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.

 

No Stars seen from Space?

page: 10
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon
 

What makes you think the images were either scanned or "adjusted" by NASA?
Have you ever scanned slides? Have you ever improved the aesthetics of an image?



Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by zorgon
 


What do you get out of shoveling bullcrap? We can clearly visit the site ourselves and see your lies.




You guys are getting pathetic with your attempt. We have been over this image a bunch of times. NASA clearly overlaid a black and white image of the moon over the original and enhanced the Earth. Even ArMaP can vouch that this image came from NASA



But hey knock yourselves out
You guys obviously have nothing more important to do than go over the same old stuff over and over...

Maybe you think if you repeat it often enough, people will fall for it


Enjoy your bliss...




edit on 9-2-2012 by zorgon because: Moon Pixies are REAL





posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dayve
Until you go to space, you know nothing.... Everybody's just guessing


What he said



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
I was looking at the Binocular Photon Machine (BIPH), and the Yukon Ranger, which work at about 900nm, which is what a 37 degree warm body would radiate. The BIPH will let you video stars, from Earth, in real time. Try that with yer ordinary video cam!
Anyway, I thought ,gee, maybe these would be dandy for NASA, who seem to have trouble with imaging stars. So, I contacted both manufacturers, and NASA, asking if they would work in space. Not one reply. Anyone else want to have a go? I'm eager to know.
nightvisionastronomy.com...
www.nightvisionstore.com...
These are the devices that have been capturing odd moving lights in the night sky, and one BIPH owner thinks they may be banned, as for 2 hours after dark, and 2 hours before sunrise, he is detecting satellites not listed in any catalog, most likely military, and they don't like that.
edit on 9-2-2012 by GaryN because: sp



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0bserver1
reply to post by dayve
 


What better way is to ask an astronaut, and I just did, I asked Andre kuypers if you can see the stars at all times in space, via twitter I hope he replies....


That should settle the whole debate.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dayve

Originally posted by 0bserver1
reply to post by dayve
 


What better way is to ask an astronaut, and I just did, I asked Andre kuypers if you can see the stars at all times in space, via twitter I hope he replies....


That should settle the whole debate.


I'm not sure if it will. Many of us are talking about whether or not stars will show up in pictures.

For example, if I took a picture with a camera of a starry sky, and that camera's exposure time was set to photograph a bright Moon, I would NOT see any stars in the photo, even though I could see them with me naked eyes.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

What's pathetic is your insistence that there is something of significance there.

Here's another scan of the same image.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Here's another. Not so good.
images.jsc.nasa.gov...
And another
nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

So what?



edit on 2/9/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


The BIPH will let you video stars, from Earth, in real time. Try that with yer ordinary video cam!

Try it with your night vision when the Moon is in the frame.
www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I don't think that your reply addresses the more prominent arguments which are about NASA photos taken from the lunar surface where the cameras that the astronauts wear are set for the brightness of the lunar surface with the blinding sun. Using high shutter speeds and small f stops they are not set for time exposures which are needed to record dim lights.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Perhaps, there are in fact no stars beyond what are painted on the ceiling, and that is what NASA is trying to cover up.
After all, a very well know space cadet confirms this in his quote:
"Out here on the perimeter there are no stars. Out here we is st_n_d. Immaculate." - Jim Morrison

I however believe that there are stars in space, and the characteristics in these photographs are due to the sensor's/film's response to the difference in brightness/albedo of the objects in question, ie: the dynamic range. With the advent of HDR imaging, I am sure we will soon see far more spectacular space photos.
edit on 9-2-2012 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Wow that's just classic. I show proof of stars and all of a sudden "those aren't stars!!!"
The Earth IS more exposed where the stars are more apparent. Did you even look at the first NASA image where the Earth exposure was normal? Hard to see the stars....

It wouldn't be "over"exposed because in case you forgot, the Earth has an atmosphere which is able to absorb light. The moon does not, so it only reflects light.

give it a break. your stupid myth has been debunked.
edit on 2-9-12 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



Go and learn some physics the Earth reflects light as well!!!!!!!

Learn something here

en.wikipedia.org...

Its IMPOSSIBLE to have the stars exposed and the earth looking like that on one frame of film, photography has been my hobby for 30+ years (probably longer than you have been alive) I know the limitations started on manual SLR with manual exposure and focus so I do know what I am talking about.

Here is a link for exposure times for the Moon

home.hiwaay.net...

Some info on astrophotography

www.astronomyforbeginners.com...


From the link above


However as starlight is so faint, the film needs to be exposed to their light for quite a long time for them to show up


Link to a nice star pic



Exposure details for that picture 30 seconds on ISO 1600 @ f3.5 lets look at a typical moon shot

at 1600 iso 1/1000 th of a second at f16 down to 1/60th depending on phase of moon.

Now f16 lets in less light than f3.5 so a vast difference in brightness the same would happen taking a picture of earth from space.

If you are still at school ask a teacher and if you didn't listen in class get someone to kick your butt!!!

So if YOU dont really know about a subject dont think you can bluff your way on here!!!!!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by dayve
Until you go to space, you know nothing.... Everybody's just guessing


What he said



That would include PRC as well then



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008


Go and learn some physics the Earth reflects light as well!!!!!!!

Learn something here

en.wikipedia.org...


I was saying the Earth will not reflect as much light as the moon. That much is (should be, anyway) obvious.

I think I misunderstood your post, and thought you were taking the position of the people who claim that the moon landing was a hoax just because no stars are visible in pictures. (I'll never understand that logic)

But it has been sorted out that I chose a badly scanned set of images.

Regardless though, the point still stands that exposure settings are the reason that stars do not show up on NASA images, which is the point I was trying to make.
edit on 2-10-12 by r3axion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


What you are doing is finding the poorest quality reproductions (from who knows where), not providing the image source number, and pointing out compression issues. We can all go to the source with image numbers and see for ourselves. That's where your disinformation lives. And again, I have no idea why someone spends so much time scouring for poor quality, or low resolution scans to point out the flaws. It would be like taking a photography class and the instructor only points out all of the flaws in people's photography and development failures, pointless.

The image of the moon by the rings of Saturn is something like 800K, the stars that may have been imaged probably got filled in by the small file size. If that is the original image, another reason there is no stars could be that it may have been imaged from a million miles distant or more, and simply found a void between brighter stars. What people have to understand is when Hubble images nebulas and distant galaxies, exposure times can be hours because of how faint the source light is. So if this is an approach image from Cassini even at several seconds if it is distant enough thats still not long enough of an exposure to image distant star(fields). A closer nearby bright star could have been imaged but there must not have been one there bright enough to register on a pixel in an image size with a low pixel count.
edit on 10-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

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.



I disagree Jim. I don't care how bright the reflective surface of the Moon is - If I am facing away from the Sun and looking UP into the heavens, that reflective glare is not going to keep me from seeing the stars. The only way it would is if it completely blinded me. which is clearly not the case.

For this reason I'm in the "cant see stars" is a lie camp. Prove this to yourself. Ya know those huge spot lights car dealer ships shine into the sky? Stand on one and look up. Do you see stars? I'll bet even money that you do.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Simply turning away from the sun your pupils would still be dilated, and would remain dilated due to the bright lunar surface. You can test the fact out yourself. Leave a very bright sunny boardwalk on a beech, and walk into a very dim bar, and see how long it will take your eyes to adjust to see the hot babe in a dark corner.

Now once your eyes are adjusted to the dim light, walk back outside and see how fast you see the light. Now after your pupils re-dilate, from the boardwalk look back into that bar through the door and see if you can see that hot babe from outside.
edit on 10-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


ha daytime in space thats a good one
if that was the case then we would
never see any stars at all in space
soi what does thge hubble telescope
see, or do they wait for night time in space



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Simply turning away from the sun your pupils would still be dilated, and would remain dilated due to the bright lunar surface. You can test the fact out yourself. Leave a very bright sunny boardwalk on a beech, and walk into a very dim bar, and see how long it will take your eyes to adjust to see the hot babe in a dark corner.

Now once your eyes are adjusted to the dim light, walk back outside and see how fast you see the light. Now after your pupils re-dilate, from the boardwalk look back into that bar through the door and see if you can see that hot babe from outside.
edit on 10-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)


Cameras don't have pupils. That girl in the corner is not a brightly lit star. You are assuming that the guys on the Moon neber took the time to let their eyes adjust. That's just silly. If you were on the Moon and you wanted to see what was in the sky, you'd sit there long as you needed to if your pupils needed to adjust.Also, I don't care how dilated my eyes are, that would not stop me from seeing a bright star in the darkness of space.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Give it up, this is what one would expect conversation would be like with a first grader. Have you ever heard of ambient light, diffused light? If the camera has a long enough exposure time it will image stars. Do you realize some of the Hubble images of nebulas have hour long exposure times? I believe some exposure times are measured in days and weeks. Because the distant light is dim, not necessarily small, and often both.

You are mixing being on the moon with being in space, this is the same goal post moving that Zargon uses in his fun with idiots playtime. You are not making very much logical sense. A camera shutter and our pupils work exactly the same. If you can't understand examples, at least stick to one single premise. Those are two different settings, with two different results.

Being on the moon is like looking into a dark bar from outside.
Being in space is like looking in the dark bar from inside the dark bar.
Analogy; a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification!
edit on 10-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
Stars from Earth are and would be are more visible on a clear unpolluted night than say from a space craft.
The atmosphere of the Earth acts like a lens and so heightens the light of distant stars
From space stars are not as visible by a long chalk.
This is an optical illusion - as stated Hubble is able to view as it does because of long exposures
The Sun is also seen to rise and set so at times the bleaching effect ot the Sun is not as strong.
The astornoughts of Apollo saw very few stars this side of the Moon as they recall in their transcripts
The Sun looks markedly different in Space - Quite spectacular - see astronoughts photos and film of this - The Sun in Space has a large halo and a full specrum of colour

edit on 10-2-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2012 by artistpoet because: typos



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix


You are assuming that the guys on the Moon neber took the time to let their eyes adjust.


Yes I am, they went a quarter of a million miles with a full scientific workload to study the moon, not look at stars.

[quote/That's just silly.[/quote]

Yes, it would be silly to stare at the sky after all of the trouble they went through to study the moon.


If you were on the Moon and you wanted to see what was in the sky, you'd sit there long as you needed to if your pupils needed to adjust.


If you wanted to, nobody has denied that.


Also, I don't care how dilated my eyes are, that would not stop me from seeing a bright star in the darkness of space.


You have to put that into context, or at least degrees of light. If you are in a spacecraft and glance outside you wont see anything. You are simply wrong that if your eyes dilated you can see dim light, you can't.




top topics



 
30
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join