Astronaut Scott Kelly captures sunrise over western US.. And stars are showing behind sun

originally posted by: Spacespider

How is this picture even possible ? Picture taken directly at the sun and still showing stars in the background, even with long exposure mode, the sun would have whited the whole picture, and everything would be blurred out due to movement. Try looking into a strong flashlight and see if you can see anything behind it, nope.. Edited in star background ?

This is in outer space - there is no atmosphere to disperse the light and fill up the entire exposure. Keep the analogy of the sunlight, but this time it is not directly in your face but is perhaps 50 feet away. Can you see anything behind it?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

You understand nothing.

On the contrary, and it is thanks to you and others on ATS who post such unscientific tripe that I have looked deeper into the information available, and what I find fully supports my interpretation of what is actually going on. Simple experiments by NASA would clear up the matter instantly, so they will not perform the experiments, it would destroy the whole of the presently accepted pseudo-science known as astronomy. I'll stick with what Armstrong said, that stars are not visible from the Lunar surface or cislunar space, until proven otherwise. He should know, he was there, you were not.

a reply to: GaryN

Okay... I'll bite. What simple experiments do you believe NASA can perform to convince us scientifically illiterates that you are right.

Fisheye lens as usual...

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: onebigmonkey

You understand nothing.

On the contrary, and it is thanks to you and others on ATS who post such unscientific tripe that I have looked deeper into the information available, and what I find fully supports my interpretation of what is actually going on. Simple experiments by NASA would clear up the matter instantly, so they will not perform the experiments, it would destroy the whole of the presently accepted pseudo-science known as astronomy. I'll stick with what Armstrong said, that stars are not visible from the Lunar surface or cislunar space, until proven otherwise. He should know, he was there, you were not.

This is yet another new member who is simply trolling this place. It's that simple. No one could actually be this simple of mind.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
I'm sure there's going to be a 'logical' explanation when NASA realizes this.

Won't those official story believers just make something up, like "those other cameras have a lower focus and apeture (or some other technical mumbo jumbo), so stars won't show up in high contrast settings. This camera was different."

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: odzeandennz
I'm sure there's going to be a 'logical' explanation when NASA realizes this.

Won't those official story believers just make something up, like "those other cameras have a lower focus and apeture (or some other technical mumbo jumbo), so stars won't show up in high contrast settings. This camera was different."

I know, right? Their continuing reliance upon the actual technology involved and how it works exactly is maddening!

a reply to: Kromlech

Whats a fish eye lens got to do with it and do YOU actually know what determines when it is classed as that and since these pictures are mosly taken at 24/28 mm on a FULL FRAME Nikon they are not what you claim

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: odzeandennz
I'm sure there's going to be a 'logical' explanation when NASA realizes this.

Won't those official story believers just make something up, like "those other cameras have a lower focus and apeture (or some other technical mumbo jumbo), so stars won't show up in high contrast settings. This camera was different."

The only mumbo jumbo is your statement above (what the h3ll does lower focus & aperture mean)the pictures on the ISS are taken using Nikon D4 or D4S with bog standard Nikon lenses. NASA also keeps the exif data attached with the image for time date exposure data so you can check now it's strange that most ufo sites have that data removed I wonder why

Most of the members commenting on this have a good knowledge of the process & equipment my first FILM SLR yes FILM was FULLY MANUAL (best way to learn) many of us also post on this thread Calling all Astrophotographers click on that link to see what we do ,YOU will see we do know what we are talking about.

Here is a nice image taken on July 19, 2011

ISS & Moon

Exposure details

Nikon D3S
28.0-70.0 mm f/2.8 lens
ƒ/7.1 35.0 mm 1/160 iso 200

You can even download the 4256 x 2832 original & no stars because the exposure is for the ISS but still good enough for the Moon.

a reply to: olaru12 Two completely different cameras being used, between now and then. Not to mention it could also be a composite image.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: Spacespider

Nice pic.

and some kind of golden showers top right ?

The picture is probably taken from here, and the "golden shower" is reflections in the glass in the cupola.

No *golden shower* ive ever seen.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: onebigmonkey

You understand nothing.

On the contrary, and it is thanks to you and others on ATS who post such unscientific tripe that I have looked deeper into the information available, and what I find fully supports my interpretation of what is actually going on. Simple experiments by NASA would clear up the matter instantly, so they will not perform the experiments, it would destroy the whole of the presently accepted pseudo-science known as astronomy. I'll stick with what Armstrong said, that stars are not visible from the Lunar surface or cislunar space, until proven otherwise. He should know, he was there, you were not.

Jy weet fokkol, Gary N (to use an Afrikaans expression linked to the Game of Thrones series). Somehow, you think you are cleverer than all the scientists and astronomers (including the knowlegeable amateurs) that have given us the view into space. Somehow, according to you, the academia involved with space exploration and astronomy realised that you can't see any light in space, and yet managed to keep it secret from everyone and their dog. All the scientific documentation, papers, articles, reports, etc. are missing this vital piece of information. And no one in the mainstream flow had ever decided to "leak" this revolutionary news to the general public, in the fear of having their financing taken away/death threats/whatever. Yeah, nice story bro, but it just doesn't hold up.

The only argument you can employ is that (according to you) there are no photos taken looking directly away from Earth (which somehow makes the invisible visible). No scientific basis, equations, etc. to support your postion... only a stubborn opposition to the mainstream and support to any crank theorists who claims to reveal the truth by some (seemingly) clever statements... like this hilarious guy: http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSuVJm4TI5c

originally posted by: GaryN
I'll stick with what Armstrong said, that stars are not visible from the Lunar surface or cislunar space

Why would you stick what something he never said as the basis for your philosophy?

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: olaru12 Two completely different cameras being used, between now and then. Not to mention it could also be a composite image.

NOTHING to do with cameras exposure is the key as they were taking pictures of the SURFACE which is lit by the Sun it's like taking daylight shots on Earth try taking pictures of the Stars with the same settings guess what NO Stars an example of this in my post above your post.

Here so you don't even have to make the effort to look above

ISS & Moon

Exposure details

Nikon D3S
28.0-70.0 mm f/2.8 lens
ƒ/7.1 35.0 mm 1/160 iso 200

originally posted by: GaryN


There is still thin atmosphere out to many thousands of miles, and as I have explained about the viewing geometry, the line of sight from the ISS cupola to either the Moon or the stars goes through a much longer column of atmosphere, thinner for sure, but made up for by the increased length of the viewing path. If the Earth is in view at all from the Cupola, you are viewing through the atmosphere. Looking away from the Earth is the only decent test, though as there is still some very thin atmosphere above the ISS, a long enough exposure and high ISO will likely still show something, but your eyes would not see anything.

Ok GaryN USING your theory above a THICKER atmosphere helps you see stars better, NO atmosphere and you cant see anything, that is basically what you are claiming above.

So why does it take LONGER exposures down here at same iso than up there also explain to everyone how the Hubble takes pictures pointing away from the Earth.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: GaryN
I'll stick with what Armstrong said, that stars are not visible from the Lunar surface or cislunar space

Why would you stick what something he never said as the basis for your philosophy?

Well I would say because he hasn't got a clue

a reply to: DJW001

Okay... I'll bite. What simple experiments do you believe NASA can perform to convince us scientifically illiterates that you are right.

Well it would be much simpler just to ask an ISS EVA astronaut who has been top-side, during the 'night' portion of orbit, to describe what he could see while looking away from Earth. The blinding Sun would of course mean he/she wouldn't be able to see stars during the ISS daytime. Even if he/she blocked the Sun with his/her hand, because as we have been told, space itself is too bright to be able to see stars.
So, seeing as they have let one EVA crew take a Go-Pro out and play around, I think it only fair to let them try out a Sony A7S. Why that camera? Well, the usual excuse for not taking images of the stars from EVA is that it requires a time exposure, and the cameras are hand held. But, if the A7S can video the stars in real time, then no problem, right?
The camera even uses a full-frame image sensor similar to the newest Star Trackers, so surely it should be able to see the stars? Simple experiment.
And it would be interesting to ask the EVA astronauts about what the Russians said from that early mission where they said they usually saw blue stars, but this time they were red/gold. What colour are the stars from EVA, have any of them ever said?

@wmd_2008

Ok GaryN USING your theory above a THICKER atmosphere helps you see stars better, NO atmosphere and you cant see anything, that is basically what you are claiming above.

Yes, and the cameras on the rovers on the Moon and Mars demonstrate that.
No astrophotography from Chang'e on the Moon, which has very little atmosphere. Mars has some atmosphere, but still very thin compared to Earth, and one astrophotography image at least has been taken by Curiosity during the Siding Spring event.
nineplanets.org...
Not quite like the artists impressions, but close enough I guess.
svs.gsfc.nasa.gov...

So why does it take LONGER exposures down here at same iso than up there also explain to everyone how the Hubble takes pictures pointing away from the Earth.

Well, the stars are 10 times brighter in space, didn't you know that? And Hubble is NOT a regular camera, how many times do I need to say that? Of course the proper instrument can see stars or whatever they are while looking away from Earth, a regular DSLR will not, and there is no proof it can.

@ OBM

Why would you stick what something he never said as the basis for your philosophy?

"THE SKY IS A DEEP BLACK WHEN VIEWED FROM THE MOON, AS IT IS WHEN VIEWED FROM CIS-LUNAR 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 REPORTS OF SEEING PLANETS. I MYSELF DID NOT SEE PLANETS FROM THE SURFACE BUT I SUSPECT THEY MIGHT BE VISIBLE".

Neil Armstrong to Patrick Moore, BBC TV, 1970. What do you mean he never said that?

a reply to: GaryN

Your quote from Armstrong proves your theory wrong. Armstrong was wearing a space helmet filled with air, therefore he must have seen stars!

a reply to: GaryN

Well since I am a Sony user and did a thread on it I probably know more about the A7S than you, NOBODY ever said it's to bright to see stars in space, if any bright object is in the field of view of your eyes your eyes automatically adjust to the brightness of that object. So when the Astronauts were on the surface of the Moon there eyes adjusted to the level of reflected light the same now for Astronauts outside the ISS if they see the Earth or the ISS in their field of view their eyes adjust to that level of reflected light.

It looks to me that you have misunderstood what has been said and put your own meaning to it.

Surface mission landers to the Moon & Mars were not designed for Astrophotography and why bother when we can get better images from the surface here or Hubble.

Your comment about requiring timed exposures is not right, now with modern cameras able to shoot at very high iso values
after all the OP shot on this thread is 1/2 sec f1.4 iso 8000.

You keep saying Hubble is not a regular camera so I will ask again give the reasons why you claim that.