Originally posted by bokonon2010
Not black though... (black color for space is NASA trademark)

Funny, I though black was the trademark of Space.

Again, for those not well-acquainted with photography, you should know that the stars as observed from space aren't these big, glowing, glaring lanterns in the sky, as we perceive them on Earth, filtered and distorted by our atmosphere. From space, starlight is intense, but concentrated into very precise little points.

When astronauts (or optical satellites, for that matter) attempt photography in space, they have to account for 3 major considerations: 1) They need to capture very exacting detail about their subject matter, which is usually the Earth's surface; 2) They cannot take lengthy single-frame exposures because their space vehicle and the Earth are hauling ass in opposite directions from each other and would hopelessly blur the image; and 3) They have to use a very small aperture because of the intense sunlight.

So, most of the time, space photography is executed using fast shutter speeds with a very narrow aperture and a very fast film. As a result, the very tiny points of starlight simply ARE NOT CAPTURED — they're not bright enough to react the film at high speed with a closed aperture, right? You need a great big, brightly illuminated object, such as the Earth or Moon or a nearby planet, to deliver enough light to your film at high speed.

So, yeah, that's why you see so many photos of the Earth and Moon (and Mars, and Jupiter, and Saturn, and all their moons, et cetera) hanging on these uniformly black backgrounds.

In fact, to capture detailed optical images of the stars in space, you need a big rig like Hubble, which can hide from direct sunlight and target the blackness of space for these long-duration exposures. Using Hubble's unique capabilities, they can actually execute exposures lasting many hours, capturing these truly minute streams of photons that provide images from objects 13 billion light years away, objects that no unaided human eye could ever perceive.

So, yeah, if you want up-close images of Earth or Moon or planets with exacting detail, you have to forfeit a starry, starry background.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by bokonon2010
As Apollo astronots are assumed have travelled to the moon and back,
they might have better chances to encounter unexplained visual phenomena like UFO distingushed from natural celestial bodies, for example stars.

That's only if you assume that UFOs are denizens of space. In all the years of UFO observation, nobody has ever proven that UFOs are from space. For all we know, they could be just another Earthly phenomenon, the products of an intelligent civilization that coexists with us on this planet.

As such, there's no reason to think we'd encounter UFOs in space any more than we'd encounter another manned spacecraft up there.

Originally posted by bokonon2010
So the astronots:
1) were able to photograph stars in space or on the moon - YES/NO

ABLE to photograph the stars? Well, that would depend on their photographic equipment as well as on their skill with a camera. If the camera was designed or modified to take detailed shots of the surface features of the Earth or Moon ONLY, then NO, they wouldn't be able to take shots of the stars.

I mean, every time I saw the astronauts handling camera gear, they WERE NOT messing around with focus and aperture settings. Their gloved hands were no good for such "fine tuning"... They had one consistent gesture when handling the cameras — they'd snap a photo, then rock the thing forward to advance the film, the way scuba divers do. That's it.

Which tells me that the cameras the astronauts were using were designed or modified to be point-and-shoot. No focus, no aperture settings. A very small aperture, no doubt, to give them total depth of field.

Again, in order to take photos of the stars in space, you'd need fast film AND a time-lapse exposure, to allow the film to capture enough starlight, plus you'd probably want a wide-open aperture to permit more light to enter.

However, if you take a time-lapse photo with a wide-open aperture from the Moon's surface, you're going to be very disappointed with the results — because the moon reflects sunlight like a bitch, and your photo would probably be contaminated with light pollution.

This is one of the Moon-landing-hoax arguments, regarding photos on the Moon's surface. The truthers claim that, because there is so little atmosphere on the moon, there is no diffusion of sunlight, and all images should come out in stark contrast, all black & white with no grayscale, right?

If this was a valid argument, then you could, theoretically, take long-exposure starlight photos from the Moon's surface.

However, the Moon photos from the manned landings show that there is LOTS of ambient light on the Moon's surface — that there IS grayscale, there IS light all over the place, traveling in every direction. This is because the Moon's regolith (soil) is so highly damned reflective. It does illuminate things from underneath and on oblique angles.

So, there's really too much scattered light on the Moon's surface to take time-lapse photos that reveal stars.

Originally posted by bokonon2010
1a) if YES, where are photos of the stars?

See above.

Originally posted by bokonon2010
2) were able to see stars in space or on the moon without optical instruments - YES/NO

You may be surprised to know that the astronauts had a very difficult time seeing the stars when they were in the immediate vicinity of the Earth and Moon. Yes, they probably could see them pretty clearly in-transit, between the Earth and Moon, but they had no reason or mission objective to photograph the stars, as far as I know.

Besides, as I stated earlier, if their camera gear was specifically designed for shooting bright surface images, they couldn't have captured starlight if they wanted to.

Originally posted by bokonon2010
2a) if YES, where are reports of these star sightings?

Well, I know that astronauts have been asked about seeing stars while in space and on the moon. Our good friend Buzz Aldrin, who is rather talky, described his feeling of insignificance while standing on the Moon's surface and staring back at Earth... He said all he could see was the Lunar highlands, the Earth, and the Sun, all against a stark black backdrop. No mention of stars whatsoever.

That's probably because he was viewing the scene through his gold-shielded sun visor. Between the harsh sunlight from above and the scattered light on the Moon's surface, his own pupils were probably so constricted that he couldn't see the dim, dim starlight.

Anything else?

— Doc Velocity






[edit on 8/2/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!

Ancient Satellite orbiting the earth is it true or hoax ? i came across this article in my mail box so thought it would be very interesting to post here It is said that in 1957 black knight the blip discovered in 1960 a satellite detected shadowing the sputnik 1 craft It was in a polar orbit, something that neither the Americans or Soviets were capable of at the time. This object was dubbed “The Black Knight. It was several times larger and several times heavier than anything capable of being launched with 1960 rockets. It shouldn't have been there, but it was.

This paragraph makes no sense. Not only is there confusion over whether it was detected in 1957 or 1960, it also has this gem: "...a satellite detected shadowing the sputnik 1 craft It was in a polar orbit..."

Well, was it shadowing Sputnik 1 or was it in a polar orbit? You can't have it both ways. Interestingly, Sputnik 1 was shadowed in its orbit by a much larger object - The booster that launched it. People could see an orbiting object, but they didn't realize that the small, mirrored, beeping ball was just too small to see unless you were way out in the country on a very dark night (no pun intended) and knew exactly where to look. What people were actually seeing was the booster. The Soviets said nothing to correct the misperception - They were happy enough that people could see proof of their achievement.

Depending on the geometry, it was possible - and even likely - that the booster wound-up in front of Sputnik. If the satellite separated from the booster while it was pointing in the direction it was orbiting, then the extra nudge from the jettison would have kicked the ball into a slightly higher, longer-period orbit. The booster, in its lower, faster orbit would have slowly pulled ahead of the payload.

If someone was out away from the city lights, looking for Sputnik (the overflight times were published), they could have seen a bright star (the booster) moving across the sky, followed by a much dimmer object (Sputnik 1) trailing behind it. Since the papers only mentioned one object, not two, someone might have assumed that the bright one was the Soviet satellite, and the second, "shadowing" object was something else entirely.

This may be where the legend of the "Black Knight" satellite comes from.

Originally posted by spikedmilk
in regards to the picture and a description:

1991 VG isn't even in earth orbit, it's in a heliocentric orbit, let alone a polar one that also manages to shadow sputnik 1, so that doesn't fit the description of the "black knight" at all. It's an interesting object, but black knight it is not.

I, too. have heard about the ancient satellite which is in orbit around one of the poles. Evidently it was seen by some french astronomer, 6 times, around the time the Russian and American satellites were sent into orbit. I heard on Coast to Coast last night, that no one knows who launched the ancient satellite and that it is orbiting 22 miles above the earth, vs 2 miles. I believe the Atlanteans put this satellite into orbit and heard on c2c last night, that the earth is only 6 thousand years old, but looks like it is millions of years old. This archeologist has found remains of ancient bones, discovered walls that have hieroglyphics, which have drawings of ufos and aircraft on them, and the archeologist said that there were no real cave men, but that they wore clothing, just like we do. They were probably survivors of atlantis, and I think either the atlanteans or the survivors built the pyramids, because they were imbedded in the sand, except for the tips, when the Egyptians found them. This archeologist also said there are signs of an atomic blast, a thousand years ago, or so, because they have found green glass in the desert, which can only be cause by an atomic blast, which heats the sand to temperatures high enough, to produce glass out of sand. I think we are headed towards a nuclear war, unless things settle down in the world, and people start using common sense. Oh, I have also heard, that the governments are ignoring or hiding any discoveries depicting ancient human bones, or dwellings, because they want to push the evolution theory by Darwin, which was never tested. They are trying to use this as an excuse, for reducing the population. I think certain families have inbred to such an extent, that they are mentally ill and cant discern right from wrong ,or fact from fiction.

It would be amazing to access the Black Knight's computer banks!