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: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 


I don't know where to start with this one. The atmosphere does not magnify starlight. Turbulence in the atmosphere causes stars to twinkle. Although the Sun does have an extended glowing "halo" called the "corona," it is not generally visible due to the overwhelming glare of the Sun's visible disk, called the "photosphere." The corona is actually quite bright in its own right, and can be seen with the naked eye during a total solar eclipse. (This is why many ancient civilizations depicted the Sun as a winged disk.) The corona is readily visible in space if you cover up the photosphere; instruments on space based solar observatories do this. The large ring around the Sun you sometimes see in photographs taken in space is due the lens. You can sometimes see similar effects on photos taken on Earth, when a photographer is foolish enough to point their camera at the Sun.




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by artistpoet
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.


That's not true, quite the opposite is true.

The sun may be brighter on earth because it is being scattered by the atmosphere, putting us inside a greenhouse of light. Thin enough for the light to penetrate, thick enough to scatter it. If we could see stars better from inside our atmosphere why do we put telescopes in space?
edit on 10-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Yes you may be correct or not about camera effects - I am just going by film I have seen of Astronought who spoke of how colour/light looks different to what we assume.
Yes stars twinkle and are refracted by the Earths atmosphere also - that is why Hubble space telescope cuts out this distortion. Yet think about it - You are viewing a star the atmosphere of the Earth can heighten or lower it's visibility - Stars are not as easily seen in space this side of the Moon- Read the astronoughts transcripts - at times no stars were visible to them


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

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



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 



Stars are not as easily seen in space this side of the Moon- Read the astronoughts transcripts - at times no stars were visible to them


Stars are easily seen, provided that they eyes are sufficiently dark adapted. Since the Sun, Moon or Earth are generally in the astronauts field of vision, their eyes are usually not dark adapted enough to see stars. Note the spelling of the word: a-s-t-r-o-N-A-U-T. The word comes from the Greek, and means "star sailor."
edit on 10-2-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic

Originally posted by artistpoet
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.


That's not true, quite the opposite is true.

The sun may be brighter on earth because it is being scattered by the atmosphere, putting us inside a greenhouse of light. Thin enough for the light to penetrate, thick enough to scatter it. If we could see stars better from inside our atmosphere why do we put telescopes in space?
edit on 10-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)


Think about what you just said - "The sun may be brighter on earth because it is being scattered by the atmosphere" Stars are also Suns -The Sun is a star - So there light is also scattered by Earths atmosphere.
Hubble cuts out the refraction of our atmosphere and only gives such amazing shots of star galaxys etc because of the length of exposures it uses. Why would astronoughts lie about not being able to see stars? I watched all the Moon Landing as it was broadcast as I was a teen back then - And one thing that stayed in my mind was one of the astronoughts sayingthat they could not see any stars in fact very few were seen on their journey to the Moon



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 


You are talking about two different things, and they aren't related or causal. If the astronauts were on the other side of the moon from the sun, with no lights on in their spacecraft, they would see more stars in the sky than from earth.

This applies to your last post as well.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by artistpoet
 


The Hubble uses very long exposures because what it is imaging is very dim. Refraction might make things brighter, but it also distorts by the very definition of the word. We are not interested in photographing distortion.



Think about what you just said - "The sun may be brighter on earth because it is being scattered by the atmosphere" Stars are also Suns -The Sun is a star - So there light is also scattered by Earths atmosphere.
Hubble cuts out the refraction of our atmosphere and only gives such amazing shots of star galaxys etc because of the length of exposures it uses.


Think about what refraction limits earth based telescopes to. Its why it took the Hubble to image the Deep Field, it orbits the earth also so don't tell me earth based scopes can't image long exposures Hubble has to do the same thing. Image the area when it can, for however long as it takes. Earth based scopes can't because of the atmospheric distortion.
edit on 10-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by artistpoet
Why would astronoughts lie about not being able to see stars?


Refer to this post to understand the physics involved. It is physics and not biology, in fact, it is both physics and biology. It works the same to the animate and inanimate.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Try this, it won't really cost you any money (other than your electric bill), and you don't need any special equipment.

Go outside on a clear night, with the moon not over the horizon yet. Make sure you have all the outside house lights off. Make sure you are not near any street lamps (go behind your house if you need to). This is hard for those that live in cities. I live 14 miles from the small town near me, out in the country and have lots of nice dark nights to enjoy. Look up. Stars!

Now go back to your house and turn on all the outside lights you have. Better yet, move over to the nearest street light.

Look up again.....yes, you'll still see stars, but do you see as many as you did before, in the dark? No, you won't.

Better yet. Go inside your house, with the lights on, make sure all your outside lights are on. Kick back on the couch and look out the window. How many stars to do you see now? You'll be lucky if you see very many. You might see the planets as they are very bright, but most of the stars will not be there.

Grab your camera. Have someone stand in front of the window and take a picture. A normal picture so you can see that person and the inside of the house. Now look at that picture: how many stars do you see out the window?

Now, that's with it being night, with just light bulbs. Imagine instead you have the sun providing all the light.

This is simple science people. Your eyes can only take a long exposure of about 1/5 of a second, and no longer. You can set a camera to take a picture for a longer exposure. The longer it is exposed, the more saturated the film or CCD chip will become.

Yes, an astronaut can turn away from the sun and look up. But that does not keep the light from reflecting from the surface of the moon and striking their face plate.

Seriously. These discussions remind me of my kids when they were little. They didn't always believe what I said until I explained or showed it to them. The difference is: once they saw and understood, they learned from it and accepted it.

You all are suppose to be here to "Deny Ignorance" yet seem to embrace it quite a bit, even when it comes to simple science. I suspect it's mainly because they just like to play games, and watch people react for the "lulz"



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by r3axion

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.



Never think its obvious moon albedo 0.12 avg the earth 0.37 and venus 0.65 , so you are wrong on what you think is obvious.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by artistpoet
 


You are talking about two different things, and they aren't related or causal. If the astronauts were on the other side of the moon from the sun, with no lights on in their spacecraft, they would see more stars in the sky than from earth.

www.madsci.org...

Below is a portion of text taken from the above link

"So the answer to your question is that because of scattering and absorption of
light in the atmosphere no lensing effect is observed except for mirages."

I am trying to gain a better understanding so it seems you are correct about lensing so point taken.
I guess my confusion comes from stars not being as visible in space due to light polution if I can call it that - from the space ship itself and Moon Earth and Sun. So I guess I should correct myself and say - That stars are not as visible in space due to light pollution.


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



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Yes I read that post and it is true what you say about the pupils dilating and readjusting dependent on light
Cheers



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Yes I get the point you are making
My confusion arose because of what astronauts said.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
This subject has confused from childhood - when I first heard one of the astrnauts exclaim he could see no stars
- light pollution duh me. I would love to see what the view looked like in real life but would not want to be a astronaut - too risky.



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Why not listen to a man who has been there, done that?
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
This question may have been answered but if we cant see stars in space how have we discovered them with telescopes? Specifically telescopes in space? How so we see the sun from those telescopes when it is also a star? And if we cant see stars in space then I guess we cant see giant balls of gas either right ? To me that just makes no sense.
edit on 5-3-2012 by Edgar806 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Edgar806
 


Simple answer:

Of course you can see stars when you are in space.

The point here is that stars are extremely dim, in comparison to say....the Sun. It requires the Human eye to be dark-adapted, and any extraneous light "pollution" (as it's sometimes called) blocked for the best view.

Just as an example: Walk out of your home, from a brightly lit room, into the dark of night. Look up, and try to see the stars. (Helps if you live somewhere that has little light pollution from city sources, etc. The desert, the mountains and so forth).

Your eyes need to adapt, and this is a fairly slow process.

Conversely, we evolved to almost immediately adapt when bright light returns...our irises contract very quickly. But, back in darkness, they dilate very slowly.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   


Specifically telescopes in space? How so we see the sun from those telescopes when it is also a star?


There has never been a picture taken of our Sun using a regular camera, digital or film, and through a Solar filter. The images of the Sun are from instruments, not telescopes with normal optics. They can not take a photo of the Sun from orbit, or the ISS, or from past Shuttle missions, or the Moon, as they have never taken a solar filter with them, in over 40 years of manned space flight. The only Sun you will ever find is a distorted white blob, and it will be seen to be close to a crescent Earth, meaning we are seeing it through the Earths ionosphere.
And the company that now maintains and processes data from the instruments observing the Sun, is owned by the Vatican. Smell a rat yet?



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
it is very easy to take pics of the stars in space.
and with a normal camara.

so why dont the space men take the pics?
just point the camara out the back window!

yes it is that simple.
the Only light at the back of the shuttle or station.
will be stars.



posted on Mar, 6 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN



Specifically telescopes in space? How so we see the sun from those telescopes when it is also a star?


There has never been a picture taken of our Sun using a regular camera, digital or film, and through a Solar filter. The images of the Sun are from instruments, not telescopes with normal optics. They can not take a photo of the Sun from orbit, or the ISS, or from past Shuttle missions, or the Moon, as they have never taken a solar filter with them, in over 40 years of manned space flight. The only Sun you will ever find is a distorted white blob, and it will be seen to be close to a crescent Earth, meaning we are seeing it through the Earths ionosphere.
And the company that now maintains and processes data from the instruments observing the Sun, is owned by the Vatican. Smell a rat yet?


What in the BLAZES are you talking about?

Millions of people have taken pictures of the sun! Using solar filters, film cameras, digital cameras, and yes even telescopes.
Here is one I took of a partial solar eclipse in 1998, with a SLR film camera, connected to a 4.5 inch Newtonian reflector telescope, that had a solar filter on the end of the telescope:



That's the moon taking a bite out of the sun. If you look closely, you can even see some sun spots.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join