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.

 

Why no stars in space pictures?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Just a very simple question.

Why is it that when we see images of any space walk or pictures of shuttles in space, there are no stars?

I look at the sky and see millions of stars through our atmosphere, I was of the belief that you would see more stars when looking without the atmosphere.




posted on May, 14 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Our atmosphere is transparent to visible light, which is why we can see stars with our eyes in the first place. Therefore, removing the atmosphere from the equation does not significantly brighten the stars, let alone cause more stars to show up (at least in visible light). Short exposures taken of the night sky (with daylight camera settings) will not show stars. Similarly, in space you need daylight camera settings to properly expose the shuttle, ISS, earth, etc when it's in daylight. Those short exposures will not record enough light to show dim stars. Even when the orbiter is on the night side of earth, most video cameras lack the sensitivity to record stars; most are stuck at 30fps at least, meaning short maximum exposures for each frame. If you focused it to infinity and pointed right at venus, you might get something, but that's about it.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
We can't have the slaves seeing true beauty unless it has a price tag on it. What the hell is wrong with you? We are having enough trouble already chemtrailing the whole planet so they barely see them from the ground and now you want to see the full magnificence of the universe from a pristine viewpoint? Get a grip man. What do you want, a spiritual rebirth of mankind?

Some people...


(for the slower people out there, the above was irony, the style of speech, not the phonetically similar metal )



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Also it is because the light from the Sun reflecting off of Earth overwhelms the fainter light from the much more distant stars. It is like shining a flashlight in a small room lit by a bright light. You can't see the flashlight light because the more powerful(ie; closer in the case of the Sun in relation to other stars) light source is overwhelming.

[edit on 5/14/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Without a doubt what you say is true, but the pictures from deep space of earth also have blacked out astral backgrounds.

The exception is of course the Hubble images, which show what space really looks like.

I think their may be some psychological manipulation, with the tendency to show earth small and alone, probably to reinforce the "there is no aliens" dogma, while it still has some sort of interest for TPTB.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mindmelding
 


Possible, I truly believe NASA blacks out A LOT more than just images of Mars and the Moon. But also some of those deep space images are touched up to bring out the main image more. Could you source me to some of these images you are talking of?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
There were no stars in the latest Hubble Telescope repair job
video just aired on television.

I know it seems odd to folks who see the Milky Way at night
but using a camera to catch stars requires a long exposure.

I haven't searched youtube for night time stars but do not
think I'll find any except some guy with the Moon through
a telescope that has adequate lightning from the Sun.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   


Image in response to request. It's the well known hubble deep field image. This image corresponds to a tiny point in the night sky, smaller than a fingernail at arms length.

NOW REMEMBER SPACE IS BLACK SLAVES, BLACK AS YOUR SOULS YOU SINNERS!





Pale blue dot, earth from 64 million miles, give or take, image from voyager. This is a quick google from a blog, so if the image is not original don't sue.




Earth from moon. That's a lot of black. Rumour has it David Copperfield was holding up the globe. Ok, I'm kidding. OR AM I?

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Mindmelding]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Hi, star fans.

See that video, to see galaxies of stars ! ! !

www.flixxy.com...

In the video, at
2:36 min.: listen to the TIME of exposure: 10 days !!
5:00 min.: listen to the TIME of exposure: 11 days !!
THAT is how long it takes, to nicely show the stars !

And, the music is SO nice ! ! B-)

Blue skies.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mindmelding
 


Thanks! I have never seen that Voyager image of Earth, it is so humbling. The deep field was taken in a very dim portion of the sky, that is how they were able to see all those galaxies; from lack of foreground stars.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by Mindmelding
 


Possible, I truly believe NASA blacks out A LOT more than just images of Mars and the Moon. But also some of those deep space images are touched up to bring out the main image more. Could you source me to some of these images you are talking of?


It may be true that NASA censors some of their space pics...

But most of it is just plain camera limitations as ngchunter in #2 post mentioned. NO conspiracy there.

I am a photographer, equipped with DSLR's and couple of lenses. I take a lot of picture of the sky, and the stars, day, sunrise/sunset, night...

I tell you what, when I'm taking pictures of the full moon at night, there are no stars in the pics even though I can see the stars with my eyes... Because the moon is so bright, I have to reduce exposure time or else the moon will look like the sun in the pic.. But if you reduce exposure time, the stars aren't revealed. That's why it's no conspiracy(mostly)

You have to study a bit of photography to convince yourself that it isn't mysterious at all, unless you think photography is also a conspiracy..peace!



Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I know it seems odd to folks who see the Milky Way at night
but using a camera to catch stars requires a long exposure.


The Human Eye still beats even the most advanced image recording equipment today(excluding the use of telescope lenses). It captures around 85 full images per second while for most DSLR's, it will take 30 seconds, maximum aperture(and ISO 1600) to be able to record the image of Milky Way...

The recording equipment aboard Hubble isn't much more sophisticated.... It's simply larger and built with more precision to maximize pixel area..

[edit on 14-5-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
The deep space images from Hubble are not snapshots. The beautiful images we see take literally days or weeks of exposure to obtain.

The 800 exposures amounted to about 1 million seconds or 11.3 days of viewing time. The average exposure time was 21 minutes.

hubblesite.org...

The starfields we see in Google Sky and the Microsoft WWT are from the Palomar Sky Surveys, using ground based telescopes. The exposure times on these 6.5º images are in the neighborhood of 1 hour and don't get close to what Hubble shows us.

[edit on 5/14/2009 by Phage]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Oh I wasn't saying that the majority of the "black space with no star pictures" were altered. I know that is because of exposure and ambient light diluting them. I just threw the censoring statement in because I do think they alter some. Since this is a conspiracy site,lol.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Oh I wasn't saying that the majority of the "black space with no star pictures" were altered. I know that is because of exposure and ambient light diluting them. I just threw the censoring statement in because I do think they alter some. Since this is a conspiracy site,lol.


Sorry I missed your post before that. It's just funny, up to now, many people still aren't aware of camera exposure stuff, and think these things are conspiracy


Anyway, I know there's still a conspiracy, like why would they render the Martian sky orange or red, when it's blue...

...But there's actually a way to capture an image of the Shuttle and the stars at the same time... They have to do it during the 'night side' of the orbit and conduct a long exposure image capture. One way to do this is to mount a DSLR camera onto the robotic arm and stabilize the shuttle so it doesn't rotate in any way(or the stars will become streaks!)... Or use the Hubble... But I think it's a waste of resources but I could be wrong... If the Shuttle is moonlit, you could produce a very dramatic and rather beautiful image of the Shuttle with the Stars...

[edit on 14-5-2009 by ahnggk]

[edit on 14-5-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Space; the Final Frontier:



Through The looking Glass



[edit on 15-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


And so isn't it amazing that bright spots appear in the sky of
the UFO to generate even a flash of light or a consistent brightness
if some flickering.
This more related to a number of UFO videos being posed on AST.

So back to this thread, I see stars in what appears to be a NASA
photo posted right above.

There was a time exposure as one star starts to be a line.

ED: I see square button-indicators, toggle switches and flat panel
displays.



[edit on 5/15/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Well thank you for posting this because I was wondering this also and it clears it up thanks alot!

and yes IMO NASA does black out their photos! ( Strong Speculation)



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 

Want a space picture with stars in it? Hard to beat #10 in this series.

If you liked them, here are some more.

Enjoy.

[edit on 20/5/09 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Space; the Final Frontier:



Through The looking Glass



[edit on 15-5-2009 by Exuberant1]


Out of interest as you always like to be misleading when it comes to things like this please post information on the picture so we can get camera type and exposure details!!

PS It's at least a 10 secs plus you can see star trails!

[edit on 24-5-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Through The looking Glass


You mean to tell me you honestly thought this was proof that you can see stars in regular exposures if you're in space? I didn't bother clicking on your link before, but after wmd's post I realized you thought you had proof that short exposures with a regular camera lens will show stars. Perhaps you should read the following blog about the picture you linked to:
blogs.discovermagazine.com...
The photo was computer generated, posted before they flew the first glass shuttle cockpit as a publicity photo.

As for your other photo, you can tell it's a long exposure by the dim lighting of the shuttle (probably from the moon) and the trailing of the stars around the axis of rotation. Try again.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by ngchunter]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join