Seeing Stars from Mars or the Moon & why you won't

I've searched for a while to find images from the Mars rover taking pictures of the stars at night. You would think that the stars would be AMAZINGLY beautiful at night, seeing the milky way in all's it's glory because of the very minimal atmosphere compared to Earth. The stars should be like 20-40x more vibrant at night and even taking pictures w/o telescopic lenses would show a beautiful nightscape of the Milky Way in all it's glory - but as of yer, ZERO imagery after how many missions?

There is certainly a reason for this but that is up for debate. Remember the first images of space from "the moon"? ZERO stars and the excuses that were given are preposterous - "it's too bright there" and other BS. Total lies. Most times there are also not even stars from the space walks except for a few of them that seem like maybe they placed some in there or made sure to include them by some manner.

Looking back historically there are stories about when people die, they become stars in the sky looking back down on Earth. There have even been stories when a major person died, some leader like a Pharaoh, king, religious leader, etc, when they died they noticed a new star in the sky the same night or the next night. In a geocentric model, which has a MUCH longer period of acceptance by the lowly public & those in power, both political and religious, and the stars were understood to be ancestors looking back on earth.

So I have a theory as to why we see no stars outside of Earth. Starlight is directional, just like a laser. You can see the dot of a laser on a wall but it's near impossible to see the source unless you are in the path of the light, b/c it doesn't disperse. Only cheap lasers can be seen from the side, but it's like 1/1000000th the brightness of the dot it emits. So star light shines back on the origin of the star, Earth, and if you move away from the origin (earth) you can't see it. Now IDK if the star is the laser & it shines it's "dot" back on earth, or if it is opposite, Earth is the origin (laser) or "power source" for the dot being projected out into space.

I know this will be immediately shot down by a lot of people who have been brainwashed with Star Trek and Nasa lies, but those people have decided to not pay attention to the thousands of mistakes made by NASA as somehow the most intelligent people in the world, just overlook some basic things and overwrite Apollo mission tapes with re-runs of Friends or Seinfeld or something.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

So you expect to see stars when it’s bright on the moon or Mars? That’s like expecting to see stars on Earth when it’s really bright.

Ain’t gonna happen bub.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

go out side and take a picture of the nigjt sky with your smart phone, see any stars? the tech we have today was launched with those rovers. i do wish so bad there was a camera that could take a picture of what the human eye sees

a reply to: jonnyhallows5211

You beat me to it.

The OP's research skills aren't up to much:

mars.nasa.gov...

climate.nasa.gov...

www.universetoday.com...

www.foxnews.com...

as just a few examples, as well as my own page detailing all images of the stars taken from lunar orbit and cisulanar space (and Venus from the surface):

onebigmonkey.com...

There is a huge difference between seeing stars and photographing them. People really need to get over the whole "NASA lies..." blah blah blaf excuses for their inability to do proper research and think through arguments logically.

originally posted by: jonnyhallows5211
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

go out side and take a picture of the nigjt sky with your smart phone, see any stars? the tech we have today was launched with those rovers. i do wish so bad there was a camera that could take a picture of what the human eye sees

There is but it's not as easy as snapping a photo of your grandma. Atrophotographers use times exposures and complicated tracking (to avoid blurring) and (generally) slightly more specialized image sensors that aren't as noisy as those on standard cameras. And finally, often a bit of "trickery" is used in digitally stacking images for various reasons (to make more natural looking photos, usually).

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

But...But...this is a conspiracy site. You *have* to admit there's a conspiracy. Unless... you're in on it. O_O

Sure, yeah - go ahead, post links with evidence. Where has evidence ever got us??

Why is "technology" always blamed. Do you think they are sending 640x480 camera's up there? Do you think the camera's don't have shutter control so they can get longer exposure of feint light sources? Why are all the images we see look like dog schyitt? We spent almost $1 trillion on NASA and this is what we get? Are you F'in kidding me?

The rovers should have 50-100MP camera's, which can be selected to shoot down to .5MP and anywhere in between, just like my phone (but my phone only goes to 24MP). There are satellites with 1GP resolution and they do this by printing many CCD's on one wafer, so instead of printing 1 24MP, they can print a row of 10x10, for a total of 100 CCD's creating 100X the pixel quality. This has been done since the late 70's and is how they STILL make high resolution camera's. There is a bit of software involved to stitch each CCD's output together, but it's something that even Windows includes in their base operating system.

I know some people will either shill for the space program or are just gullible, but no one has ever provided convincing photos that don't have some major defect.

And for those who say "it's too big to send back" - BS, look at the NASA white papers from the mid 80's about the bandwidth available to transmit and it was impressive back then. They even edited the full amounts/bandwidth b/c they didn't want other countries to know, I'm guessing, what was possible, but the released data was quite impressive on it's own. There's no FCC up there to limit the way things are transmitted and they can utilize whatever they want to get the images back home, probably something close to the frequencies used to broadcast FM radio, on a spread spectrum, which could be why we get slight static at times & also the move to digital radio, b/c that would filter all that "noise" out. But the excuses for the poor quality photos are all BS and they are robbing the tax payers blind.

Please show me pictures of the stars from the surface of earth in the middle of the day.

There are no pictures of stars from the moon because it was the equivalent of the middle of the day on the moon where the missions took place.

the same applies to mars, images are not taken at nighttime because there isn't enough power or focal length or exposure time for such pictures to be taken.


Edit
found pictures of the stars on mars
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...#/?slide=606

Sol 606 there were pictures taken

guess i was partially wrong

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

For someone who likes digging, you dont seem to dig very deep. Maybe scratchinfotroof would be more descriptive.

Why do you think nasa needs to lie so much. And how come its not working on you?

If Ñasa was lying don't you think it would be alot easier to just add in the stars to these "fake" images from the moon or Mars to save all the hassle of repeatedly having to explain the lack of stars?.
If it was faked and shot in a studio the first thing they'd do is make sure there were plenty of "stars" visible, you know to add to the authenticity! Lol.(Not saying OP is implying this, it's just a common CT theme)

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Firstly, expensive cameras cost money, and better lenses mean more mass. Mass costs fuel, and photography isn't the only thing they're doing there.

Secondly, the equipment they send up there is not the equipment available at launch, it's the equipment available when it was designed 10 years ago.

Thirdly, you're "shilling for NASA" line is just a tedious, lazy cop-out. It doesn't absolve you from providing your case, which you failed spectacularly on the second you claimed no photos existed.

Finally, your bandwidth argument is one only you have made.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

It’s not about putting the newest technology on a space probe. It’s about balancing survivability, reliability, weight, size, environment factors (what is susceptible to interference), and practicality.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

So I have a theory as to why we see no stars outside of Earth. Starlight is directional, just like a laser. You can see the dot of a laser on a wall but it's near impossible to see the source unless you are in the path of the light, b/c it doesn't disperse. Only cheap lasers can be seen from the side, but it's like 1/1000000th the brightness of the dot it emits. So star light shines back on the origin of the star, Earth, and if you move away from the origin (earth) you can't see it. Now IDK if the star is the laser & it shines it's "dot" back on earth, or if it is opposite, Earth is the origin (laser) or "power source" for the dot being projected out into space.

Some theory you have there except for the fact that stars, like our Sun, generally tend to be spherical and therefore radiate light in all directions.

As for the rest of your post, you ought to be thoroughly embarrassed and ashamed at the sheer level of ignorance that you have put up on display.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

they placed some in there or made sure to include them by some manner

This is the point where I left the thread.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Now IDK if the star is the laser & it shines it's "dot" back on earth, or if it is opposite, Earth is the origin (laser) or "power source" for the dot being projected out into space.

I am speechless. Please do not breed.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
Why is "technology" always blamed. Do you think they are sending 640x480 camera's up there? Do you think the camera's don't have shutter control so they can get longer exposure of feint light sources? Why are all the images we see look like dog schyitt? We spent almost $1 trillion on NASA and this is what we get? Are you F'in kidding me?

Because they're not spending 1 trillion dollars just to please you with piccies of bright dots in the sky.

You're free to do it, if you want.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

I know this will be immediately shot down by a lot of people who have been brainwashed with Star Trek and Nasa lies, but those people have decided to not pay attention to the thousands of mistakes made by NASA as somehow the most intelligent people in the world, just overlook some basic things and overwrite Apollo mission tapes with re-runs of Friends or Seinfeld or something.

Star Trek "lies"? What on Earth are you on about?

You don't know what those "mission tapes" were, do you?

As for people being "brainwashed", may I humbly suggest that it is you that has been brainwashed by watching too much Youtube.

You understand nothing about how cameras work if you expect to see stars over the shoulder of an Apollo astronaut or over a mountain range on Mars.

But I am here to help; try the following experiment: go spend about five minutes outside in bright sunshine. Next quickly go inside into a dark room. You'll be effectively blind until your eyes (the iris) adjusts to the darkness. It has to open up to an aperture sufficiently large to gather the available light and allow you to see things in the dark room. After a few minutes, you'll have pretty good vision in the dark room. Next, step back outside. The bright sunlight swamps everything out; you're snowblind and can see very little detail until your irises close up to clamp the excessive amount of light blasting your retinas.

Cameras work the same way. If a camera's exposure is set for bright light, e.g., astronauts in sunlight on the surface of the moon, the stars will be so faint they're undetectable by the camera.

But you probably won't try this simple experiment anyway because you prefer to remain enslaved by your own prejudices. I hope this is not the case.

C'mon, just try it. Open your mind, and learn something you didn't know before.



"Star Trek lies? What on Earth are you on about?"

What 'on Earth' indeed

Here's a guy that explains this camera problem really well.

a reply to: TerryDon79
Wbu why wouldn't you see stars if you were in a shadow, or on the non-lit side of the moon?