It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Seeing stars in space

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
After doing some research, I have read that, it is impossible to see stars from the moon's surface because the sun shines brighter on the moon. So far no problem. Can anyone explain why in most shuttle pictures we see no stars?



jra

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Well depending on lighting conditions. One might be able to see some stars while on the moon (as long as you arn't looking in the direction of the sun). The eye is more sensitive to varying levels of light. With cameras you need a long exposure time even at night. I'd say roughly 15 seconds would allow some stars to appear on one film/digital camera. The average photos you see from the Shuttle/Station are taken at much faster speeds. Which i'd guess to be at an average of 1/250 or 1/500 of a second. Depending on the angle of the Sun.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Thanks for the quick reply! That answer satisfies my curiosity



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kancho
After doing some research, I have read that, it is impossible to see stars from the moon's surface because the sun shines brighter on the moon.

I thought that the reason there are no stars in the Moon Landing photos was simply because the stars were too dim to be recorded on the film, not that they were too dim to be seen by the naked eye?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
You can see stars on the moon...and from the shuttle & ISS. You see them much clearer up there then down here.

The Reason the ol' Apollo pics from the moon are starless because the sun was shining on the moon. THe moon is white, so when light hits it its bright, and the camera can no longer see the stars. A more earthly example is seeing tons of stars at night in the country versus see them in a big city where even at night, its just to bright to see them (with the camera) Our eyes are better and smarter then cameras.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
But shouldn't there be a lot of pictures floating around out there of the moon with stars in the background? Or in this day and age can't we hook a camera or video camera up to a telescope and snap some shots. It's 2008-9..!?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I thought that the reason there are no stars in the Moon Landing photos was simply because the stars were too dim to be recorded on the film, not that they were too dim to be seen by the naked eye?

Try this. Get as much light as you can in your garage on a clear night. If you have flood lamps, great, if not, shine the brightest lamp(s) or flashlight(s) you can at a spot near you on the floor or wall. Stare at that spot till your eyes adjust. Now run outside quickly and look up. Note how hard it is to see the stars until your eyes adjust. Now imagine daylit ground all around you flooding your helmet with light. Good luck seeing stars, at least for the most part.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jboogienoj
But shouldn't there be a lot of pictures floating around out there of the moon with stars in the background? Or in this day and age can't we hook a camera or video camera up to a telescope and snap some shots. It's 2008-9..!?

The dynamic range difference is GIGANTIC. The full moon is about magnitude -12, your average bright star is somewhere around magnitude 1-2 at best, unless you're talking one of the very brightest dozen stars. A magnitude difference of ten is a brightness difference of 10,000x. Consequently, no camera on earth can simultaneously record the moon and the stars around it with a single exposure without overexposing the moon. You could do an image where you take one exposure with the moon properly exposed then the stars properly exposed and combine them similar to an HDR, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm still dancing around I see. This has always been like a Building 7 or something. Never any clarity on the stars we SHOULD BE SEEING OUT THERE..... Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...?



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jboogienoj
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm still dancing around I see.

I thought I addressed it fully, if there's something you're still not understanding about basic photography just tell me and I'll try to explain it for you.


This has always been like a Building 7 or something.

So because you're wrong about this you're wrong about that?


Never any clarity on the stars we SHOULD BE SEEING OUT THERE..... Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...?

You can't see stars in a photo taken with a daylight speed exposure, it's really that simple. The moon is bright so it needs a fast exposure, the stars are dim and need a long exposure to be seen, how much more clear can you get?

Here's a photo I took of the moon at the end of the last total lunar eclipse (I missed the best part due to clouds). The moon is brightly exposed, maybe even a tad too brightly, but no stars are visible anywhere in the photo:
farm4.static.flickr.com...
Another one, just a normal moon picture I took a few months ago. No stars anywhere around the moon:
i319.photobucket.com...
I have a pretty nice camera and telescope, but there's just no way to capture stars and the moon in the same exposure, save for during totality during a total lunar eclipse. I dare you to show me an example that proves otherwise.

Out of curiosity, do you also think the shuttle and ISS are faked because no stars are visible in any of the mission photography?

[edit on 14-11-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by jboogienoj
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm still dancing around I see. This has always been like a Building 7 or something. Never any clarity on the stars we SHOULD BE SEEING OUT THERE..... Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...?

I don't see any dancing around...it seems to me that the question was answered fully.

Another way of looking at it (aside from ngchunter's garage experimant) would be to sit inthe middle of your living room at night with the lights on. From your chair inside the room, look outside through a window (an open window, to reduce glare) and look at the night sky. You will only be able to see the brightest stars because your eyes are accustomed to the brightness of the room. If you darkened the room, waited 5 minutes for your eyes to adjust and looked outside that same window, you will see more stars.

Astronauts on the Moon were in very bright sunlight reflecting off of the surface. They couldn't see many stars. The astronaut left in the command module could not see a lot of stars, unless he darkened the inside of the craft, or looked outside into the blackness for a few minutes until his eyes adjusted.

The cameras on the moon had a worse problem -- their apertures were set for the brightness of the moons surface, which would allow for capturing images of even fewer stars -- even some visible to the astronauts' eyes.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join