVA?
No excuses about long exposures or hand held cameras is valid, the exposure time for an image of the Sun through a 10 stop ND filtered camera from Earth is 1/8000 sec. But of course, what a waste of time, we know what the Sun looks like in space, it will be the same as from Earth, but white instead of the yellow/orange cuased by the atmosphere. Really, why waste 1/8000 sec. to confirm what we already know? Well, if that's how you all think, then it shows a total lack of interest in real investigative science. If the astronauts themselves couldn't agree on what space looks like, then we need to do the experiments to clear up the confusion.

@OBM

As a final contribution, here is Orion photographed from the Space Shuttle cargo bay in 1990:

Yes, do the simple geometry, the UV 'scope is looking into deep space, the image is again looking sideways through the atmosphere. How long an exposure?
You guys are so gullible it's unreal. Simple experiments would blow the whole scam wide open, which is why they are not done. Saying "it's obvious, so we don't need no stinkin'experiments" is pathetic.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace

That video features another staged shot of the Moon. There are no windows facing deep space

The window of the Node 2 zenith port looks out directly away from Earth. That's why it's called "zenith", as opposed to "nadir" (i.e. down-facing) or "port" and "starboard" (left and right).

a reply to: wildespace
Much of destiny is under the truss, and there are no windows listed looking outwards. This is the vew from underneath.
en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:USOS_window_identification.png

The Russian segment has lots of windows, surely one must look outwards. Notice there is no mention of window 11. Anywhere.

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:ROS_Windows_0114_complete.jpg

But if there are outward looking windows, what is the excuse for no astrophotography? Maybe they have to keep them covered so that blazing sun doesn't heat up the module? Let's see that sun streaming through a porthole, just for a second, just so we know what it looks like. Aw, come on NASA, be a sport for once.

OK. forget the above image links, can't get images to post on this BBS (and it brings my system to a crawl and crashes Firefox eventually) so you have to go to the wiki ISS page, select 3 Station Structure, and the link to the window images is at the right. You'll no doubt all be glad to hear though that I am so pi$$ed with this BBS software that I probably wont be back much, or not to try and post anything but text, just too frustrating and time consuming.

originally posted by: irgust
a reply to: cooperton
If the stars can't be seen in space how does the hubble telescope take pictures of stars?

We are talking about seeing stars with the naked eye ... of course the Hubble Telescope sees so much more ... it being a telescope ... No one is saying the stars are not there only that they seem to disappear as witnessed by those who go into space ... What causes this is the question

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
Much of destiny is under the truss.

Node 2 is the "Harmony" module, which is located right at the front of the ISS as it orbits Earth, and there are no trusses obstructing it.



Fact remains that an astronaut took a photo of the Moon looking directly away from Earth, but you'll fight to the death to try to claim otherwise. You've also been shown photos of the Sun facing directly away from Earth, but now you've shifted from "you can't see anything in deep space" to "the Sun doesn't appear the same in space as it does on Earth or the Moon".

But if there are outward looking windows, what is the excuse for no astrophotography?

Who's to say there aren't any astrophotos taken through outwards-facing windows? This article features a photo of the LMC that, I suspect, was taken through such a window.

(Incidentally, it also mentions that photographing stars from the ISS is easier than photographing night cities on Earth, because stars aren't obstructed by the atmosphere.)

P.S. This board is funny, it decided to censor the word "window", replacing it with _

Here's what we have so far:

No astronaut has ever seen a star in space.
What about this one who says he did?
That one doesn't count.
Why not?
Because of some arbitrary criterion that I just made up to ensure that it doesn't.
What about this one?
That one doesn't count.
Why not?
Because of some arbitrary criterion that I just made up to ensure that it doesn't.
What about this one?
That one doesn't count?
Why not?
Because of some arbitrary criterion that I just made up to ensure that it doesn't.

Repeat ad nauseam..

No photographs have been taken by a human of stars in space.
What about this one?
That one doesn't count.
Why not?
Because of some arbitrary criterion that I just made up to ensure that it doesn't.
What about this one?
That one doesn't count.
Why not?
Because of some arbitrary criterion that I just made up to ensure that it doesn't.
What about this one?
That one doesn't count?
Why not?
Because of some arbitrary criterion that I just made up to ensure that it doesn't.

Repeat ad nauseam..

This thread no longer has any point to it - you can't discuss anything when the goalposts keep moving.

Astronauts repeatedly discuss seeing stars, and planets, in space. Fact.
Astronauts have repeatedly photographed stars and planets in space. Fact.

The physics that allow us to see a photon of light and photograph it are the same - they have to be, or we wouldn't have worked out how to photograph them.

You can't completely fabricate new physical models just to cover up a lack of understanding about the existing physical models.

I guess the conclusion I come to is this ... Stars are more difficult to see in space than on Earth ... this could be due to the light saturation of the Sun or some optical illusion such as lensing ... whatever it is interesting

"There was a pie shaped section of the orbit where I was over the horizon from both the Earth and the sun and that made a huge difference in the universe. Instead of seeing 37 of the brightest stars, which were our navigation stars, I saw a sheet of light, hundreds of thousands of millions more stars than we can see from the Earth."

Al Worden - www.youtube.com...

a reply to: onebigmonkey

No astronaut has ever seen a star in space. What about this one who says he did? That one doesn't count. Why not? Because of some arbitrary criterion that I just made up to ensure that it doesn't

It is not arbitrary. Yes, stars are visible if looking through Earths atmosphere, but not if looking outwards, as the atmosphere above the ISS is too sparse to provide the generation of enough photons for the eye (and brain) to register. With long enough exposure and very sensitive instruments, stars would be detectable looking outwards, but they would not be detectable by eye.
Artistpoet has the right idea, I am not saying there are no stars, just that they would not be visible by eye. That no experiments have been done to sort this whole issue out is deplorable, and the NASA worshipers must be scared of what carefully controlled experiments would show, otherwise I imagine they'd be eager to prove the nut-jobs wrong. And the experiments could be performed in minutes while on EVA, no great strain on NASAs budget. Why don't they do experiments outside of the ISS? Oh, space is extremely dangerous, you just don't go messing around out there, have to hold on for dear life and avoid looking out into space at all costs, that Sun would fry your eyeballs in an instant. Well, tell that to the Gemini astronauts with their ride-em-cowboy EVAs and swinging around on tethers.
0.tqn.com...
Even the MMU is now "too dangerous" to be used. Why? Looks like fun to me.
2.bp.blogspot.com...
So no, we can't never do experiments, like seeing what a prism does out there, or take a picture of the Sun through an ND filter, or a pin-hole camera, or catch a Moon and planets conjunction (which we can see from Earth, so why bother, I know...)or have ANY fun whatsoever. Well space exploration is going to be eternally boring then, and space tourism will be a total flop.
@wildespace

Who's to say there aren't any astrophotos taken through outwards-facing windows? This article features a photo of the LMC that, I suspect, was taken through such a

You suspect was taken from an outward facing window. Proof is required.

This video from Saturday Morning science has some Milky Way images and stars, taken from a window mounted camera, but which window? If there are outward facing windows, why don't they tell us that? Show us the Sunlight, or better still, Moonlight coming through that window. Or is that just more frivolous time wasting? On their free time, you don't think some of the astronauts would like to do stuff like that? I sure as hell would.

www.youtube.com...

"There was a pie shaped section of the orbit where I was over the horizon from both the Earth and the sun and that made a huge difference in the universe. Instead of seeing 37 of the brightest stars, which were our navigation stars, I saw a sheet of light, hundreds of thousands of millions more stars than we can see from the Earth

."

Through the optics, yes. Must have just done a waste dump. You and I are never going to agree on any of this without the performing of experiments, and experiments are what science is about, but not what NASA is about it seems.

originally posted by: GaryN

It is not arbitrary. Yes, stars are visible if looking through Earths atmosphere, but not if looking outwards, as the atmosphere above the ISS is too sparse to provide the generation of enough photons for the eye (and brain) to register. With long enough exposure and very sensitive instruments, stars would be detectable looking outwards, but they would not be detectable by eye.

And yet you have numerous examples of photographs and observations specifically not looking through the atmosphere. Your suggestion is absolute unfounded nonsense.

Artistpoet has the right idea, I am not saying there are no stars, just that they would not be visible by eye.

Which is not true, and has been demonstrated to you to be true numerous times.

That no experiments have been done to sort this whole issue out is deplorable,

Firstly, as I pointed to you, a lot of work was done prior to final design of Apollo's optics to work out what would be visible by eye compared with through the optics, and to try and mitigate the effects of glare through the optics, coupled with the work of Apollo's orbital missions to test out those optics. Secondly, go ahead, design the experiment for us. It is not deplorable that NASA hasn't done a pointless stupid waste of time, you are making a mountain out of a non-existent molehill to try and justify your crackpot theory.

and the NASA worshipers must be scared of what carefully controlled experiments would show, otherwise I imagine they'd be eager to prove the nut-jobs wrong.

The problem with proving nutjobs wrong is that no matter how many times you demonstrate to them that they are both wrong and nutjobs, the fact that they are nutjobs precludes them from accepting that they are wrong. Once again I will point out that NASA is not the only agency involved in space exploration, and the laws of physics were not drawn up by them, and that defending science against stupidity is not worship of NASA. I have no loyalty towards it, I'm not American, I don't care what it does. What I do care about is not letting unsupported gibberish being mistaken for fact.

And the experiments could be performed in minutes while on EVA, no great strain on NASAs budget. Why don't they do experiments outside of the ISS? Oh, space is extremely dangerous, you just don't go messing around out there, have to hold on for dear life and avoid looking out into space at all costs, that Sun would fry your eyeballs in an instant. Well, tell that to the Gemini astronauts with their ride-em-cowboy EVAs and swinging around on tethers. Even the MMU is now "too dangerous" to be used. Why? Looks like fun to me.
2.bp.blogspot.com...

I suggest you ask a Gemini astronaut how much fun they were. Those tethers were hard work. If want to hear a Gemini astronaut's view, how about this one from Michael Collins:

“My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady.”

(my emphasis).

So no, we can't never do experiments, like seeing what a prism does out there, or take a picture of the Sun through an ND filter, or a pin-hole camera, or catch a Moon and planets conjunction (which we can see from Earth, so why bother, I know...)or have ANY fun whatsoever. Well space exploration is going to be eternally boring then, and space tourism will be a total flop.

They aren't there to have fun, or to prove your non-existent version of physics. They have taken plenty of photographs of stars and planets looking out from Earth not looking through atmosphere, you just choose to pretend you haven't seen them, or dismiss them with some arbitrary goalpost move.

Stars are visible in space. Here, again, is my webpage with the observations of people who have said they are:

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

Through the optics, yes. Must have just done a waste dump. You and I are never going to agree on any of this without the performing of experiments, and experiments are what science is about, but not what NASA is about it seems.

No. That is not true, watch the video (about 49 minutes in). He is specifically talking about the view of stars with his own eyes. He was talking about it in the context of the likely existence of other intelligence out there. It would be nice if we could find it on Earth first. He has said similar things many many times, as have other astronauts concerning the view behind the moon. This is precisely what I meant by my post above - you demand proof, you get it, then you make up some nonsense that you claim allows you to dismiss the proof.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

onebigmonkey.comoj.com...

07 19 34 50 CDR It's a real pretty sight; we got the sunrise, "yewpiter", and then the moon, all within about 8 degrees of each other.

Sunrise, so they are viewing close to the surface, through an atmosphere, whether it be gas or dust.

00 07 05 19 CMP Okay, the daylight star check, started out about 10 seconds prior to the official sunrise

,

Sunrise.

08 02 30 14 CMP Hey, Jim, the two Magellanic Clouds are right out the front window.

Where are they? Which way are they looking?

04 12 55 39 CDR Who said you couldn't look out the AOT and - and -and see this thing? Hell, I can see the stars in broad daylight with the cockpit lights up.

Which is how it should be, so why all the talk about needing to be in blackout and dark adapted? I can see stars or planets from a brightly floodlit ice surface on a night skate. From the Lunar surface the brighter stars and certainly Venus should be easy to see.

...The Sun is just about set

Looking through an ionosphere again

00 00 42 28 CDR Well, I'm seeing it ... I'm seeing airglow, Stu. I can see the stars on the other side of

it.

Through airglow, yes we see that often from the ISS.

03 15 19 30 LMP And, Houston, looking to the north, we see the same view. It's a very sharply defined horizon. I can see the stars.

Horizon. Atmosphere.

00 02 04 30 LMP Look at the way the stars show up in the daytime

.
In the daytime??

00 02 55 21 LMP Bob, that glow is actually above the horizon, Just in case you're curious. I can see - stars below

More atmosphere.

“Outside my window I can see stars - and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars” Michael Collins, Carrying the fire, discussing orbiting the mo

on

Stars seen through the Lunar ionospere/dust.

My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady.” Michael Collins, Carrying the fire, discussing a Gemini spacewal

k.

Yes, facing the Earth, looking sideways and up and down, to that obscure horizon. Earths horizon.

“It’s really, really eerie, because it’s so black. When you’re out of the sight of the Earth and the sun, it’s really black. The only thing you can tell is the Moon must be there because there aren’t any stars over there and there’s stars over here, so somewhere between those two is where the limb of the Moon is.” TK Mattingly, Oral History

.

Limb of the Moon. Atmosphere.

Armstrong: I suspect that it (Mars) was, in fact, just immediately adjacent to the horizo

n.

Neil understood exactly what was going on. You need an atmosphere to make Mars visible, the Lunar one will do, but only for a very short time when it is being viewed through that atmosphere.

With most of these accounts, there is no way to tell exactly where they were, which way they were looking, the geometry of the Sun with regards to the Earth or Moon. Stars will be visible whenever the circumstances are correct. The only test I will accept is when all the conditions are known, and the appropriate experiments are performed. You have only hear-say and circumstantioal evidence. I want real science, recorded, documented, repeatable. Enough of this useless, unproductive bickering. Experiments are the only way to resolve the issue, NASA won't do them, someone else WILL, eventually.

a reply to: GaryN

as you ignored it first time :




source

the light emmitted // reflected by a celestial body IS visible in space

thus demolishing your entire premise - QED

get over it and stop demanding that other people pander to your ignorance and scientific illiteracy

originally posted by: GaryN
It's a real pretty sight; we got the sunrise, "yewpiter", and then the moon, all within about 8 degrees of each other.
Sunrise, so they are viewing close to the surface, through an atmosphere, whether it be gas or dust.

Wrong. At the time of viewing they are just past the Carribean. The Moon and Jupiter are waaaay above the sun, well above any atmosphere. Check it for yourself in Stellarium.

Hey, Jim, the two Magellanic Clouds are right out the front window.

Where are they? Which way are they looking?

Do some of your own research. The LMC is a deep sky object. At the time they called it they were over the Indian Ocean. Hint: They are not looking through an atmosphere.

04 12 55 39 CDR Who said you couldn't look out the AOT and - and -and see this thing? Hell, I can see the stars in broad daylight with the cockpit lights up.

Which is how it should be, so why all the talk about needing to be in blackout and dark adapted? I can see stars or planets from a brightly floodlit ice surface on a night skate. From the Lunar surface the brighter stars and certainly Venus should be easy to see.

So you're disagreeing with the fact that he's agreeing with you? Notice he's talking about looking through optics. Please try and get your head around the fact that although the sky is black, they are in daylight on a brightly lit surface.

...The Sun is just about set

Looking through an ionosphere again

Your cherry picking is letting you down. They are behind the moon. No ionosphere.

03 15 19 30 LMP And, Houston, looking to the north, we see the same view. It's a very sharply defined horizon. I can see the stars.

Horizon. Atmosphere.

Apollo 14 Orbiting the moon. No atmosphere. Pay attention.

00 02 04 30 LMP Look at the way the stars show up in the daytime

In the daytime??

Yes. The daytime.

“Outside my window I can see stars - and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars” Michael Collins, Carrying the fire, discussing orbiting the moon


Stars seen through the Lunar ionospere/dust.

Really? Where does he say the only stars he can see are in the immediate vicinity of the moon?

My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady.” Michael Collins, Carrying the fire, discussing a Gemini spacewalk

Yes, facing the Earth, looking sideways and up and down, to that obscure horizon. Earths horizon.

And above him. Up. Away from Earth and the horizon and the atmosphere. Read all the words, not just your favourite ones.

“It’s really, really eerie, because it’s so black. When you’re out of the sight of the Earth and the sun, it’s really black. The only thing you can tell is the Moon must be there because there aren’t any stars over there and there’s stars over here, so somewhere between those two is where the limb of the Moon is.” TK Mattingly, Oral History

Limb of the Moon. Atmosphere.

Again, show me where he says he's only talking about stars being visible adjacent to the moon.

Armstrong: I suspect that it (Mars) was, in fact, just immediately adjacent to the horizon

Neil understood exactly what was going on. You need an atmosphere to make Mars visible, the Lunar one will do, but only for a very short time when it is being viewed through that atmosphere.

BS. Pure and simple.

With most of these accounts, there is no way to tell exactly where they were, which way they were looking, the geometry of the Sun with regards to the Earth or Moon.

There is a way of telling which way they're looking - you get astronomy software and find out. You read the transcripts and work it out. For the ones where it isn't clear you've still managed to make your mind up.

Stars will be visible whenever the circumstances are correct.

Quite right. However this does not require an atmosphere. Your theory is wrong.

The only test I will accept is when all the conditions are known, and the appropriate experiments are performed. You have only hear-say and circumstantioal evidence.

Which is more than you have. You demand statements from astronauts, you get given them, you ignore them or cherry pick the ones you think prove you right. My page, for info, was not done for your benefit - hence the inclusion of quotes about stars when they clearly are in airglow or atmosphere. Interesting which quotes you left out.

I want real science, recorded, documented, repeatable. Enough of this useless, unproductive bickering. Experiments are the only way to resolve the issue, NASA won't do them, someone else WILL, eventually.

Real science knows you have no understanding of physics.

Just to clarify, in the video interview Mr. Armstrong did not say stars and planets were not visible from cislunar space, only that the sky is deep black on the moon as it is in cislunar space. Below is the transcript.

The sky is deep black as it is viewed from the moon just as it is from cislunar 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. The earth is quite beautiful...

a reply to: GaryN

Are you serious? We've been through all this before. Here's a classic:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ignorant_ape

a reply to: GaryN as you ignored it first time :

The Lunar surface looks pretty dull in that image, but the Earth is quite bright.

the light emmitted // reflected by a celestial body IS visible in space thus demolishing your entire premise - QED

No, I have said that any light, in the form of photons, will be visible for a distance determined by the inverse square law, so Earth will be visible for a distance. An image from Chang'e, which has a pretty conventional camera optics, shows Earth to be quite dull. The Chinese have not released many images, and what they have released seem to be raw images, no phoyoshopping to make them pretty for the masses.

en.es-static.us...

Some images from Chang'e 5 at this site show some nice images, but the Moon appears quite dull, even though almost fully lit.

sploid.gizmodo.com...


Looking the other way, the Moon, even though much closer and almost fully illuminated, still looks dull.
sploid.gizmodo.com...

Without knowing the camera and exposure details it is tough to say just wah will be visible by eye in these situations, well documented experiments are required before any conclusions can be reached.

@OBM

BS. Pure and simple. ... Real science knows you have no understanding of physics.

Your arrogance is sickening. No further responses till you learn to keep a civil tongue in you head.

A gener question: If Hubble can only see the nearest supposed star to us as 1 pixel, as it does with all stars, how come the stars that can be imaged by astrophotography with a small, simple camera are much larger than one pixel? Does the atmosphere spread that point-like light, or is it the camera optics?

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: ignorant_ape

a reply to: GaryN as you ignored it first time :

The Lunar surface looks pretty dull in that image, but the Earth is quite bright.

Not surprising, as the Moon has average reflectivity of asphalt (or graphite). The Earth reflects more light.

A gener question: If Hubble can only see the nearest supposed star to us as 1 pixel, as it does with all stars, how come the stars that can be imaged by astrophotography with a small, simple camera are much larger than one pixel? Does the atmosphere spread that point-like light, or is it the camera optics?

It's a combination of the air fluctuations (which can be countered by adaptive optics, such as using wavefront senors), lens not being able to focus a point of light due to diffraction, and the "leaking" of light to the neighbouring pixels in the CCD.

Owing to diffraction, the smallest point to which a lens or mirror can focus a beam of light is the size of the Airy disk.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: irgust
a reply to: cooperton
If the stars can't be seen in space how does the hubble telescope take pictures of stars?

Hubbel uses the different spectrum of radiation to "see" the Universe. It is simply beamed back to Earth where the 0s and 1s are translated back to analog . Thus we see the output.
Of course this is a very simplified answer .