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.