The Sky Was Black On The Moon?, page 22


Pages: <<  19    20    21    22    23    24    25  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 28 times


reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 07:51 AM by ATLien
reply to post by PsykoOps



my brother woke me up because he said the sun looked purple and had a silver ring spinning around it


reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 11:04 AM by Saint Exupery
Originally posted by bokonon2010
Originally posted by Saint Exupery
For those of you who think that stars should easily be seen from the lunar surface in daylight, I have a simple, straight-forward question:

How much brighter would stars be on the lunar surface than on the Earth's surface?

I don't need an exact number; a ballpark guess will do.

Twice as bright?
Ten times as bright?
Fifty times?
A hundred times?

Give me a rough number, please.


How old are you?

If the answer
www.youtube.com... from the astronot-actor Armstrong did not satisfy you,
maybe you can ask your school teacher?

Let us know the results so we can compare them with NASA educational outreach programs.


I am 46. I have performed simple experiments and gotten my own results.

I want an answer from you, bokonon2010 - and those who feel the same way you do:

Do you think the stars on the Moon would be twice as bright?
Ten times as bright?
Fifty times?
A hundred times?

Go ahead, take a guess.


reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 11:59 AM by bokonon2010
reply to post by Saint Exupery


According to NASA, your questions are at the Grades 5-8:
www.nasa.gov...
lunarscience.nasa.gov...

Can you see more stars from the Moon?

On the Moon, there is no atmosphere and no clouds to blur or block our view of the stars. The sky on the Moon is always black, even during the daytime. From the Moon, you would be able to see many more stars than you could see from Earth. You would also see the Earth in the sky, and it would appear much larger and brighter than the Moon appears to us. Earth would also go through phases, like we see the Moon do from Earth. Many astonomers think that the Moon would be a great place to have an observatory.

Compare these NASA answers for kids with the answers of Mr. Armstrong for journalists:



What answers do you like more? Tell us.

[edit on 17.8.2010 by bokonon2010]


reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 02:39 PM by PsykoOps
reply to post by bokonon2010



Omg... are you serious? Of course moon would be an ideal place for an observartory. During night. Apollo was there during daytime. I'm reluctant to believe that you don't understand what that means. If that is really the case then please spend some time outdoors or something.

reply to post by Saint Exupery



Considering that there is no light pollution, no athmosphere to scatter starligth etc. I think you would see more stars on the sky. However since there is no athmosphere they wouldn't appear as big as they do on earth.


reply posted on 17-8-2010 @ 09:10 PM by Saint Exupery
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to
post by bokonon2010



Omg... are you serious? Of course moon would be an ideal place for an observartory. During night. Apollo was there during daytime. I'm reluctant to believe that you don't understand what that means. If that is really the case then please spend some time outdoors or something.


Actually, the moon would be fine for an observatory during the day as long as glare from the sun and sunlit objects doesn't impinge on the optics. This is how the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrometer referenced on page 21 of this thread worked. They kept it in the shadow of the LM to keep it out of the sun, and had it pointing up to keep objects in the landscape out of view. This way they were able to take exposures 10 minutes log or more (which is pretty standard for astrophotography).

What bokonon2010 stubbornly refuses to acknowledge is that there is a fundamental difference in shielded optics taking long exposures while looking upwards, and cameras & human eyes looking at a sunlit landscape. The irises on the latter are simply stopped-down to far to see stars. That's all.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Saint Exupery



Considering that there is no light pollution, no athmosphere to scatter starligth etc. I think you would see more stars on the sky. However since there is no athmosphere they wouldn't appear as big as they do on earth.


Thank you for this response. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase "wouldn't appear as big," since even from the Earth the stars are point-sources. Do you mean not as bright? I've read some people on this board speculate that the atmosphere can "spread-out" the starlight to make it seem brighter. This isn't really true, since the amount of starlight (if we ignore apsorption & scattering) doesn't change. Spreading it out would only reduce the peak brightness of the point source. At any rate, the spreading really doesn't do much. You can see it with 100X optics, but with your eyes it's just a twinkle.


reply posted on 19-8-2010 @ 03:39 AM by CHRLZ
nerbot, as has been stated at some length in this thread...

1. In sunlight/daylight, your eye closes down. It takes a minute or so for it to open up and adjust to darkness sufficiently to see stars, and THAT WILL ONLY HAPPEN IF IT IS PROTECTED FROM LIGHT. Have you never been to a theatre in daylight? Have you never tried to see stars while you are inside a brightly lit room? (And a brightly lit room is NOTHING like a sun-illuminated landscape.)

2. Your eye, even when you squint, is taking in light from an arc of about 180 degrees. That's because it is spherical, with a lens at the front, and light receptive sensors over a large area. ..and..

3. They were wearing helmets. They were wearing a suit that did not easily allow them to twist their heads upwards, and the risk of falling was substantially increased by such antics. But, in light of that - *do* explain how they would shield their eyes effectively. Try it with a motorcycle helmet, but imagine you are wearing an awkward suit, large white gloves and had a much larger visor area. Even the smallest light spill would spoil any attempt to open the pupils up enough.

4. The astronauts had a job to do. Every minute was costing a fortune. And they knew, unlike the armchair experts and dreamers here, that even if they did manage to shield their eyes, they would NOT (unless they could wait approximately 20 minutes with their eyes fully shielded) see the stars any brighter than they could on earth.

In other words, the astronauts are/were not stupid. Nor are/were they lying.

Indeed, nerbot, I CHALLENGE you.

QUOTE THE LIES and then explain your justification for making that claim - ADDRESSING THE POINTS ABOVE.

While you are at it, explain why you posted while blithely ignoring all of this stuff, which was covered comprehensively earlier in the thread.


reply posted on 19-8-2010 @ 04:57 AM by bokonon2010
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to
post by bokonon2010


Omg... are you serious? Of course moon would be an ideal place for an observartory. During night. Apollo was there during daytime. I'm reluctant to believe that you don't understand what that means. If that is really the case then please spend some time outdoors or something.

Where are the words "during night" or "during daytime" in the NASA answer for the Grades 5-8? If you have a difficulty of understanding what is written there or believe that the NASA is not correct, please write to NASA and let us know the results. However, it maybe more useful to you to start with the Grades K-4 :www.nasa.gov...


reply posted on 19-8-2010 @ 05:15 AM by Kandinsky
reply to post by nerbot



Stars would have been an undeniable evidence for everyone to know that the missions that landed men on the moon were genuine. Photo and movie records would have been measurable for distances and magnitude.


Jeez, Nerbot. They probably thought that the video footage of actually being on the Moon was 'undeniable evidence.'

Little did they ever imagine...


reply posted on 19-8-2010 @ 05:53 AM by bokonon2010
www.abovetopsecret.com...

en.metapedia.org...

Visibility of stars from the Lunar Module

103:12:44 [Neil] Armstrong (Apollo 11): "I'd say the colour of the local surface is very comparable to that we observed from orbit at this Sun angle—about 10° Sun angle, or that nature."

103:22:30 Armstrong: "From the surface, we could not see any stars out the window; but out my overhead hatch (means the overhead rendezvous window), I'm looking at the Earth. It's big and bright and beautiful."[1]

vs

[Alan] Bean, from the [Apollo 12] 1969 Technical Debrief—"Star (and) Earth visibility was interesting. We could always see stars at the upper rendezvous window."[1] The Sun is currently 5.5° above the eastern horizon.[1] With the Sun 10° above the horizon, stars should have been visible out the Apollo 11 overhead window too.[1]

Visibility of stars from the lunar surface

[Neil] Armstrong (Apollo 11): "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics."

[Michael] Collins (Command Module pilot): "I don't remember seeing any."[1](1:06:00–1:06:19) (Collins' remark is misattributed to [Edwin] Aldrin in the transcript.[1] In his book "Liftoff", Collins writes "My God, the stars are everywhere, even below me. They are somewhat brighter than on Earth")[1](p. 33)[1]

Alan Bean (Apollo 12): "Oh so carefully, I removed my silver pin, took one last look at it, and gave it my strongest underarm toss out towards Surveyor. I can still remember how it flashed in the bright sunlight then disappeared in the distance. It was the only star I ever saw up in the black sky, the sunlight was just too bright on the Moon's surface to see any of the others."[1]

Stars are not readily seen in the daylight lunar sky by either the human eye or a camera because of the brightness of the sunlight surface.[1]

vs

103:22:54 Duke: "...Gene Cernan says that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 [Lunar Module] (LM), he could see some stars while he was outside."[1] (Correction on the star visibility issue from the Moon is introduced later.) Astronauts' reminiscences contradict the descriptions of the star sky observed by Soviet cosmonauts (Leonov, Lebedev, Savinykh) on the dayside of the orbit; light from the Earth (Earth albedo 0.367, Moon albedo 0.12) did not hamper them see the stars.[1] For example, Leonov says that "the brightest of the stars can be recognised when they are farther than 30° away from the daylight luminary [the Sun]".[1]

On the Moon, the sky is black—even during the day—and the stars are always visible.[1]

In fact, the Moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system... The Moon reflects only 7% of the sunlight that falls upon it.[1]


[1] Alexander Popov "A man on the Moon? What evidence?"
www.manonmoon.ru...


[edit on 19.8.2010 by bokonon2010]


reply posted on 19-8-2010 @ 06:04 AM by Maslo
reply to post by bokonon2010





[Michael] Collins (Command Module pilot): "I don't remember seeing any."[1](1:06:00–1:06:19) (Collins' remark is misattributed to [Edwin] Aldrin in the transcript.[1] In his book "Liftoff", Collins writes "My God, the stars are everywhere, even below me. They are somewhat brighter than on Earth")[1](p. 33)[1]


Except this paragraph, I do not see any contradictions or inconsistencies.
Pages: <<  19    20    21    22    23    24    25  >>    ^^TOP^^



Hubble\'s Hidden Treasures - Incredible views of the Universe
  Posted 17 days ago with 40 member flags
Mars curiosity Sol2 Anomalies
  Posted 11 days ago with 22 member flags
Curiosity Just Went Through Mud?
  Posted 0 days ago with 22 member flags
Mars: Fears Curiosity Will Contaminate Planet
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags
Milky Way in detail.
  Posted 14 days ago with 13 member flags
Went to the moon, we never went, was scared off, still going!?
  Posted 15 days ago with 11 member flags