posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 02:55 AM
reply to post by DJW001
Stars are "theoretically point sources of light, but they photograph as tiny but nevertheless measurable discs. Of course scientists measure star
dimensions in their pictures. Read about it pretty often.
This here is from NASA;
The most important part of the article;
So when we take seconds long exposure pictures of stars, which is what they would have done back in the 1960s, just like the NASA article says here,
the fixed star acquires fairly large dimensions.
The star of course is not a "disc" of light, nor is it in reality a "point" of light. But as you read here, stars "acquire comparatively large
dimensions" owing to the fact we cannot image them instantaneously.
Because their images are less spread out when photographed from space, they look smaller. Of course the angular measurements are tiny. You can look
them up for yourselves.
So one argument would be that in lunar orbit or from the lunar surface with a 1.6 inch aperture sextant, 40mm, you'd see 50,000 stars instead of of
the 6 thousand you'd see with the human eye. The stars would be more blue, "smaller" in the sense just mentioned, their aberration would shift them
by arcseconds from their earth POV positions. The planets would be smaller too. The planet's positions would reflect parallax, light to camera time
differences and small aberrational effect as well. So there would be 4, 5, 6, 10 times the stars given scope or camera aperature difference and the
stars would be moved and different sized and different colored. Since this might simply be an overwhelming task to hoax such a picture, one could
suggest this as an explanation for why the astronauts say they don't see very many stars so very well and they never try to take pics of them. Too
hard to hoax with all of this going on.
I think that is how a better argument for the star thing might go as I laid it out there. Better than saying they couldn't navigate given the
aberration problem. I already said that doesn't make sense and believe the poster is wrong on that altogether.
edit on 7-11-2012 by
touchdowntrojans because: left out some words