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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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



I did not comment on the exposure.

The first image did not come with the details you request, I found it on a website that had probably lifted it from NASA's servers. I saved it months ago because I liked the look of it.

You can see stars in both images, no?


[edit on 25-5-2009 by Exuberant1]




posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You can see stars in both images, no?

See here:
post by ngchunter
The second image is a computer generated publicity photo to coincide with the new glass shuttle cockpits; it is not a real image from any shuttle mission. The first image is clearly a long exposure, which as we've said, would overexpose a daylit earth/shuttle/iss/moon/whatever. Notice how you can see what seem to be northern (or southern) lights in the first photo; this tells us it had to have been taken while the shuttle was on the night side of earth, and with a long exposure.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Thanks for finding that out for us ngchunter.


Here is a nice image - with stars:


(Uploaded by Zorgon)

This one has plenty of stars in it too:
ISS006-E-51915

(Uploaded by Zorgon)

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Here is a list of Apollo images where you can see stars and planets:


Recently on another board a poster mentioned these images in the Apollo image atlas taken in lunar orbit on during the journey back to Earth on Apollos 15, 16, 17. Stars, planets, and star groups are clearly visible during eclipse along with the solar corona and the bulk of the Moon. They can be downloaded from the Apollo 70 mm Image Atlas www.lpi.usra.edu... Good examples include:

AS15-98-13311 solar corona and Castor & Pollox

AS15-98-13325 Venus, solar corona and Castor & Pollox

AS16-124-19885 solar corona & stars of Aries, Triangulum & the Pleiades

AS16-124-19888 solar corona & stars of Aries, Triangulum & the Pleiades

AS17-154-23647 Solar Corona, with Sagittarius & Jupiter

www.bautforum.com...

This is image AS16-124-19888, a 70mm Hasselblad:


www.lpi.usra.edu...

Just use the search function and type in the image ID if you want to download or take a look at the other photos.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Thanks for finding that out for us ngchunter.


Here is a nice image - with stars:

Once again, they're both night time shots with long exposures. The first one you can tell right away because of how bright the aurora is and how the earth is streaking by beneath. The second image (ignoring the darkened solar panel) has the following image information according to the number you gave for it:

Image Description:
Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D1 Resolution Unit: inch
Software: Ver.1.05
...
Date Time: 2003:03:01 18:55:49
YCbCr Positioning: datum point
Exposure Time: 80/10 sec.

That's an 8 second exposure. FAR above daytime exposure settings.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Since munkey originally asked the question, and it has been sufficiently answered by now, why is this continuing??

What part of exposure settings is so hard to comprehend?

Truly, it is beyond ridiculous to suppose that any photos of stars taken with a regular camera would be of any use whatsoever. Except, to make pretty pictures -- there is no scientific merit.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


Thanks Ziggy!

Those are some nice images.


This one shows Orion. AS16-106-17403

(I once saw it called a UFO and then 'debunked' as being the C/SM...)



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by munkey66
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.



I wonder if they can make a camera that is 100% replicant of our eyes, so that when we take pictures of something it is exactly how our ( human) eyes would see it.

Maybe then we could see the stars.


For your question though I don't have an answer.sry



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by ziggystar60
 


Thanks Ziggy!

Those are some nice images.


Amazingly enough, all of ziggy's images were taken on the night side of the moon, and all are long exposures as evidenced by the trailing stars...


This one shows Orion. AS16-106-17403

I see dust on the negative. If they were stars they should be consistent in shape (they're actually small dashes going in different directions within a single frame) consistently in the same place with respect to the horizon in neighboring images: this is not the case at all - spots are visible in totally random places with respect to the horizon between neighboring images. Here's a gif animation to demonstrate:

So are you just not going to admit that it's impossible to see stars in short daytime exposures?

[edit on 25-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

So are you just not going to admit that it's impossible to see stars in short daytime exposures?


The OP didn't specify which sort of exposure he wanted, or whether he wanted day or night-time images.

In response, I posted related pictures with stars.


Originally posted by munkey66

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



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by ngchunter

So are you just not going to admit that it's impossible to see stars in short daytime exposures?


The OP didn't specify which sort of exposure he wanted, or whether he wanted day or night-time images.

In response, I posted related pictures with stars.


Originally posted by munkey66

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



I dont think you are really as DENSE as you make out in your reply to ngchunters question re daytime exposure, ALL shots of the Astronauts on the Moons surface or on a spcewalk from the shuttle in DAYLIGHT are daytime exposures BUT then again maybe my first statement was wrong!
Re your pictures posted if you had any idea about what you were talking about you would have noticed things like STAR TRAILS which to anyone with actual knowlege on the subject would would mean an exposure time of at least a few seconds!!!
I am quite sure a photography course would be available in your area you never know maybe if you took one you might ACTUALLY get some pictures of the things you believe in then again.....



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
you would have noticed things like STAR TRAILS which to anyone with actual knowlege on the subject would would mean an exposure time of at least a few seconds!!!


I did not comment on exposure time.

The OP did not specify or request images with a certain exposure time.





posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I did not comment on exposure time.

Exactly the point; exposure time is vital and critical to answering the OP's question honestly. Answering back with the exceptions to the rule (night side long exposure images of "stars in space") without saying a word about exposure time is deceptive and leaves the impression that there should be stars in all space pictures. If you're going to post images like that you should comment on exposure time so as to not leave the wrong impression.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
exposure time is vital and critical to answering the OP's question honestly



Now you speak for the OP?

The OP did not include anything about exposure time in his inquiry...



Originally posted by ngchunter
If you're going to post images like that you should comment on exposure time so as to not leave the wrong impression.




Now you are just conjuring up these requirements as you go along....

The OP said nothing about exposure time in his query.



Cheers!



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Now you speak for the OP?

The OP did not include anything about exposure time in his inquiry...

That's because the OP was ASKING a question. That means he was looking for an honest answer.

Now you are just conjuring up these requirements as you go along....

The OP said nothing about exposure time in his query.

Of course not! He was asking the question of "Why." Has he said anything about exposure time it would mean he already had the answer he was looking for. The "requirement," better known as an honest answer, exists because the OP wasn't asking for someone to provide exceptions to his experience (without ever explaining why they were exceptional), he was asking why it is that the pictures he was seeing were that way. Not only did you not answer the question, you deceptively left off vitally important information about the pictures you provided, further confusing the issue.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
you deceptively left off vitally important information about the pictures you provided, further confusing the issue.



I make such info available when I have it, as you see it included in my other posts.

In any case; you must have missed this portion of the post at the top of the page:

"The first image did not come with the details you request, I found it on a website that had probably lifted it from NASA's servers. I saved it months ago because I liked the look of it."



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I make such info available when I have it, as you see it included in my other posts.

You should have made a better effort to find the info because that is what was vitally important to answering the actual question. I was able to find it spelled out in the exif of at least one image you posted just by checking the name of the file you provided for it. If you had checked the original high res files on NASA's sites first you could have easily read off the EXIF data for any of the digital imagery. Leaving that information off, or even opening the possibility that these were long exposures, is deceptive.


In any case; you must have missed this portion of the post at the top of the page:

You talked about the first image, which I assumed was understood by all parties to be a long exposure due to the star trails. The second image was far more deceptive, but very easily debunked. Then you posted more examples while still not mentioning the exposure length, which at that point was easily obtainable.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Not sure if you've seen the trailer for the movie, "Moon Rising" Here is one of the trailers which talks about NASA blacking out the horizon of the moon pictures as if there is something in space they don't want you to see.

The Moon Rising Trailer



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Alchemst7
 


That film is the subject of another thread.

Personally, they would have to pay me to watch it -- the filmmaker is known to be a fraud.

Besides, the OP's question wasn't specifically limited to Apollo Lunar surface photos. AND, with all of the hours of video from the Apollo missions, IF thre was something to be 'hidden' by NASA they would have had a great deal of trouble 'editing' live shots....

A film such as the one you're discussing can pick and choose what it wants to show, in order to make its 'point' -- and its 'point' is to sell movies!! Pure and simple, it is a HOAX of a film, designed to prey upon the clueless.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alchemst7
Here is one of the trailers which talks about NASA blacking out the horizon of the moon pictures as if there is something in space they don't want you to see.

Do I "black out the horizon of the moon"? I mean heck, this shot was with a fairly powerful scope and the exposure was long enough to completely overexpose the daylit part of the moon (properly exposing the last trace of a total lunar eclipse), yet there's still no stars visible.
farm3.static.flickr.com...
Cameras, digital and film, only have a tiny fraction of the dynamic range response that the human eye has. Short daylight exposures simply will not show stars.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by ngchunter]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join