No Stars seen from Space?

I have heard all the arguments why no stars appear in certain NASA photos, yet I was never satisfied with the answer...

I looked around for some time to find a film like the following video from NASA. This one is perfect because not only does it show stars, but has what I wanted most, a recognizable constelation so there is no question that we are seeing stars.

Now what makes this film also useful is that it is filmed with the low resolution black and white camera and even when the camera points at the bright moon, you can still clearly see the stars.

The constellation is Orion, a very recognizable feature indeed and you can even see four stars in the sword



Orion for comparison...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/df96dce30c5a.jpg[/atsimg]

OH and BTW just ignore the door shaped UFO zipping by.... this post is about the stars

heh nice vid, havent seen that one before.

What sort of camera is that they are using? Infra red? Night vision? since that would often determine how stars would show up I mean with a normaly camera id say you'd rarely pick up stars with it even in space unless you had as little light as possible. Id say the earth and moon bounce light would help to obscure most stars for a normal camera unless it was over exposed or pointed well away from the direction of the light source. An example of what i mean is go out on a full moon night with no clouds and try to see how many stars you can spot, the moon even when you cover it with your hand, over powers most of them id assume Earth light would be just as strong.

My only problem is why the hell is Orion that large, its a big constellation i give it that but it shouldnt fill that much of the viewport of a camera like that.

As for the UFO, id say its a camera lens flare artifact, you can even see its moving in a direct line with the center of the sun as the camera pans away.

I'm not an expert, but I believe that...

Different ISO settings and capabilities would allow different levels of background light to be recorded. Notice that when the camera points at the moon, many of the background stars *do* vanish, just not all.

If you've got a digital camera around, play with the menu until you find something for ISO. Set the number lower, and dim light sources fade away. Set it higher, and they return into the image.

Chances are, the camera here was intended to view stars and low-light objects. That's why the camera glare off the moon is so horrible. A lower ISO setting would make the moon more clearly visible, but the stars would be unseen.

Thats odd, there were supposed IMAX cameras used. Because if this is the same STS-61, as there seems to be some confusion with mission designations of the same name:

NASA flew a number of Space Shuttle missions in the early and mid 1980s with designations derived from STS-61.

STS-61 itself was flown in 1993.

Other STS-61s include:

* STS-61-A
* STS-61-B
* STS-61-C

STS-61 (disambiguation)

Not sure which one that video is. Either way, both STS-61 and STS-61-B carried IMAX cameras for filming the Hubble repairs:

STS-61-B

Experiments (MPSE) and Orbiter Experiments (OEX). In payload bay: Get Away Special and IMAX Cargo Bay Camera (ICBC)

www.astronautix.com...

STS-61

Space Telescope (HST) Servicing Mission (SM) 1, IMAX Camera, IMAX Cargo Bay Camera (ICBC), Air Force Maui Optical Site (AMOS)

www.astronautix.com...

I wonder why we are seeing stars in what appears to be quite a low quality video, yet images of the hubble repairs like this one of high quality, no stars.:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/150fc291fb80.jpg[/atsimg]

Cheers,

[edit on 29/5/09 by Majorion]

reply to post by Majorion


It is interesting that there are objects and surfaces bouncing light comparable to a star in the IMAX footage yet miraculously, no stars. I can't pretend to completely understand why a camera can be so discerning of one object to another... but there ya go!... I know nothing!

IRM

the main problem is: are any stars visible from moon surface...
right?
I believe they are,but then again NASA claims they aren't
astronauts officialy claimed they aren't

nobody cared to ask someone like Mitchell yet for an opinion?

it's not about the camera settings but all about what does a human astronaut really see up there

Take a survey of sports news photographs of brightly-lit night games -- baseball, football, whatever -- that also show a portion of the night sky. Even on clear nights, with stars out, the photos will not show stars.

Try this at home.

Heck, go rent 'Field of Dreams' and watch the night scenes when the field lights are on. No stars.

In the image Zorgon posted, stars are visible but the moon is hideously overexposed. Take a picture with the Moon properly exposed and the stars will disappear ......

Anyone with a half decent camera can prove it for themselves. Don't forget, a bigger aperture/higher ISO setting means you can picture stars without needing a long shutter release - and vice versa.

No conspiracy. Just a bunch of folk who don't understand basic photography

Originally posted by Majorion

I wonder why we are seeing stars in what appears to be quite a low quality video, yet images of the hubble repairs like this one of high quality, no stars.:

I'm not saying this is the answer, but one obvious reason might, for example, be that that is the Pacific Ocean in the background.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Essan]

Originally posted by Essan
I'm not saying this is the answer, but one obvious reason might, for example, be that that is the Pacific Ocean in the background.

Check out this video here:
When We Left Earth: STS-61 Hubble Repair

I think that discounts your possible explanation of the Pacific Ocean in the background.

Regards,

[edit on 29/5/09 by Majorion]

Originally posted by JimOberg
Take a survey of sports news photographs of brightly-lit night games -- baseball, football, whatever -- that also show a portion of the night sky. Even on clear nights, with stars out, the photos will not show stars.

Try this at home.

Heck, go rent 'Field of Dreams' and watch the night scenes when the field lights are on. No stars.

WTF has this got to do with the topic?

we ARE talking about non atmosphere conditions here, are we not?

furthermore it's not about photographs and camera settings
it's what we really can SEE up there in person

some astronauts claimed they didn't see any stars which I consider to be an explicit lie

reply to post by JimOberg

Heck, go rent 'Field of Dreams' and watch the night scenes when the field lights are on. No stars.

Kevin Costner..Is that you???

On the IMAX video they are facing a reflective surface and in the low quality one facing away from it. I think that has something to do with it.

I remember reading threads that when on the moon astronauts could not see any stars, I also think this is a blatant lie. In my point of view, stars should be seen much better when observed on a satellite like the moon... there is no atmosphere, no clouds... what would be the reasons for not being able to see star when either in space or on the moon..?

Originally posted by sc4venger
I remember reading threads that when on the moon astronauts could not see any stars, I also think this is a blatant lie. In my point of view, stars should be seen much better when observed on a satellite like the moon... there is no atmosphere, no clouds... what would be the reasons for not being able to see star when either in space or on the moon..?

How about, "Because it's DAYTIME." ??

Please desist from throwing accusations of lying around when you don't understand something. It's tacky -- and doesn't reflect well on your own thinking.

"I remember reading threads..." is a clue. Get out more often. Find other sources of reliable information. Do some experiments yourself.


[edit on 29-5-2009 by JimOberg]

Originally posted by JimOberg

How about, "Because it's DAYTIME." ??

Even if it's daytime, there should be a night time also? daytime when the sky is black should be quite like night time?

Originally posted by JimOberg
Please desist from throwing accusations of lying around when you don't understand something. It's tacky -- and doesn't reflect well on your own thinking.

If you read carefully, I said I think... this is my opinion. I did not say someone is 100% lying and I won't believe anything from them.

Originally posted by JimOberg
"I remember reading threads..." is a clue. Get out more often. Find other sources of reliable information. Do some experiments yourself.

Searching this board can be a pain, but I will try. I am at work right now and I enjoy reading this forum when I get a chance. Thanks for your advice and comment.

Originally posted by sc4venger

Originally posted by JimOberg

How about, "Because it's DAYTIME." ??

Even if it's daytime, there should be a night time also? daytime when the sky is black should be quite like night time?

No. You're gazing into a glaring spotlight -- the Sun.

In the shadow of the LM, after a few minutes out of the sun's glare, astronauts often remarked that a few stars became visible. On one mission, they set up a UV telescope to photograph Earth, and the star background was visible on the film (it was the proper background -- no fakery). Inside the LM, astronauts used a roof-mounted sextant to take star sightings to determine the LM's exact inertial attitude -- the sighting tube, shaded against sunlight, let them see the guide stars they needed.

As of yet, astronauts have never been on the Moon at night. I look forward to their descriptions when they eventually are. But Surveyor moon robots in the 1960s did survive into night and took pictures that showed stars. And orbiting Apollo Command Modules frequently took night photos (while behind the Moon from the Sun), showing stars and the black lunar horizon.

It's all a matter of the 'dynamic range' of the optical system -- camera or eyeball or whatever -- that has to not be overloaded with full sunlight, but be sensitive enough for dim starlight.

reply to post by darkraver


Yeah we are. That effect is just greatly over estimated. If you go beyond athmosphere you see stars pretty much the same as within.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by sc4venger

Originally posted by JimOberg

How about, "Because it's DAYTIME." ??

Even if it's daytime, there should be a night time also? daytime when the sky is black should be quite like night time?

No. You're gazing into a glaring spotlight -- the Sun.

In the shadow of the LM, after a few minutes out of the sun's glare, astronauts often remarked that a few stars became visible. On one mission, they set up a UV telescope to photograph Earth, and the star background was visible on the film (it was the proper background -- no fakery). Inside the LM, astronauts used a roof-mounted sextant to take star sightings to determine the LM's exact inertial attitude -- the sighting tube, shaded against sunlight, let them see the guide stars they needed.

As of yet, astronauts have never been on the Moon at night. I look forward to their descriptions when they eventually are. But Surveyor moon robots in the 1960s did survive into night and took pictures that showed stars. And orbiting Apollo Command Modules frequently took night photos (while behind the Moon from the Sun), showing stars and the black lunar horizon.

It's all a matter of the 'dynamic range' of the optical system -- camera or eyeball or whatever -- that has to not be overloaded with full sunlight, but be sensitive enough for dim starlight.

Great information you put up here, you obviously knows lot more of this kind of stuff than me thanks!

On the so-discussed topic of the moon, it was my understanding that our atmosphere bouncing the light from the sun was the cause of there being no stars. If that's true then without an atmosphere stars would be visible anyway. So it comes down to if that theory went bogus when we got to space or if they're just lying to us.

I haven't been convinced either way when it comes to seeing stars in space, the only way to know for sure is to go up there and see it yourself.