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: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

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


Well wait until you see the answer they give for why the stars are visible in this one.

It gets the skeptics all excited:






Are you really thick or do you just like people to think you are little clue regarding this pic which you have shown before STAR TRAILS equals LOOOOOOONNNGGGG EXPOSURE even you should get that now! well maybe


Here is a link to Star Trail photography its an IDIOTS guide
so its right up your street!

www.danheller.com...

Look at first 2 pics on the site one at 25 secs and one at 15mins.

[edit on 1-6-2009 by wmd_2008]




posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Your commentary on the exposure time is noted.

However, the OP did not request images with a specific exposure time.






posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Why would you not be able to see light from stars because there is a light source in another direction, in space?

If the background of the star is black then you should either be able to see the star, or it would have zero chance of being visible from the Earth.

The Earth's atmosphere blocks about 99 percent of the light!

So stars should be 100 times brighter in space, not dimmer. There is nothing to defreact or scatter the light in space.

The duration of an exposure is realtive to the aperature size. What matters is how much light has reached the film or sensor.
If there is overwhelming foreground light, aperature or duration will not change the relative proportion.

If it were truly a matter of length of exposure because there was too much light backscattering off the shuttle in the picture; then a long exposure would burn out all the detail of the shuttle, which is clearly not the case.

I might buy some of the back scatter argument for a lunar picture where dust can be suspended in the low gravity. But not for a shuttle in space.

Provide an example where the camera is panned from showing the brightness of the shuttle and no stars, to an angle without the shuttle with stars. It should be an easy position to prove!

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Cyberbian]



posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
Why would you not be able to see light from stars because there is a light source in another direction, in space?

If the background of the star is black then you should either be able to see the star, or it would have zero chance of being visible from the Earth.

The Earth's atmosphere blocks about 99 percent of the light!

So stars should be 100 times brighter in space, not dimmer. There is nothing to defreact or scatter the light in space.

The duration of an exposure is realtive to the aperature size. What matters is how much light has reached the film or sensor.
If there is overwhelming foreground light, aperature or duration will not change the relative proportion.

If it were truly a matter of length of exposure because there was too much light backscattering off the shuttle in the picture; then a long exposure would burn out all the detail of the shuttle, which is clearly not the case.

I might buy some of the back scatter argument for a lunar picture where dust can be suspended in the low gravity. But not for a shuttle in space.

Provide an example where the camera is panned from showing the brightness of the shuttle and no stars, to an angle without the shuttle with stars. It should be an easy position to prove!

[edit on 1-6-2009 by Cyberbian]


So the earth's atmosphere blocks 99% of light DOES IT link to proof please.
It's not about what your eyes see its about exposure and what cameras see read some of the previous posts.
Has it occured to you that the shuttle was not in direct sunlight thats why it wasn't overeposed in the picture!

PS Dont just make up figures like 99% just for the sake of it!!



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I have wondered about this Star issue since the Mercury space program. I have studied hundreds of ISS NA1SS International space station pictures. This make,s common sense to me. You can air brush any photo you want and put starts in there. However with ISS orbits and shuttle orbits, you need direct sunlight for solar panel electrical production. Now when we went to the Moon in 1969, some of you older mates will remember that one of the Apollo astronauts pointed a Vitmar video television black and white camera by mistake right at the sun. It burned the Vitmar tube right up in 1 second. Well we lost all of the video and NASA raised a lot of concern over this issue.
The star issue is this. I am on the space shuttle with my back to the sun. How much Lumens or candle power is there? You electrical engineers know what I am talking about. The direct sunlight would kill all of the stars. We have 83 miles of viable atmosphere and at 2:00 AM a huge earth behind us at night time. What a great back drop to see stars! I know nothing of the camera equipment on the Hubble space telescope. But this sun factor is worked into this some how.
Now my former friend who you all know also promotes the story called. We did not go to the moon. I watched this movie looking for stars. One of the Lunar walkers who,s name I can not remember said and I quote: I do not think I remember seeing any stars:, Unquote. Well, indeed once again what stars would you see? When Apollo 11 was on the dark side of the moon, I wondered. Why would astronauts not mention Stars.
So my friends, it is a catch 22 issue with me


SamDanner



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
If you look at "old school" long exposure photos of stars (as in, those taken with 35mm film or medium format film) you will notice very long star trails. However if you take a "snapshot" of say a 5 sec shutter speed with a very large aperture you should get a photo of stars in stasis. Basically it comes down to basic knowledge of how a camera uses light to capture an image.

Basically, the darker it is, the longer the exposure time needs to be and the larger the aperture needs to be in order to capture a very small light source (relative to the surroundings). As we only see stars as "specks" with the naked eye, unless your camera is hooked up to a telescope or has a very large telescopic lens you are pretty much going to get a photo of nothing, atleast nothing that looks much different than a black tablecloth with some coarse salt spilled on it. Same thing in space. That doesn't mean that stars can't be seen from earth by humans.

Also, I think the notion of "daytime" on the moon would have to be different to that of earth too, taking in the effect of the atmosphere and the fact that our sky is only blue because of the light scattering. In all photos I've seen on the moon the "land" has been "lit" while the "sky" is black. Even in broad "daylight".

Which as Cyberian said


Originally posted by Cyberbian "Why would you not be able to see light from stars because there is a light source in another direction, in space?

If the background of the star is black then you should either be able to see the star, or it would have zero chance of being visible from the Earth."


[edit on 1-6-2009 by Cyberbian]


So because of the black backdrop you are bound to see stars, unless there's a black hole or something between you and the stars you're going to see them because there's no atmosphere for the light scatter and block out that black backdrop

What I am trying to say is that because the figures in the photographs are clear, that's because they're large objects right in front of the camera and well, everything is white and highly reflective: small aperture / fast shutter speed. That is not going to be good enough to capture tiny pictures of stars etc in the background. Same as if you take a happy snap at nighttime of people in the backyard. You see the people, maybe some streetlights, but no stars.


Hope that makes some sort of sense.

Edited for further clarification.
[edit on 5-6-2009 by Vilyariel]

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Vilyariel]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vilyariel
If you look at "old school" long exposure photos of stars (as in, those taken with 35mm film or medium format film) you will notice very long star trails. However if you take a "snapshot" of say a 5 sec shutter speed with a very large aperture you should get a photo of stars in stasis. Basically it comes down to basic knowledge of how a camera uses light to capture an image.

Basically, the darker it is, the longer the exposure time needs to be and the larger the aperture needs to be in order to capture a very small light source (relative to the surroundings). As we only see stars as "specks" with the naked eye, unless your camera is hooked up to a telescope or has a very large telescopic lens you are pretty much going to get a photo of nothing, atleast nothing that looks much different than a black tablecloth with some coarse salt spilled on it. Same thing in space. That doesn't mean that stars can't be seen from earth by humans.

Also, I think the notion of "daytime" on the moon would have to be different to that of earth too, taking in the effect of the atmosphere and the fact that our sky is only blue because of the light scattering. In all photos I've seen on the moon the "land" has been "lit" while the "sky" is black. Even in broad "daylight".

Which as Cyberian said


Originally posted by Cyberbian "Why would you not be able to see light from stars because there is a light source in another direction, in space?

If the background of the star is black then you should either be able to see the star, or it would have zero chance of being visible from the Earth."


[edit on 1-6-2009 by Cyberbian]


So because of the black backdrop you are bound to see stars, unless there's a black hole or something between you and the stars you're going to see them because there's no atmosphere for the light scatter and block out that black backdrop

What I am trying to say is that because the figures in the photographs are clear, that's because they're large objects right in front of the camera and well, everything is white and highly reflective: small aperture / fast shutter speed. That is not going to be good enough to capture tiny pictures of stars etc in the background. Same as if you take a happy snap at nighttime of people in the backyard. You see the people, maybe some streetlights, but no stars.


Hope that makes some sort of sense.

Edited for further clarification.
[edit on 5-6-2009 by Vilyariel]




[edit on 5-6-2009 by Vilyariel]


Wrong I will say this again YOUR eyes or the camera expsoure is set up to see /photograph the ASTRONAUTS on a bright sunlit surface the very fact there is NO ATMOSPHERE on the Moon to reduce the light from the Sun means the surface is really bright.
The fact that the Astronauts eyes have closed down (ie pupils) to adjust for the brighht surface light means the stars would not be seen by them. Unless they look up at a dark area of sky for a good few seconds to let there eyes adapt.
Same for camera exposure I posted a link to a picture of the moon the settings on the camera
200asa FILM SPEED f9 (very small aperture) shutter 1/320th of a second Moon was correctly exposed NO STARS in pic.
If you keep the same 200ASA and open up to a wider aperture if the lens allows say f4 then the shutter speed would change to
about 1/750th of a second do you think a star would show up?
Suggest you brush up a bit more on photography.
Even a wide angle lens on a 35mm camera digital or film WILL SHOW STARS if the exposure time is correct .



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Just checking out the site for NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance mission, where they have a photo of a apollo 11 astronault and there are clearly stars in the back ground.




lro.gsfc.nasa.gov...

It kind of fliped me out since I thought everyone agreed that there where no stars in the apollo images, I thought people just had a different opinion on why there where no stars!

But then I went to another NASA gallery of apollo 11 images there was exactly the same image without stars, WTF!!!!!!




history.nasa.gov...

I think they just make it up as they go along!!!



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:36 PM
link   
OK, I did not read all the post in this thread but I just noticed something about this topic. I have heard that the sun washed out the stars and that is why you do not have stars in the moon photos and most other photos from space. If you go the SOHO web site you can get photos of the sun and even in them you can still stars in the background. If the sun does not wash out the back ground stars and you pointing the camera streight at it then why is there no photos with stars in them from the moon and orbit?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 

Do you see stars in this image?


But you do see stars in this one, right?


What's the difference between the two images?
(Hint...in one you can see the Sun, in the other you cannot)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I still do not buy the 'wash out theory'. If there is a real reason that is not it.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
are you telling me that when the astronauts went around the dark side of the moon. they did not look at the very bright stars! the moon would have stop’t all light from the sun and the earth. it would have been absolutely amazing. even on the moon in day light. you would see the brightest of the stars. but NASA has taken all the stars out. so you can not get the position of the space ship from the stars. and look haw fast the space shuttle goes around the earth! the stars would be moving very fast. take that into account when you look at photos that are supposed to be of stars in space. they are hiding things from us!
when I look at the full moon with my telescope I can see the stars behind it? and this is with an atmosphere. I have seen many photos from earth of space with the moon in it. and guess what? my god its full of stars!
that photo of the full monn is very dim! so you can not see the stars. cheat...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
What's the difference between the two images?
(Hint...in one you can see the Sun, in the other you cannot)


PFFTTT This old thing again?


Explain to me why NASA says....


If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Of course, today is the Solstice. Traveling along the ecliptic plane, the Sun is at its northernmost position in planet Earth's sky, marking the astronomical beginning of summer in the north. Accurate for the exact time of today's Solstice, this composite image also shows the Sun at the proper scale (about the angular size of the Full Moon). Open star cluster M35 is to the Sun's left, and the other two bright stars in view are Mu and Eta Geminorum. Digitally superimposed on a nighttime image of the stars, the Sun itself is a composite of a picture taken through a solar filter and a series of images of the solar corona recorded during the solar eclipse of February 26, 1998 by Andreas Gada.




NASA APOD 2007 June 21
apod.nasa.gov...

So if NASA says on the one hand "No stars on the Moon..." then on the other hand says "You can see all the stars if the atmosphere on Earth was "turned off"... Is it any wonder we say Never a Straight Answer?

Heck even the NAVY Clementine pictures of the moon show stars and Venus




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
As of yet, astronauts have never been on the Moon at night.


So then...as almost forgotten Mike Collins orbited the moon he never was in the dark? never looked out the window and said "Wow.... PRETTY"






posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

The statement on APOD (a PR site) is not exactly correct, though it does say "something like". If you go to the source of the image it says this:

A total solar eclipse is the only time you could glimpse other stars in the sky with the Sun.
www.astropix.com...
That is true. But have you ever seen Venus in daylight? I have.

The image from clementine does not have sunlight in it.

In this picture the Moon is seen illuminated solely by light reflected from the Earth--Earthshine! The bright glow on the lunar horizon is caused by light from the solar corona; the sun is just behind the lunar limb. Caught in this image is the planet Venus at the top of the frame.

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

The astronauts did see stars while in orbit on the nightside of the moon, out of the glare of sunlight. Collins:

To add to the dramatic effect, we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the Moon now, and the elusive stars have reappeared.

www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov...

Of course, it should also be noted that the Apollo astronauts did use stars for celestial navigation, but only those that were not lost in the glare of the Sun.



edit on 9/11/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:48 AM
link   

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



Orion and other constellations clearly visible from space.
Credit: NASA - STS-35.


In late 1990, Columbia carried an array of astronomical telescopes to explore the Universe at ultraviolet and x-ray wavelengths. The telescopes, known by the acronyms UIT, HUT, WUPPE, and BBXRT, are seen here in Columbia’s payload bay against a fantastic view of the constellation Orion.

So it's all about exposure settings in the visible spectrum that allow one to see the stars. However, the settings are different whilst imaging in the UV and X-ray wavelengths. You would see a star spangled sky if the Shuttle had taken photographs with an image intensifier camera.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


Theres more to it than that. Ok you have the atmospheric disturbances and so on getting in the way, but also you have the fact that the eye will not allow itself to be burned out. This means that when you have a bright light source , with smaller or weaker or more distant light in the background, the bright light source nearest you , makes your eyes sheild themselves from damage , which has the side effect of filtering out the rest of the light sources.
Imagine for instance , the classic interogation scene in a spy movie, man in a chair with a bright light in his face. When the interogator asks him "do you mind if I smoke" and then goes a. and does anyway, he lights his cigarette but because of the sheer wattage of the bulb facing the spy, Mr Spy cant make out where the interogator is , even when the mans lighting a cigarette.
Another interesting indication of the many " settings " the human eye has , is to experiment with your night sight. Mine takes thirty seconds to come back after a full glare light source, but some people take an hour or so to warm up !



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Stars are much much brighter out in space,

here's a daytime, Sun blaring , image taken from the X15 and clearly shows stars




Colorado River Valley, from X-15 at 210,000 feet

www.sierrafoot.org...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


I don't see the sun blaring?

Also, it seems this photo was taken by a camera designed to photograph stars, according to NASA anyway.


By 1963, the design objectives of the X-15 had been met, and for the last six years of its life it served mainly as a testbed for other experiments. These experiments were mostly space-related and varied from a pod that was carried on one wingtip with which it was attempted to capture a micrometeorite to a top-looking camera for photographing stars. The next slide Slide 21is a photograph of the Colorado River Valley taken by a down-looking camera on an X-15 at 220,000 feet.


www.nasa.gov...

EDIT: Just noticed the image was taken with a down looking camera...






edit on 11/9/10 by Chadwickus because: Reason classified



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 




I don't see the sun blaring?

Also, it seems this photo was taken by a camera designed to photograph stars, according to NASA anyway.

By 1963, the design objectives of the X-15 had been met, and for the last six years of its life it served mainly as a testbed for other experiments. These experiments were mostly space-related and varied from a pod that was carried on one wingtip with which it was attempted to capture a micrometeorite to a top-looking camera for photographing stars. The next slide Slide 21is a photograph of the Colorado River Valley taken by a down-looking camera on an X-15 at 220,000 feet.


www.nasa.gov...

EDIT: Just noticed the image was taken with a down looking camera...



it's a daytime shot and the obviously brighter section in the upper right of the image is why i said blaring

i don't see anything in that quote that indicates it was some special kind of camera , i could be wrong but when they are saying "top" and "down camera" it could just mean the position of a camera on the X15 ?

either way it's a daytime shot that shows Stars



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join